1 Divine attributes: The divine attributes are the
perfections which are predicated of the Divine Being in the Scripture, or are
visibly exercised by God in his works of creation, providence, and redemption.
2 Principles of
classification of divine attributes: The
question of the classification of the divine attributes has engaged the
attention of theologians for a long time. Several principles upon which the
classification of the divine attributes have been attempted or suggested, most
of which distinguish two general classes.
These classes are designated by different names and represent different
points of view, but are substantially the same in the various
classifications. The most important
classifications rest upon the following principles:
(a) Natural and moral attributes: The former, such as self-existence,
simplicity, infinity etc belong to the constitutional nature of God, as
distinguished from his will. The latter,
such as truth, goodness, mercy, justice, holiness etc qualify God as a moral
being.
(b) Absolute and relative attributes: An absolute attribute is a property
of the divine essence considered in itself: e.g., self-existence, immensity,
eternity, intelligence. A relative
attribute is a property of the divine essence considered in relation to the
creation: e.g., omnipotence, omniscience etc.
(c) Affirmative and negative attributes: An affirmative attribute is one which
expresses some positive perfection of the divine essence: e.g., omnipresence,
omnipotence etc. A negative attribute is
one which denies all defect or limitation of any kind to God: e.g.,
immutability, infinitude, incomprehensibility etc.
(d) Incommunicable and communicable
attributes: The most
common distinction is that between incommunicable and communicable attributes. The former are those to which there is
nothing analogous in the creature, as aseity, simplicity, immensity etc; the
latter those to which the properties of human spirit bear some analogy, as
power, goodness, mercy, righteousness etc.
However, the distinction must not be pressed too far. God is infinite in his relation to space and
time; we are finite in our relation to both.
But he is no less infinite as to his knowledge, will, goodness and
righteousness in all their modes, and we are finite in all these respects. This distinction between incommunicable and
communicable attributes has been popular in Reformed circles.
On the basis of the most common principle of
classification of divine attributes we will consider the distinction between
Incommunicable and Communicable attributes of God below:
3 Incommunicable
attributes of God: The
incommunicable attributes emphasize the absolute Being of God. In the present section the following
perfections of God come into consideration:
A. Self-existence of God: God is self-existent, that is, he has the
ground of his existence in himself. The
idea of God’s self-existence was generally expressed by the term aseitas,
meaning self-originated, but Reformed theologians quite generally substituted
for it the word independentia (independence), as expressing, not merely that
God is independent in his being, but also that he is independent in everything:
in his virtues, decrees, works, and so on.
As the self-existent God, he is not only independent in himself, but
also causes everything to depend on him.
This self-existence of God finds expression in the name of Jehovah. It is only as the self-existent and
independent One that God can give the assurance that he will remain eternally
the same in relation to his people.
Additional indications of it are found in the assertion in Jn.5:26; in
the declaration that he is independent of all things and that all things exist
only through him (Ps.94:8ff; Isa.40:18ff; Acts 7:25); andin statements implying
that he is independent in his thought (Rom.11:33-34); and in his will
(Dan.4:35; Rom.9:19; Eph.1:5; Rev.4:11); in his power (Ps.115:3), and in his
counsel (Ps.33:11).
B. The immutability of God: The immutability of God is a
necessary concomitant of his aseity. It
is that perfection of God by which he is devoid of all change, not only in his
being, but also in his perfections, and in his purposes and promises. In virtue of this attribute he is exalted
above all becoming, and is free from all accession and from all growth or decay
in his being or perfections. His
knowledge and plans, his moral principles and volitions remain forever the
same. Even reason teaches us that no
change is possible in God, since a change is either for better or for
worse. But in God, as the absolute
Perfection, improvement and deterioration are both equally impossible. This immutability of God is clearly taught in
the following passages of Scripture: (Ex.3:14; Ps.102:26-28; Isa.41:4; 48:12;
Mal.3:6; Rom.1:23; Heb.1:11-12; Jas.1:17).
At the same time there are many passages of Scripture which seem to
ascribe change to God. Did not he who
dwells in eternity pass on to the creation of the world, become incarnate in
Christ, and in the Holy Spirit take up his abode in the Church? Is he not represented as revealing and hiding
himself, as coming and going, as repenting and changing his intention, and
dealing differently with man before and after conversion? (Cf. Ex.32:10-14; Jonah 3:10; Prov.11:20; 12:22;
Ps.18:26-27). The objection here implied
is based, to some extent, on misunderstanding.
The divine immutability should not be understood as
implying immobility, as if there were no movement in God. It is even customary in theology to speak of
God as a God who is always in action.
The Bible teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man
and lives their life with them. There is
change round about him, change in the relations of men to him, but there is no
change in his being, his attributes, his purpose, his motives of action, or his
promises. The purpose to create was
eternal with him, and there was no change in him when this purpose was realized
by a single eternal act of his will, The
incarnation brought no change in the Being or perfections of God, nor in his
purpose, for it was his eternal good pleasure to send the Son of his love into
the world. And if Scripture speaks of
his repenting, changing his intention, and altering his relation to sinners
when they repent, we should remember that this is only an anthropopathy way of
speaking. In reality the change is not
in God, but in man and in man’s relations to God.
It is important to maintain the immutability of God over
against the Pelagian and Armenian doctrine that God is subject to change, not
indeed in his Being, but in his knowledge and will, so that his decisions are
to a great extent dependent on the actions of man; over against pantheistic
notion that God is an eternal; becoming rather than an absolute being, and that
the unconscious Absolute is gradually developing into conscious personality in
man; and over against the present tendency of some to speak of a finite,
struggling, and gradually growing God.
C. The infinity of God: The
infinity of God is that perfection of God
by which he is free from all limitations. In ascribing infinity to God
we deny that there are or can be any limitations to the divine Being or
attributes. It implies that he is in no
way limited by the universe, by this time-space world, or confined to the
universe. It does not involve his identity
with the sum-total of existing things, nor does it exclude the co-existence of
derived and finite things, to which he bears relation. The infinity of God must be conceived as
intensive rather than extensive, and should not be confused with boundless
extension, as if God were spread out through the entire universe, one part
being here and another there, for God has no body and therefore no
extension. Various aspects of God’s
infinity are distinguished as seen below:
(a) His absolute perfection: This is the infinity of the divine
Being considered in itself. It should
not be understood in a quantitative, but in a qualitative sense; it qualifies
the communicable attributes of God.
Infinite power is not an absolute quantum, but
an exhaustless potency of
power; and infinite holiness is not a boundless quantum of holiness, but a
holiness which is qualitatively free from all limitation or defect. The same may be said of infinite knowledge
and wisdom, and of infinite love and righteousness. Dr. Orr says, “Perhaps we can say the
infinity in God is ultimately: (1) internally and qualitatively, absence of all
limitation and defect; (2) boundless potentiality.” In this sense of the word the infinity of God
is simply identified with the perfection of his divine being. Scripture proof
for it is found in Job 11:7-10; Ps.145:3; Mt.5:48.
(b) His eternity: The infinity of God in relation time is
called his eternity. The form in which
the Bible represents God’s eternity is simply that duration through endless
ages (Ps.90:2; 102:12; Eph.3:21).
However, we should remember that in speaking as it does the Bible uses
popular language and not the language of philosophy. We generally think of God’s eternity in the
same way, namely, as duration infinitely prolonged both backwards and
forwards. But this is only a popular and
symbolical way of representing that which in reality transcends time and
differs from it essentially. Eternity in
the sense of the word is ascribed to that which transcends all temporal limitations. That it applies to God in that sense is at
least intimated in 2 Pet.3:8.
Dr. Orr says, “Time, strictly has relation to the world
of objects existing in succession. God
fills time; is in every part of it; but his eternity still is not really this
being in time. It is rather that to
which time forms a contrast.” Our
existence is marked off by days and weeks and months and years; not so the
existence of God. Our life is divided
into a past, present and future, but there is no such division in the life of
God. He is the eternal “I am.” His eternity may be defined as that
perfection of God whereby he is elevated above all temporal limits and all
succession of moments, and possesses the whole of his existence in one
indivisible present. The relation
of eternity to time constitutes one of the most difficult problems in
philosophy and theology, perhaps incapable of solution in our present
condition.
(c) His immensity: The infinity of God may also be viewed with reference to space,
and is then called his immensity. It may
be defined as that perfection of the divine being by which he transcends all
spatial limitations, and yet is present in every point of space with his whole
being. It has a negative and positive
side, denying all limitations of space to the divine being, and asserting that
God is above space and fills part of it with his whole being.
In a certain sense the terms ‘immensity’ and
‘omnipresence,’ as applied to God, denote the same thing, and can therefore be
regarded as synonymous. Yet there is a
point of difference that should be carefully noted. ‘Immensity’ points to the fact that God
transcends all space and is not subject to its limitations, while ‘omnipresence’
denotes that he nevertheless fills every part of space with his entire
being. The former emphasizes the
transcendence, and the latter, the immanence of God. God is immanent in all his creatures, in his
entire creation, but is in no way bounded by it.
In connection with God’s relation to the
world we must avoid, on the one hand, the error of Pantheism with its denial of
the transcendence of God and its assumption that the Being of God is really the
substance of all things; and, on the other hand, the Deistic conception that
God is indeed present in creation with his power, but not with his very being
and nature, and acts upon the world from a distance. Though God is distinct from the world and may
not be identified with it, he is yet present in every part of his creation. The nature of his indwelling is in harmony with
that of his creatures. He does not dwell
on earth as he does in heaven, in animals as he does in man, in the inorganic
as he does in the organic creation, in the wicked as he does in the pious, nor
in the church as he does in Christ. The
omnipresence of God is clearly revealed in Scripture. Heaven and earth cannot contain him (1 Kings
8:27; Isa.66:1; Acts 7:48-49), and at the same time he fills both and is a God
at hand (Ps.139:7-10; Jer.23:23-24; Acts 17:27-28).
D. The unity of God: A distinction is made between
the unitas singularitatis and the unitas simplicitatis as follws:
(a) The unitas singularitatis: This attribute stresses both
the oneness and the unicity of God, the fact that he is numerically one and
that as such he is unique. It implies
that there is but one Divine Being, that from the nature of the case there can
be but one, and that all other beings exist of and through and unto him. The Bible teaches us in several passages that
there is but one true God. Solomon
pleaded with God to maintain the cause of his people, “shall all the peoples of
the earth may know that Jehovah, he is God; there is none else,” (1 Kings
8:60). And Paul writes to the
Corinthians, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and
we in him,” (1 Cor.8:6). Similarly he
writes to Timothy, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man,
the man Christ Jesus,” (1 Tim.2:5).
These passages stress the numerical unity of God as much as they do his
uniqueness. Deut. 6:4, “Hear, O Israel;
Jehovah our God is one Jehovah,” is the well known words. Keil stresses that fact that this passage
does not teach the numerical unity of God, but rather that Jehovah is the only
God that is entitled to the name Jehovah.
This is also the meaning of the term in Zech.15:11. The same idea is beautifully expressed in the
rhetorical question of Ex.15:11, “Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the
gods? Who is like thee, glorious in
holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?”
This excludes all polytheistic conceptions of God. The unity being discussed in this section
sets God apart from other beings.
(b) The unitas simplicitatis: The perfection of God we are to
consider in this section is expressive of the inner and qualitative unity of
the Divine Being. When we speak of the
simplicity of God, we use the term to describe the state or quality of being
simple, the condition of being free from division into parts, and therefore
from compositeness. It means that God is
not composite and is not susceptible of division in any sense of the word. This implies among other things that the three Persons in the
Godhead are not so many parts of which the Divine essence is composed, that
God’s essence and perfections are not distinct, and that the attributes are not
superadded to his essence. Since the two
are one, the Bible can speak of God as light and life, righteousness and love,
thus identifying him with his perfections.
The simplicity of God follows from some of his other perfections; from
his self-existence, which excludes the idea that some thing preceded him, as in
the case of compounds; and from his immutability, which could not be predicated
of his nature, if it were made up of parts.
4 The communicable
attributes: The incommunicable
attributes discussed in the previous section stressed the absolute Being of God. Now
in this section we will consider the communicable attributes of God a; these
attributes emphasize God’s personal nature.
As noted earlier the communicable attributes of God are those to which
the attributes of the human spirit bear the nearest analogy: e.g., his power,
knowledge, will, goodness, and righteousness.
We will consider the communicable attributes of God in brief:
A. The Spirituality of God: The Bible does not give us a
definition of God. The nearest approach
to anything like it is found in the word of Christ to the Samaritan woman, “God
is Spirit,” (Jn.4:24). This is at least
a statement purporting to tell us in a single word what God is. The Lord does not merely say that God is a
spirit, but that He is Spirit. Because
of this clear statement it is but fitting that we should discuss first of all
the spirituality of God. By teaching the
spirituality of God theology stresses the fact that God has a substantial being
all his own and distinct from the world, and that this substantial being is
immaterial, invisible, and without composition or extension. It includes the thought that all the
essential qualities which belong to the perfect idea of Spirit re found in him:
that he is a self-conscious and self-determining being. Since he is Spirit in the most absolute, and
in the purest sense of the word, there is in him no composition of parts.
The idea of spirituality of necessity excludes the
ascription of anything like corporeity to God, and thus condemns the fancies of
some of the early Gnostics and medieval Mystics, and of all those sectarians of
our own day who ascribe a body to God.
It is true that the Bible speaks of the hands and feet, the eyes and the
ears, the mouth and the nose of God, but in doing this it is speaking
anthropomorphically or figuratively of him who far transcends our human
knowledge, and of whom we can only speak in a stammering fashion after the
manner of men. By ascribing spirituality
to God we also affirm that he has none of the properties belonging to matter,
and that he cannot be discerned by the bodily senses. Paul speaks of him as “the King eternal,
immortal, invisible,” (1 Tim.1:17), and again as “the King of kings, and Lord
of lords, who only has immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no
man has seen, nor can see: to whom he honor and power eternal,” (2
Tim.6:15-16).
B. Intellectual Attributes: God is represented in Scripture as Light,
and therefore as perfect in his intellectual life. This category comprises two of the divine
perfections, namely, the knowledge and the wisdom of God:
(a) The knowledge of God: The knowledge of God may be
defined as that perfection of God whereby he, in an entirely unique manner, knows
himself and all things possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act. The Bible testifies to the knowledge
of God abundantly, as for instance, in 1 Sam.2:3; Job 12:13; Ps.94:9; 147:4;
Isa.29:15; 40:27-28. In connection with
the knowledge of God several points call for consideration:
(i) Its nature: The knowledge of God differs in
some important points from that of men.
It is archetypal, which means that he knows the universe as it exists in
his own eternal idea previous to its existence as a finite reality in time and
space: and that his knowledge is not, like ours, obtained from without. It is a knowledge that is characterized by
absolute perfection. As such, it is
intuitive rather than demonstrative. It
is innate and immediate, and does not result from observation or from a process
of reasoning. Being perfect, it is also
simultaneous and not successive, so that he sees things at once in their
totality, and not piecemeal one after another.
Furthermore, it is complete and fully conscious, while man’s knowledge
is always partial, frequently indistinct, and often fails to rise into the
clear light of consciousness. A
distinction is made between the necessary and free knowledge of
God. The former is the knowledge of God
which God has of himself and of all things possible, a knowledge resting on the
consciousness of his omnipotence. It is
called necessary knowledge, because
it is not determined by an action of the divine will. The free knowledge of God is the
knowledge which he has of all things actual, that is, of things that existed in
the past, that exist in the present, or that will exist in the future. It is founded on God’s infinite knowledge of
his own all-comprehensive and unchangeable eternal purpose, and is called free
knowledge, because it is determined by a concurrent act of the will.
(ii) Its extent: The knowledge of God is not only
perfect in kind, but also in its inclusiveness.
It is called omniscience, because it is all-comprehensive. In order to promote a proper estimate of it,
we may particularize as follows: God knows himself and in himself all things
that come from him (internal knowledge).
He knows all things as they actually come to pass, past, present, and
future, and knows them in their real relations.
He knows the hidden essence of things, to which the knowledge of man
cannot penetrate. He sees not as man
sees, who observes only the outward manifestations of life, but penetrates to
the depths of the human heart. He knows
what is possible as well as what is actual.
The omniscience of God is clearly taught in several passages of
Scripture. He is perfect in knowledge
(Job 37:16); looks not on outward appearance but on the heart (1 Sam.16:7; 1 Chro.28:9,
17; Ps.139:1-4; Jer.17:10); observes the ways of men (Deut.2:7; Job 23:10;
24:23: 31:4; Ps.1:6; 119:168); knows he place of their habitation (Ps.33:13),
and the days of their life (Ps.33:18).
This doctrine of the knowledge of God must be maintained overagainst all pantheistic tendencies to represent God
as the unconscious ground of the phenomenal world and those who, like Marcion, Socinus and all
who believe in a finite God, ascribe to him only a limited knowledge.
However,
there is one question that calls for special discussion. It concerns God’s foreknowledge of the free
actions of men, and therefore of conditional events. We can understand how God can foreknow where
necessity rules, but find it difficult to conceive of a previous knowledge of
actions which man freely originates. The difficulty of this problem led some to
deny the foreknowledge of free actions, and others to deny human freedom. It is evident that Scripture teaches the
divine foreknowledge of contingent events (1 Sam.23:10-13; 2 Kings 13:19;
Ps.81:14-15; Isa.42:18; Jer.2:2-3; 38:17-20; Eze.3:6; Mt.11:21). Moreover, it does not leave us in doubt as to
the freedom of man. We are up against a
problem here, which we cannot fully solve, though it is possible to make an approach
to a solution. God has decreed all
things, and has decreed them with their causes and conditions in the exact
order in which they come to pass; and his foreknowledge of future things and
also of contingent events rests on his decree.
This solves the problem as far as the foreknowledge of God is concerned.
But now the question arises: is the predetermination of things
consistent with the free will of man? The answer is that it certainly is not, if
the freedom of the will be regarded as arbitrariness, but this is an
unwarranted conception of the freedom of man.
The will of man is not something altogether indeterminate, something
hanging in the air that can be swung arbitrarily in either direction. It is rather something rooted in our very
nature, connected with our deepest instincts and emotions, and determined by
our intellectual considerations and by our very character. And if we conceive of human freedom as
reasonable self-determination, then we have no sufficient warrant for saying
that it is inconsistent with divine foreknowledge.
Jesuit, Lutheran and Arminian
theologians suggested the so called scientia media as a solution of the
problem. The name is indicative of the
fact that it occupies a middle ground between the necessary and the free
knowledge of God It differs from the
former in that its object is not all possible things but a special class of things
actually future; and from the latter in that its ground is not the eternal
purpose of God, but the free action of the creature as simply foreseen. It is called mediate, says Dabney, “because
they suppose God arrives at it, not directly by knowing his own purpose to
effect it, but indirectly by his infinite insight into the manner in which the
contingent second cause will act, under given outward circumstances, foreseen
or produced by God.” But this is no
solution of the problem at all. It is an
attempt to reconcile two things which logically exclude each other, namely,
freedom of action in the Pelagian sense and a certain foreknowledge of that
action. Actions that are in no way
determined by God, directly or indirectly, but are wholly dependent on the
arbitrary will of man, can hardly be the object of divine foreknowledge. Moreover, it is objectionable, because it
makes the divine foreknowledge dependent on the choice of man, virtually annuls
the certainty of the knowledge of future events, and thus implicitly denies the
omniscience of God. It is also contrary
to such passages of Scripture as Acts 2:23; Rom.9:16; Eph.1:11; Phil.2:13.
(b) The Wisdom of God: The wisdom of God may
be regarded as a particular aspect of his knowledge. It is quite evident that knowledge and wisdom
are not the same, though they are closely related. They do not always accompany each other. An uneducated man may be superior to a
scholar in wisdom. Knowledge is acquired
by study, but wisdom results from an intuitive insight into things. The former is theoretical, while the latter
is practical, making knowledge subservient to some specific purpose. Both are imperfect in man, but in God they
are characterized by absolute perfection.
God’s wisdom is his intelligence as manifested in the adaptation of
means to ends. It points to the fact
that healways strives for the
best possible ends, and chooses the best means for the realization of his
purposes. H. B. Smith defines the divine wisdom as
“that attribute of God whereby he produces the best possible results with the
best possible means.” We may be a little
more specific and call it “that perfection of God whereby he applies his
knowledge to the attainment of his ends in a way which glorifies him
most.” It implies a final end to which
all secondary ends are subordinate; and according to the Scripture this final
end is the glory of God (Rom.11:33; 14:7-8; Eph.1:11-12; Col.1:16). Scripture refers to the wisdom of God in
many passages, and even represents it as personified (Prov.8). This wisdom of God is seen particularly in
creation (Ps.19:1-7; 104:1-34); in providence (Ps.33:10-11; Rom.8:28) and in
redemption (Rom.11:33; 1 Cor.2:7; Eph.3:10).
C. Moral Attributes: The moral attributes of God are
generally regarded as the most glorious of the divine perfections. They
are generally discussed under three heads: (a) the goodness of God; (b) the
holiness of God; and (c) the righteousness of God.
(a) The goodness of God: This is generally treated as a generic
conception, including several varieties, which are distinguished according to
their objects. The goodness of God
should not be confused with his kindness, which is a more restricted
concept. God is good in the metaphysical
sense of the word, absolute perfection and perfect bliss in himself. It is in this sense that Jesus said to the
young ruler: “None is good save one, even God,” (Mk.10:18). But since God is good in himself, he is also
good for his creatures. He is the
fountain of all good, and is so represented in a variety of ways throughout the
Bible ( e.g., Ps.36:9). All the good
things which the creatures enjoy in the present and expect in the future flow
to them out of this inexhaustible fountain.
And not only that, but God is also the summum bonum, the highest good, for all his creatures. In the present connection we may stress the
ethical goodness of God and the different aspects of it, as these are
determined by the nature of its object:
(i) The goodness of God
towards his creatures in general:
This may be defined as that perfection of God which prompts him to deal
bountifully and kindly with all his creatures.
It is the affection which the Creator feels towards his sentient
creatures as such. Jehovah is good to
all; and his tender mercies are over all his works (Ps.145:9, 15-16).
(ii) The love of God: The love of God may be defined
as that perfection of God by which he is eternally moved to
self-communicatin. Since God is
absolutely good in himself, his love cannot find complete satisfaction in any
object that falls short of absolute perfection.. He loves his rational creatures for his own
sake, or to express it otherwise, he loves in them himself, his virtues, his
works, and his gifts. He does not even
withdraw his love completely from the sinner in his present sinful state,
though the latter’s sin is an abomination to Him, since he recognizes even in
the sinner his image-bearer (Jn.3:16:; Mt.5:44-45). At the same time he loves believers with a
special love, since he contemplates them as his spiritual children in
Christ. It is to them that he communicates
himself in the fullest and richest sense, with all the fullness of his grace
and mercy (Jn.16:27; Rom.5:8; 1 Jn.3:1).
(iii) The grace of God:
The significant word ‘grace’ is a translation
of the Hebrew ‘chanan’ and of the
Greek ‘charis’. In general it can be said that grace is the free bestowal of
kindness on one who has no claim to it.
This is particularly the case where the grace referred to is the grace
of God. His love to man is always
unmerited, and when shown to sinners, is even forfeited.. The Bible generally uses the word to denote
the unmerited goodness or love of God to those who have forfeited it, and are
by nature under a sentence of condemnation.
The grace of God is the source of all spiritual blessings that are
bestowed upon sinners (Eph.1:6-7; 2:7-9; Tit.2:11; 3:4-7). While the Bible often speaks of the grace of
God as saving grace, it also makes mention of it in a broader sense (Isa.26:10;
Jer.16:13). The grace of God is of the
greatest practical significance for sinful men
It was by grace that the way of
redemption was opened for them (Rom.3:24; 2 Cor.8:9); and that the message of
redemption went out into the world (Acts 14:3).
By grace sinners received the gift of God in Jesus Christ (Acts 18:27;
Eph.2:8). By grace they are justified
(Rom.3:24; 4:16; Tit.3:7), they are enriched with spiritual blessings (Jn.1:16;
2 Cor.8:9 2 Thess.2:160, and they finally inherit salvation (Eph.2:8;
Tit.2:11).
(iv) The mercy of God: Another important aspect of the
goodness and love of God is his mercy or tender compassion. The Hebrew word most generally used for this
is chesed. However, there is another word, racham, which is rendered by ‘tender
mercy’ in the English Bible. The
Septuagint and the NT employ the Greek word ‘eleos’
to designate the mercy of God. If the
grace of God contemplates man as guilty before God, and therefore in need of
forgiveness, the mercy of God contemplates him as one who is bearing the
consequences of sin, who is in a pitiable condition, and who therefore needs
divine help. The grace of God may be
defined as the goodness or love of God shown to those who are in misery or
distress, irrespective of their deserts.
In his mercy God reveals himself as a compassionate God, who
pities those who are in misery and is ever ready to relieve their distress This mercy is bountiful (Deut.5:10; Ps.57:10;
86:5). In the NT it is often mentioned
alongside of the grace of God, especially in salutations (1 Tim.1:2;
Tit.1:4). We are told repeatedly that it
is shown to them that fear God (Ex.20:2; Deut.7:9; Ps.86:5; Lk.1:50). This does not mean, however, that it is
limited to them, though they enjoy it in a special measure. God’s mercies are over all his works
(Ps.145:90, and even those who do not fear him share in them (Eze.18:23, 32;
33:11; Lk.6:35-36). The mercy of God may
not be represented as opposed to his justice.
It is exercised in harmony with the stricest justice of God, in view of
the merits of Jesus Christ. Other terms
used for it in the Bible are ‘pity,’ ‘compassion,’ and ‘loving-kindness.’
(v) Longsuffering of God: The longsuffering of God is still another
aspect of his great goodness or love.
The Hebrew uses the expression ‘erek’aph,
which means literally ‘long of face,’ and then also ‘slow to anger,’ while the
Greek expresses the same idea by the word makrothumia. It is that aspect of the goodness or love of
God in virtue of which he bears with the forward and evil in spite of their
long continued disobedience. In the
exercise of this attribute the sinner is contemplated as continuing in sin,
notwithstanding the admonitions and warnings that came to him. It reveals itself in the postponement of the
merited judgment (Ex.34:6; Ps.86:15; Rom.2:4; 9:22; 1 Pet.3:15). A synonymous term is the word ‘forbearance.’
(b) The holiness of God: The
Hebrew word for ‘to be holy,’ quadash,
is derived from the root qad, which
means to cut or to separate. It is one
of the most prominent religious words of the OT, and is applied primarily to
God. The same idea is conveyed by the NT
words hagiazio and hagios.
From this it appears that it is not
correct to think of holiness primarily as a moral quality. But its fundamental idea is that of a
position or relationship existing between God and some person or thing.
(i) Its nature: The scriptural idea of the holiness
of God is twofold. In its original sense
it denotes that God is absolutely distinct from all his ceatures, and is
exalted above them in infinite majesty.
But the holiness of God also has a specifically ethical aspect in
Scripture, and it is with this aspect of it that we are more directly concerned
in this connection. The fundamental idea
of the ethical holiness of God is also that of separation, but in this case it
is a separation from moral evil or sin.
In virtue of his holiness God can have no communion with sin (Job 34:10;
Hab.1:13). But the idea of ethical
holiness is not merely negative (separation from sin); it also has a positive
content, viz., that of moral excellence.
This ethical holiness may be defined as that perfection of God, in virtue of which he eternally wills and
maintains his own moral excellence, abhors sin, and demands purity in his moral
creatures.
(ii) Its manifestation: The holiness of God is revealed in the moral law, implanted in
man’s heart, and speaking through the conscience, and more particularly in
God’s special revelation. That law in
all its aspects was calculated to impress upon Israel the idea of the holiness
of God, and to urge upon the people the necessity of leading a holy life. This was the purpose served by such symbols and
types as the holy nation, the holy land, the holy city, the holy place, and the
holy priesthood. Moreover, it was
revealed in the manner in which God rewarded the keeping of the law, and
visited transgressors with dire punishment.
The highest revelation of the holiness of God was given in Jesus Christ,
who is called ‘the Holy and Righteous One,” (Acts 3:14). He reflected in his life the perfect holiness
of God. Finally, the holiness of God is
also revealed in the Church as the body of Christ.
(c) The righteousness of God: This attribute is closely related
to the holiness of God. Shedd speaks of
the justice of God as ‘a mode of his holiness,’ and Strong calls it simply
‘transitive holiness.’ However, these
terms apply only to what is generally called the relative, in distinction from
the absolute, justice of God.
(i) Fundamental idea of
righteousness: The fundamental
idea of righteousness is that of strict adherence to the law. Among men it presupposes that there is a law
to which they must conform. It is
sometimes said that we cannot speak of righteousness in God, because there is
no law to which He is subject. But
though there is no law above God, there is certainly a law in the very nature
of God, and this is the highest possible standard, by which all other laws are
judged. A distinction is generally made
between the absolute and the relative justice of God. The former is that rectitude of the divine
nature, in virtue of which God is infinitely righteous in himself, while the
latter is that perfection of God by which he maintains himself over against
every violation of his holiness, and shows in every respect that he is the Holy
One. It is to the righteousness that the
term ‘justice’ more particularly applies.
Justice manifests itself especially in giving every man his due, in
treating him according to his deserts.
It is the justice of God that calls for special consideration here.The
Hebrew terms for ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness’ are ‘tsaddik,’ ‘tsedhek,’ and
‘tsedhakah,’ and the corresponding Greek terms, ‘dikaios’ and ‘dikaiosune,’ all
of which contain the idea of conformity to a standard. This perfection is ascribed to God in
Scripture (Ezra 9:15; Neh.9:8; Ps.119:137; 145:17; Jer.12:1; Jn.17:25; 2
Tim.4:8; rev.16:5).
(ii) Distinctions applied
to the justice of God: There
is a rectoral justice of God. This justice is the rectitude which God manifests
as the Ruler of both the good and the evil.
In virtue of it God has instituted a moral government in the world, and
imposed a just law upon man, with promises of reward for the obedient, and
threats of punishment for the transgressor.
God stands out in the OT as the Lawgiver of Israel (Isa.33:22 and his
laws are righteous (Deut.4:8).
Closely connected with the rectoral is
the distributive justice of God This
term serves to designate God’s rectitude in the execution of the law, and
relates to the distribution of rewards and punishments (Isa.3:10-11; Rom.2:6; 1
Pet.1:17). It is of two kinds: (1) Remunerative
justice, which manifests itself in the distribution of rewards to the
angels and men (Deut.7:9, 12-13; Ps.58:11; Mt.25:21, 34; Rom.2:7;
Heb.11:26). It is really an expression
of divine love, dealing out of its bounties, not on the basis of merit, but according to promise and agreement
(Lk.17:10; 1 Cor.4:7). God’s rewards are
gracious and spring from a covenant relation which he has established. (2) Retributive
justice, which relates to the infliction of penalties. It is an expression of the divine wrath On the whole the Bible stresses the reward of
the righteous more than the punishment of the wicked; but even the latter is
sufficiently prominent (Rom.1:32; 2:9; 12:19; 2 Thess.1:8).
(a) The sovereign will of God: The Bible employs several words to
denote the will of God, namely, the Hebrew words chaphets, tsebhu, ratson, and the Greek words boule, thelema. The importance of the
divine will appears in many ways in Scripture.
It is represented as the final cause of all things. Everything is derived from it; creation and
preservation (Ps.135:6; Jer.18:6; Rev.4:11); government (Prov.21:1; Dan.4:35),
election and reprobation (Rom.9:15-16; Eph.1:11), the sufferings of Christ
(Lk.22:42; Acts 2:23), regeneration (Jas.1:18), sanctification (Phil.2:13), the
sufferings of believers (1 Pet.3:17), man’s life and destiny (Acts 18:21;
Rom.15:32; Jas.4:15), and even the smallest things of life (Mt.10:29). Hence the Christian theology has always
recognized the will of God as the ultimate cause of all things. However, the attempt to ground everything in
the very Being of God generally results in Pantheism.
(b) The sovereign power of God: The sovereignty of God finds expression, not
only in the divine will, but also in the omnipotence of God or the power to
execute his will. Power in God may be
called the effective energy of his nature, or that perfection of his being by
which he is the absolute and highest causality.
The Bible teaches us that on the one hand that the power of God extends
beyond that which is actually realized (Gen.18:14; Jer.32:27; Zech.8:6; Mt.3:9;
26:53). We cannot say, therefore, that
what God does not bring to realization, is not possible for him. But on the other hand it also indicates that
there are many things which God cannot do. He can neither lie, sin, change, nor
deny himself (Num.23:19; 1 Sam.15:29; 2 Tim.2:13; Heb.6:18; Jas.1:13, 17). There is no absolute power in him that is
divorced from his perfections, and in virtue of which he can do all kinds of things which are inherently
contradictory. The idea of God’s
omnipotence is expressed in the name ‘El-Shaddai; and the Bible speaks of it in
no uncertain terms (Job 9:12; Ps.115:3; Jer.32:17; Mt.19:26; Lk.1:37; Rom.1:20;
Eph.1:19). God manifests his power in
creation (Rom.4:17; Isa.44:24); in the works of providence (Heb.1:3); and in
the redemption of sinners (1 Cor.1:24; Rom.1:16).
No comments:
Post a Comment