|
|
 Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997.
|
|
Click here and add this page to your favorites!
|
|
Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997.
|
|
Click here and add this page to your favorites!
General Information
In Western culture, which for the last 2,000 years has been dominated by the Judeo Christian tradition, the word God generally refers to one supreme holy being, the divine unity of ultimate reality and of ultimate goodness. God, so conceived, is believed to have created the entire universe, to rule over it, and to bring it to its fulfillment.
In the Old Testament, God was called YHWH, pronounced Yahweh by most scholars; the exact pronunciation of the name was lost because it was rarely enunciated. In its place was read Adonai ("Lord"). The written combination of the tetragrammaton YHWH with the vowels of Adonai was traditionally rendered as Jehovah in English Bibles. Although the meaning of YHWH is disputed, it is frequently translated as "He who is" and probably designates YHWH as creator. In Islam, Allah stands for a similar notion.
Thus, as a functioning word, God in the first instance refers to the central and sole object of religious commitment - and so to the center of Worship, Prayer, and religious Meditation. Secondarily, God has been the object of religious and philosophical reflection, the supreme object of Theology and of most forms of speculative metaphysics.
God is a puzzling and elusive notion, by no means easy to define. As the supreme being, the creator and ruler of all, God transcends all creaturely limits, distinctions, and characteristics. If something is definable only by its distinctions from other things, its limits, and its special characteristics, how is it possible to define the source of all things, which is not limited, distinguished, or peculiar? God is in neither time nor space; he / she / it transcends all substances and causes; is neither dependent on nor an effect of other things. Thus, he cannot be spoken of simply as a being among other beings lest he be conceived as a mere creature and thus not God. For these reasons, the concept of God inevitably tends toward that of the transcendent absolute of much speculative philosophy: impersonal, unrelated, independent, change - less, eternal. In some theologies, the concept moves into even more distant realms of abstraction. God can only be described negatively, as the negation of all that is experienced here and now, for example, as nontemporal, nonphysical, and unchanging.
In Jewish and Christian belief, however, God is also in some way personal, righteous, or moral, concerned with people and their lives and therefore closely related to and active within the world and the course of history. The reflective problems in this concept of God, the subject of debates throughout Western history, therefore, have a dual source: God, whatever he may be, is unlike ordinary things that can be described, and the notion of God includes certain dialectical tensions or paradoxes (absolute - relative, impersonal - personal, eternal - temporal, changeless - changing) that defy ordinary powers of speech and of definition. In approaching the divine, religiously or philosophically, one first of all encounters mystery and, with that, special forms or rules of speech - a characteristic as old as religion itself.
In other ancient cultures that conceive of the person as unique and differentiated from natural and social forces and recognize the role of personal power in politics, these varied natural and cultural forces are personified or symbolized by gods and goddesses who control, work through, and manifest themselves in these powers. For example, Ares was the Greek god of thunder and of war; Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty; and Apollo, the god of light and order. The worship of many gods, known as Polytheism, characterized the religions of most of the ancient world. In every case, a deepening sense of unifying order in reality was accompanied by a drive toward a unity of these plural forces, toward Monotheism.
In this notion of the divine the originating religious categories of power, person, and order are infinitely transcended as characteristics essentially related to finitude and therefore antithetical to the divine. Correspondingly, the religious practices of meditation and the religious hope of ultimate release also transcend relations to nature, tribe, society, the course of history, and even all religious praxis and symbols. Such religions regard the Western notion of God, with its implication of personal being and its emphasis on the life of the self in this world, as an extremely inappropriate and even insulting way of regarding their own ultimate principle.
These aspects of the notion of God reappear, with some modification, in the New Testament. There the one God is also concerned with history, judgment, and redemption, but his central manifestation is Jesus Christ, through whom God's will for mankind is revealed, his judgments are made known, and his power to save is effected. The New Testament writers generally use the word God to designate the God of the Old Testament. Christ is understood as the fulfillment of the Messianic promise and as the Son, or Logos. His relation to God the Father and the Holy Spirit led to the development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Both Jewish and Christian theology therefore display a dialectical tension between God's transcendence over nature and history as creator and ruler, and his personal, moral participation in history for the sake of humankind.
During the Reformation, which emphasized the primacy of Scripture, the personal, purposive, active side of the biblical God again achieved prominence, and the philosophical side receded: God's judgments and his mercy toward humans were considered his central attributes. The transcendent and eternal aspect of this personal God was expressed in the eternal mystery and changelessness of his all determining will, especially the electing and providential will, rather than in the mystery and changelessness of the divine being.
The subsequent divergence of modern thought from Greco Roman traditions led to the introduction of new philosophical options emphasizing change, process, and relatedness. They give expression to a new dynamic and immanent interpretation of God and can be found in systems such as Process Philosophy. While recognizing and affirming in some sense God's absoluteness, eternity, and invulnerability, many modern theologians emphasize his participation in the passing of time, active relatedness to events, and consequent changeableness; they argue that such a view is closer to the biblical notion than is the older Greek view.
Those who believe God can be known only by faith tend to be skeptical of such philosophical proofs and possess a perhaps more transcendent image of God. For them, the God of rational theology, proved and tailored by thinking processes, is merely the creature of humanity's own wayward wisdom. God himself must speak to humankind if he is to be known rightly, or even at all, and therefore faith, as a response to divine Revelation, is the only path to a true knowledge of God. Finally, there are those who assert that God can be known neither by reason nor by faith but only by direct experience.
Langdon Gilkey
Bibliography
P A Angeles, Problem of God: A Short Introduction
(1974); J Bowker, The Sense of God (1977) and The Religious
Imagination and the Sense of God (1978); J D Collins, God in Modern
Philosophy (1959); B J Cooke, The God of Space and Time (1972);
Dewart, Leslie, The Future of Belief (1968); H Dumery, The Problem
of God in Philosophy of Religion (1964); A J Freddoso, ed., The
Existence and Nature of God (1984); L Gilkey, Maker of Heaven and
Earth (1959); J H Hick, ed., Existence of God (1964); G D Kaufman,
God the Problem (1972) and The Theological Imagination (1981); J C
Murray, The Problem of God: Yesterday and Today (1964); I Raez, The
Unknown God (1970); M S Smith, Early History of God (1990); K Ward,
The Concept of God (1975).
(A.S. and Dutch God; Dan. Gud; Ger. Gott), the name of the Divine Being. It is the rendering (1) of the Hebrew 'El, from a word meaning to be strong; (2) of 'Eloah, plural 'Elohim. The singular form, Eloah, is used only in poetry. The plural form is more commonly used in all parts of the Bible, The Hebrew word Jehovah (q.v.), the only other word generally employed to denote the Supreme Being, is uniformly rendered in the Authorized Version by "Lord," printed in small capitals. The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding (Ps. 14:1).
The arguments generally adduced
by theologians in proof of the being of God are:,
These arguments are,
Conscience and human history testify that "verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth." The attributes of God are set forth in order by Moses in Ex. 34:6,7. (see also Deut. 6:4; 10:17; Num. 16:22; Ex. 15:11; 33:19; Isa. 44:6; Hab. 3:6; Ps. 102:26; Job 34:12.) They are also systematically classified in Rev. 5:12 and 7:12. God's attributes are spoken of by some as absolute, i.e., such as belong to his essence as Jehovah, Jah, etc.; and relative, i.e., such as are ascribed to him with relation to his creatures. Others distinguish them into communicable, i.e., those which can be imparted in degree to his creatures: goodness, holiness, wisdom, etc.; and incommunicable, which cannot be so imparted: independence, immutability, immensity, and eternity. They are by some also divided into natural attributes, eternity, immensity, etc.; and moral, holiness, goodness, etc.
God is an invisible, personal, and living Spirit, distinguished from all other spirits by several kinds of attributes: metaphysically God is self-existent, eternal, and unchanging; intellectually God is omniscient, faithful, and wise; ethically God is just, merciful, and loving; emotionally God detests evil, is long-suffering, and is compassionate; existentially God is free, authentic, and omnipotent; relationally God is transcendent in being immanent universally in providential activity, and immanent with his people in redemptive activity.
The essence of anything, simply put, equals its being (substance) plus its attributes. Since Kant's skepticism of knowing anything in itself or in its essence, many philosophers and theologians have limited their general ways of speaking to the phenomena of Jewish or Christian religious experience. Abandoning categories of essence, substance, and attribute, they have thought exclusively in terms of Person-to-person encounters, mighty acts of God, divine functions, or divine processes in history. God is indeed active in all these and other ways, but is not silent. Inscripturated revelation discloses some truth about God's essence in itself. Conceptual truth reveals not only what God does, but who God is.
Biblical revelation teaches the reality not only of physical entities, but also of spiritual beings: angels, demons, Satan, and the triune God. The Bible also reveals information concerning attributes or characteristics of both material and spiritual realities. In speaking of the attributes of an entity, we refer to essential qualtities that belong to or inhere in it. The being or substance is what stands under and unities the varied and multiple attributes in one unified entity. The attributes are essential to distinguish the divine Spirit from all other spirits. The divine Spirit is necessary to unite all the attributes in one being. The attributes of God, then, are essential characteristics of the divine being. Without these qualities God would not be what he is, God.
Some have imagined that by defining the essence of God human thinkers confine God to their concepts. That reasoning, however, confuses words conveying concepts with their referents. Does a definition of water limit the power of Niagara Falls? The word "God" has been used in so many diverse ways that it is incumbent upon a writer or speaker to indicate which of those uses is in mind.
As spirit, God is invisible. No one has ever seen God or ever will (1 Tim. 6:16). A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).
As spirit, furthermore, God is personal. Although some thinkers use "spirit" to designate impersonal principles or an impersonal absolute, in the biblical context the divine Spirit has personal capacities of intelligence, emotion, and volition. It is important to deny of the personal in God any vestiges of the physical and moral evil associated with fallen human persons.
In transcending the physical aspects of human personhood God thus trancends the physical aspects of both maleness and femaleness. However, since both male and female are created in God's image, we may think of both as like God in their distinctively nonphysical, personal male and female qualities. In this context the Bible's use of masculine personal pronouns for God conveys primarily the connotation of God's vital personal qualities and secondarily any distinctive functional responsibilities males may have.
Christ's unique emphasis upon God as Father in the Lord's Prayer and elsewhere becomes meaningless if God is not indeed personal. Similarly, the great doctrines of mercy, grace, forgiveness, imputation, and justification can only be meaningful if God is genuinely personal. God must be able to hear the sinner's cry for salvation, be moved by it, decide and act to recover the lost. In fact, God is superpersonal, tripersonal. The classical doctrine of the Trinity coherently synthesizes the Bible's teaching about God. To place the name of God upon a baptismal candidate is to place upon the candidate the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).
The unity of the one divine essence and being emphasized in the NT concept of a personal spirit implies simplicity or indivisibility. Neither the Trinitarian personal distinctions nor the multiple attributes divide the essential unity of the divine being. And that essential, ontological oneness is not torn apart by the incarnation or even the death of Jesus. Relationally or functionally (but not essentially) Jesus on the cross was separated from the Father who imputed to him the guilt and punishment of our sin.
In view of the indivisibility of the divine Spirit, how than are the attributes related to the divine being? The divine attributes are not mere names for human use with no referent in the divine Spirit (nominalism). Nor are the attributes separate from each other within the divine being so that they could conflict with each other (realism). The attributes all equally qualify the entirety of the divine being and each other (a modified realism). Preserving the divine simplicity or indivisibility, God's love is always holy love, and God's holiness is always loving holiness. Hence it is futile to argue for the superiority of one divine attribute over another. Every attribute is essential; one cannot be more essential than another in a simple, nonextended being.
God as spirit, furthermore, is living and active. In contrast to the passive ultimates of Greek philosophies the God of the Bible actively creates, sustains, covenants with his people, preserves Israel and the Messiah's line of descent, calls prophet after prophet, send his Son into the world, provides the atoning sacrifice to satisfy his own righteousness, raises Christ from the dead, builds the church, and judges all justly. Far from a passive entity like a warm house, the God of the Bible is an active architect, builder, freedom fighter, advocate of the poor and oppressed, just judge, empathetic counselor suffering servant, and triumphant deliverer.
As an invisible, personal, living spirit, God is no mere passive object of human investigation. Such writers as Pascal, Kierkegaard, Barth, and Brunner have helpfully reminded Christians that knowing God is like studying soils. However, these writers go too far in claiming that God is merely a revealing subject in ineffable personal encounters and that no objective, propositional truth can be known of God. Members of a creative artist's family may know him not only with passionate, personal subjectivity, but also objectively through examination of his works, careful reading of his writings, and assessment of his resume. Similarly God may be known not only in passionate subjective commitment, but also by thought about his creative works (general revelation), his inspired Scripture (part of special revelation), and theological resumes of his nature and activity. Knowledge of God involves both objective, conceptual validity and subjective, personal fellowship.
We have considered the meaning of asserting that God is spirit: the divine being is one, invisible, personal, and thus capable of thinking, feeling, and willing, a living and active being. There are, however, many spirits. The subsequent discussion of the divine attributes is necessary to distinguish the divine Spirit from other spirit-beings.
While considering the meaning of each attribute it is well to be aware of the relation of the attributes to the being of God. In the Scriptures the divine attributes are not above God, beside God, or beneath God; they are predicted of God. God is holy; God is love. These characteristics do not simply describe what God does, they define what God is. To claim that recipients of revelation can know the attributes of God but not the being of God leaves the attributes un-unified and belonging to nothing. The Scriptures do not endorse worship of an unknown God but make God known. The attributes are inseparable from the being of God, and the divine spirit does not relate or act apart from the essential divine characteristics. In knowing the attributes, then, we know God as he has revealed himself to be in himself.
This is not to say that through revelation we can know God fully as God knows himself. But it is to deny that all our knowledge of God is equivocal, something totally other than we understand by scripturally revealed concepts of holy love. Much of our knowledge of God's attributes is analogical or figurative, where Scripture uses figures of speech. Even then, however, the point illustrated can be stated in nonfigurative language. So all our understanding of God is not exclusively analogical. The revealed, nonfigurative knowledge has at least one point of meaning the same for God's thought and revelationally informed human thought. Some knowledge of God, then, is called univocal, because when we assert that God is holy love, we assert what the Bible (which originated, not with the will of man, but God) asserts. We may be far from fully comprehending divine holiness and divine love, but insofar as our assertions about God coherently convey relevant conceptually revealed meanings they are true of God and conform in part to God's understanding.
The divine attributes have been differently classified to help in relating and remembering them. Each classification has its strengths and weaknesses. We may distinguish those attributes that are absolute and immanent (Strong), incommunicable or communicable (Berkhof), metaphysical or moral (Gill), absolute, relative, and moral (Wiley), or personal and consitutional (Chafer). Advantages and disadvantages of these groupings can be seen in those respective theologies. It is perhaps clearer and more meaningful to distinguish God's characteristics metaphysically, intellectually, ethically, emotionally, existentially, and relationally.
In Christianity, then, eternity is not an abstract timelessness, but the eternal is a characteristic of the living God who is present at all times and in all places, creating and sustaining the space-time world and accomplishing his redemptive purposes in the fullness of time.
God changelessly answers prayer in accord with his desires and purposes of holy love. Hence, although speaking in terms of human experience God is sometimes said in Scripture to repent, it is in fact the unrepentant who have changed and become repentant or the faithful who have become unfaithful.
God is the same, though everything else in creation becomes old like a garment (Ps. 102:25-27). Jesus shared that same unchanging nature (Heb. 1:10-12) and vividly exhibited it consistently throughout his active ministry in a variety of situations.
The immutability of God's character means that God never loses his own integrity or lets others down. With God is no variableness or shadow of turning (James 1:17). God's unshakable nature and word provide the strongest ground of faith and bring strong consolation (Heb. 6: 17-18). God is not a man that he should lie (Num. 23:19) or repent (I Sam. 15:29). The counsel of the Lord stands forever (Ps. 33:11). Though heaven and earth pass away, God's words will not fail (Matt. 5:18; 24:35).
How can God know the end from the beginning? In a way greater than illustrated in a person's knowledge of a memorized psalm, Augustine suggested. Before quoting Psalm 23 we have it all in mind. Then we quote the first half of it and we know the part that is past and the part that remains to be quoted. God knows the whole of history at once, simultaneously because not limited by time and succession, but God also knows what part of history is past today and what is future, for time is not unreal or umimportant to God (Confessions XI, 31).
The belief that God knows everything--past, present, and future, is of little significance, however, if God's knowledge is removed from human knowledge by an infinite, qualitative distinction. The frequent claim that God's knowledge is totally other than ours implies that God's truth may be contradictory of our truth. That is, what may be true for us is false for God or what is false for us may be true for God. Defenders of this position argue that because God is omniscient, God does not think discursively line upon line, or use distinct concepts connected by the verb "to be" in logical propositions. This view of divine transcendence provided an effective corrective in the hands of Barth and Bultmann against the continuity modernism alleged between the highest human thought and God's thought. And that influence finds additional support from the Eastern mystics who deny any validity to conceptual thinking in reference to the eternal. Relativists from many fields also deny that any human assertions, including the Bible's, are capable of expressing the truth concerning God.
From a biblical perspective, however, the human mind has been created in the divine image to think God's thoughts after him, or to receive through both general and special revelation truth from God. Although the fall has affected the human mind, this has not been eradicated. The new birth involves the Holy Spirit's renewal of the person in knowledge after the image of the Creator (Col. 3:10). Contextually, the knowledge possible to the regenerate includes the present position and nature of the exalted Christ (Col. 1:15-20) and knowledge of God's will (Col. 1:9). With this knowledge Christians can avoid being deceived by mere fine-sounding arguments (Col. 2:4). They are to strengthen the faith they were taught in concepts and words (Col. 2:7). And the content of the word of Christ can inform their teaching and worship (Col. 3:16).
In these and many other ways the Scriptures presuppose an informative revelation from God, verbally inspired and Spirit illumined, to minds created and renewed in the divine image for the reception of this divine truth. Insofar as we have grasped the contextual meaning given by the original writers of Scripture, our scripturally based assertions that God is spirit, God is holy, or God is love are true. They are true for God as he is in himself. They are true for the faith and life of Christians and churches.
The propositional truth that the Bible conveys in indicative sentences that affirm, deny, contend, maintain, assume, and infer is fully true for God and for mankind. Of course God's omniscience is not limited to the distinctions between subjects and predicates, logical sequence, exegetical research, or discursive reasoning. But God knows the difference between a subject and a predicate, relates to logical sequence as much as to temporal sequence, encourages exegetical research and revelationally based discursive reasoning. Although God's mind is unlimited and knows everything, it is not totally different in every respect from human minds made in his image. As omniscient then, God's judgments are formed in the awareness of all the relevant data. God knows everything that bears upon the truth concerning any person or event. Our judgements are true insofar as they conform to God's by being coherent or faithful to all the relevant evidence.
We may hold unsweringly to our hope because he who promised is faithful (Heb. 10:23), He is faithful to forgive our sins (1 John 1:9), sanctify believers until the return of Christ (1 Thess. 5:23-24), strengthen and protect from the evil one (II Thess. 3:3), and not let us be tempted beyond what we can bear (1 Cor. 10:13). Even if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself (II Tim. 2:13).
Not one word of all the good promises God gave through Moses failed (1 Kings 8:56). Isaiah praises the name of God, for in perfect faithfulness God did marvelous things planned long ago (Isa. 25:1). Passages like these convey a basic divine integrity in both life and thought. No contrast can be drawn between what God is in himself and what God is in relation to those who trust him. God does not contradict his promises in his works or in other teaching by dialectic, paradox, or mere complementarity. God knows everything, and nothing can come up that was not already taken into account before God revealed his purposes.
Because God is faithful and consistent, we ought to be faithful and consistent. Jesus said, "Simply let your Yes be Yes and your No, No" (Matt. 5:37). Paul exhibited this logical authenticity in his teaching about God. As surely as God is faithful, he said, our message to you is not Yes and No (II Cor. 1:18). Those who imagine that talk about God in human language must affirm and deny the same thing at the same time and in the same respect (in dialectic or paradox) have a different view of the relation between the divine mind and the godly person's mind than did Paul. Because God is faithful, we must be faithful in our message about him. Since God cannot deny himself, we ought not to deny ourselves in speaking to God.
Knowing the connection between personal and conceptual faithfulness in God we know that the idea that faithful persons ought not to contradict themselves did not originate with Aristotle. He may have formulated the law of non-contradiction in a way that has been quoted ever since, but the ultimate source of the challenge to human fidelity in person and word is rooted in God himself. The universal demand for intellectual honesty reflects in the human heart the ultimate integrity of the Creator's heart.
Although we may not fully understand divine wisdom, we have good reason to trust it. After writing on the great gift of the righteousness that comes from God, Paul exclaims, "To the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen." (Rom. 16:27). He had earlier alluded to the incomprehensible depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom. 11:33).
The interrelation of the attributes is already evident as the divine omniscience is aware not only of what is but also of what ought to be (morally); divine faithfulness and consistency involve moral integrity and no hypocrisy; and wisdom makes decisions for action toward certain ends and means in terms of the highest values. It is not so strange then when we read that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7).
Holiness is not solely the product of God's will, but a changeless
characteristic of his eternal nature. The question Plato asked
therefore needs to be reworded to apply to the Christian God: "Is the
good good because God wills it? Or does God will it because it is
good?" The question relates not to God's will or to some principle of
goodness above God, but to God's essence. The good, the just, the pure,
the holy is holy, not by reason of an arbitrary act of the divine will,
nor of a principle independent of God, but because it is an outflow of
his nature. God always wills in accord with his nature consistenly. He
wills the good because he is good. And because God is holy, he
consistently hates sin and is repulsed by all evil without respect of
persons. The Holy Spirit is called holy not only because as a member of
the divine Trinity he shares the holiness of the divine nature, but
because the Spirit's distinctive function is to produce holy love in
God's redeemed people. We are to seek to be morally spotless in
character and action, upright, and righteous like the God we worship.
God's wrath is revealed as sinners suppress his truth and hold it down
in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-32), both Jews and Gentiles (Rom.
2:1-3:20). In the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a
righteousness that is by faith from first to last (Rom. 1:17; 3:21).
Believers are justified freely by God's grace that came by Jesus
Christ, who provided the sacrifice of atonement (Rom. 3:24). Hence like
Abraham, those who are fully persuaded that God can do what he has
promised (Rom. 4:21) find their faith credited to them for
righteousness (Rom. 4:3, 24). God in his justice graciously provides
for the just status of believers in Christ. Righteousness in God is not
unrelated to mercy, grace, and love.
In mercy God withholds or modifies deserved judgment, and in grace God
freely gives undeserved benefits to whom he chooses. All of these moral
characteristics flow from God's great love. In contrast to his
transcendent self-existence is his gracious self-giving, agape love. He
who lives forever as holy, high, and lofty also lives with him who is
contrite and lowly in spirit (Isa. 57:15).
It is not that God is lacking something in himself (Acts 17:25), but
that God desires to give of himself for the well-being of those loved,
in spite of the fact that they are unlovely and undeserving. God not
only loves but is in himself love (1 John 4:8).
His love is like that of a husband toward his wife, a father toward
his son, and a mother toward her unweaned baby. In love God chose
Israel (Deut. 7:7) and predestined believeing members of the church to
be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:4-5). God so loved the
world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him
shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).
Love cares for the aged, the oppressed, the poor, the orphans, and
others in need. The loving God of the Bible is not unmoved by people
with real needs (or impassible). The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job,
Jeremiah, Jesus, Judas, Peter, and Paul suffered, indeed was
long-suffering. In empathy God enters through imagination into the
feelings of his creatures. Beyond that, God incarnate entered through
participation into our temptations and sufferings. As H. W. Robinson
has said, "The only way in which moral evil can enter into the
consciousness of the morally good is as suffering." In all Israel's
afflictions God was afflicted (Isa. 63:9). What meaning can there be,
Robinson asks, in a love that is not costly to the lover? The God of
the Bible is far from apathetic in regard to the vast suffering of
people in the world. In love God sent his Son to die that ultimately
suffering might be done away and righteousness restored throughout the
earth as the waters cover the seas.
Since love involves commitment for the well-being of others, a
responsible commitment, a faithful commitment, it is not classed as
primarily emotional. Love is settled purpose of will involving the
whole person in seeking the well-being of others.
Jesus and the Scriptures in general speak more often of God's wrath at
injustices such as persistent mistreatment of the poor and needy than
of love and heaven. Although the Lord is slow to anger, he will in no
way leave the guilty unpunished, but will pour out his fury upon them
(Nah. 1:3). None can withstand his indignation, which is poured out
like fire and shatters rocks before him (Nah. 1:6). Apart from
understanding God's wrath against evil, it is impossible to understand
the extent of divine love in the incarnation, the extent of Christ's
suffering on the cross, the propitiatory nature of his sacrifice, the
prophetic Scriptures speaking of the great day of God's wrath, the
great tribulation, or the book of Revelation.
God is patient and long-suffering. Properly jealous for the well-being
of the objects of his love, God is angry at injustice done to them but
suffers without losing heart. Long-suffering with evildoers God,
without condoning their sin, graciously provides them with undeserved
temporal and spiritual benefits. God promised the land to Abraham, but
the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full (Gen. 15:16). After over
four hundred years of long-suffering restraint God in the fullness of
time allowed the armies of Israel to bring just judgment upon the
Amorites' wickedness. Later Israel worshipped the golden calf and
deserved divine judgment like other idolators. But God revealed himself
at the second giving of the law as "the Lord, the Lord, a God merciful
and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and
faithfulness" (Exod. 34:6). The Psalmist could write, "But Thou, O
Lord, art a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in
steadfast love and faithfulness" (Ps. 86:15). However, the day of God's
grace has an end. Eventually, without respect of persons, God's just
judgment fell upon Israel for its pervasive evils. God's long-suffering
is a remarkable virtue, but it does not exclude or contradict God's
justice.
Although theologians in the Thomistic tradition have taught the
impassibility of God, the Scriptures do not hesitate to call God
compassionate. Because of his great love we are not consumed, for his
compassions never fail (Lam. 3:22). Even after Israel's captivity God
will again have compassion on her (Mic. 7:19). The God of the Bible is
not an apathetic God, but one who deeply cares when the sparrow falls.
Jesus beautifully displayed this divine-human compassion for the hungry
(Matt. 15:32), the blind (Matt. 20:34), the sorrowing (Luke 7:13). And
Jesus taught the importance of compassion in the account of the good
Samaritan (Luke 10:33) and that of the father's concern for his lost
son (Luke 15:20).
The incarnate Christ felt what humans feel in all respects but did not
yield to the temptations involved. As God in literal human experience,
Jesus wept with those who wept and rejoiced with those who rejoiced. He
remembered the joyful glory he had with the Father before the
foundation of the world (John 17:5, 13). The divine-human author of our
salvation, however, was made perfect or complete through suffering in
this life (Heb. 2:10). Because he himself suffered, he can help those
who suffer and are tempted (Heb. 2:18). The God revealed in Jesus
Christ is no apathetic, uninvolved, impersonal first cause. The Father
who Jesus disclosed is deeply moved by everything that hurts his
children.
Existentially, God Is Free, Authentic, and Omnipotent. The modern
concerns for freedom, authenticity, fulfilment should not be limited to
mankind. Biblical writers seem even more concerned that God be
understood to be free, authentic, and fulfilled.
God is not free to approve sin, to be unloving, to be unwise, to
ignore the hard facts of reality, to be unfaithful to what is or ought
to be, to be uncompassionate or unmerciful. God cannot deny himself.
God is free to be himself, his personal, eternal, living, intellectual,
ethical, emotional, volitional self.
God knows that he is the ultimate being, that there are in reality
none to compare with him. In calling upon people to turn from idols,
therefore, God in no way is asking something of us not in accord with
reality. In steadfastly opposing idolatry he seeks to protect people
from ultimate concerns destined to disillusion and disappoint. God
desires our worship for our sakes, that we not succumb eventually to
despair as one after another of our finite gods lets us down.
In the next place, God is omnipotent (Mark 14:36; Luke 1:37). God is
able to do whatever he wills in the way in which he wills it. God does
not choose to do anything contrary to his nature of wisdom and holy
love. God cannot deny himself, and God does not choose to do everything
by his own immediate agency without intermediate angelic and human
agents. Although God determines some things to come to pass
unconditionally (Isa. 14:24-27), most events in history are planned
conditionally, through the obedience of people or their permitted
disobedience to divine precepts (II Chr. 7:14; Luke 7:30; Rom. 1:24).
In any case, God's eternal purposes for history are not frustrated, but
fulfilled in the way he chose to accomplish them (Eph. 1:11).
God has not only the strength to effect all his purposes in the way in
which he purposes them, but also the authority in the entire realm of
his kingdom to do what he will. God is not a subject of another's
dominion, but is King or Lord of all. By virtue of all his other
attributes, his wisdom, justice, and love, for example, God is fit for
the ruling of all that he created and sustains. God is a wise, holy,
and gracious sovereign. As just, the power of God itself cannot punish
sinners more than they deserve. To whom much is given, of him much
shall be required; to whom little is given, of him little shall be
required. But in the bestowing of undeserved benefits and gifts God is
free to dispense them as he pleases (Ps. 135:6). Having permitted sin,
God is great enough to limit its furious passions and to overrule it
for greater good, as at Calvary (Acts 4:24-28). God can defeat the
nations and demonic hosts that rage against him. No one can exist
independent of divine sovereignty. The attempt to go one's own way
independent of God is sinful insolence on the part of creatures who in
him live and move and have their being. Only a fool could say that
there is no God, when God sustains the breath the atheist uses to deny
divine dominion over him.
The incomparable divine transcendence involves a radical dualism
between God and the world that ought not be blurred by a resurgent
monism and pantheism. Although made like God and in the divine image,
mankind is not (like Christ) begotten of God or an emanation from God
of the same divine nature. The ultimate goal of salvation is not
reabsorption into the being of God but unbroken fellowship with God.
The unity Christians seek is not a metaphysical unity with God but a
relational unity, a oneness of mind, desire, and will. To seek to be as
God in a biblical perspective is not deeper spirituality but rebellious
idolatry or blasphemy. Christians may respect nature as a divine
creation but not worship nature as divine. Christians may respect the
founders of the world's religions but cannot bow to any guru as the
divine manifest in human form. Only Jesus Christ is from above; all
others are from below (John 8:23). Because God is separate from the
world, Christians cannot bow to any earthly power as God, whether that
power be economic, political, religious, scientific, educational, or
cultural. The inestimable benefit of bowing to a transcendent Lord of
all is that it frees one from every finite, fallen tyranny.
A biblical theist not only believes that the one, living God is
separate from the world, as against pantheism and panentheism, but also
that God is continuously active throughout the world providentially, in
contrast to deism. God is not so exalted that he cannot know, love, or
relate to natural law in the world of everyday experience. A study of
divine providence as taught in Scripture shows that God sustains,
guides, and governs all that he created. The nature psalms reflect upon
God's activity in relation to every aspect of the earth, the
atmosphere, vegetation, and animal (e.g., Ps. 104). God also preserves
and governs human history, judging corrupt societies and blessing the
just and the unjust with temporal benefits like the sunshine, rain,
food and drink. Through God's universal providential activity the
cosmos holds together and his wise purposes of common grace are
achieved.
But God is immanent in the lives of his people who repent of their sin
and live by faith to accomplish the goals of his redemptive grace. "For
this is what the high and lofty One says, he who lives forever, whose
name is holy; I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is
contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to
revive the heart of the contrite" (Isa. 57:15). Just as persons may be
present to one another in varying degrees, God may be present to the
unjust in one sense and to the just in a richer way. A person may
simply be present as another rider on a bus, or much more significantly
as a godly mother who has prayed daily for you all of your life. God is
graciously present in forgiving love with the converted, who by faith
have been propitiated, reconciled, and redeemed by Christ's precious
blood. They become his people, he becomes their God. God dwells in them
as his holy place or temple. The relational oneness of thoughts,
desires, and purposes grows through the years. That unity is shared by
other members of Christ's body who are gifted to build each other up to
become progressively more like the God they worship, not
metaphysically, but intellectually, ethically, emotionally, and
existentially.
Unlimited by space, God nevertheless created and sustains the cosmos,
scientific laws, geographical and political boundaries.
Beyond time, God nevertheless actively relates to time, to each human
life, home, city, nation, and to human history in general.
Transcendent to discursive knowledge and conceptual truth, God
nevertheless intelligently relates to propositional thought and verbal
communication, objective validity, logical consistency, factual
reliability, coherence and clarity, as well as subjective authenticity
and existential integrity.
Unlimited by a body, God is nevertheless providentially related to
physical power in nature and society, industrially, agriculturally,
socially, and politically. God knows and judges human stewardship in
the use of all the earth's energy resources.
God transcends every attempt to achieve justice in the world, but
righteously relates to every good endeavor of his creatures personally,
economically, socially, academically, religiously, and politically.
Although free from unworthy and uncontrolled emotions, God is caringly
related to the poor, the unfortunate, the lonely, the sorrowing, the
sick, the victims of prejudice, injustice, anxiety, and despair.
Beyond all the apparent meaninglessness and purposelessness of human
existence, God personally gives significance to the most insignificant
life.
G R Lewis
Bibliography
The most
fundamental teaching of the Bible and Christian theology is that God
exists and is ultimately in control of the universe. This is the
foundation on which all Christian theologizing is built.
The Scriptures do recognize the existence of a professed atheism. But
such atheism is considered primarily a moral rather than an
intellectual problem. The fool who denies God (Ps. 14:1) does so not
from philosophical reasons (which are, in any case, incapable of
disproving the absolute except by affirming such), but from the
practical supposition that he can live without considering God (Ps.
10:4). The Scriptures also recognize the possibility of a willful and
therfore culpable "suppressing" of the knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18).
God has also revealed something of himself in his creation and
preservation of the universe (Rom. 1:20), and to the extent that human
reason yields a concept of a god it is undoubtedly related to this
general or natural revelation. But the entrance of sin and its
alienating effect blinds man from truly seeing God through this means
(Rom. 1:18; Eph. 4:18). Moreover, the Bible indicates that even prior
to the fall man's knowledge of God was derived not solely from the
creation surrounding him, but from a direct personal communication with
God.
While God communicates himself to man through a variety of means,
including actions and words, human knowledge is fundamentally a
conceptual matter and therefore the Word is the primary means of God's
revelation. Even his actions are not left as mute works but are
accompanied by the interpretive Word to give their true meaning. The
revelation of God climaxed in the person of Jesus Christ, who was not
simply the bearer of the revelatory Word of God as were all who spoke
God's Word prior to his coming, but the personal divine Word. In him
"all the fullness of deity" dwelt in bodily form (Col. 2:9). Thus in
his work as Creator and Redeemer and through his words, God makes
himself known to man.
The revelation of God does not totally exhaust his being and activity.
He remains the incomprehensible one that man cannot totally fathom,
both in his essence and ways (Job 36:26; Isa. 40:13, 28; cf. Deut.
29:29). Finitude cannot comprehend infinity, nor can human thought
patterns, which are associated with the created environment, completely
grasp the transcendent realm of God.
On the basis of this limitation of human reason modern rationalism has
at times argued for the unknowability of God. Man's knowledge is said
to be limited to the world of human experience, thus excluding the
knowledge of a transcedent God. Such an equation of the
incomprehensibility of God with unknowability is valid only on the
premise that man's knowledge of God is derived through human reason.
But the incomprehensible God of the Scriptures is the God who reaches
out to man with the revelation of himself. The knowledge thus derived,
although limited according to his good pleasure, is nevertheless a true
knowledge of his being and work.
In giving us a knowledge of himself God gives his Word a finite form
compatible with human creatureliness. Despite this necessary
accommodation to the limitations of human understanding, the revealed
knowledge of God is nevertheless an authentic knowledge of God.
Theories which use the difference between God and man to deny the
possibility of a genuine communication of true knowledge do not do
justice to at least two biblical facts: (1) the truth that God created
man in his own image, which certainly includes a likeness sufficient
for communication; (2) the omnipotence of God, which implies that he
can make a creature to whom he can truthfully reveal himself if he so
wills. To be sure, there remains a hiddenness in relation to the total
comprehension of God. But God himself does not remain hidden, for he
has given true though partial knowledge of himself through
self-revelation understandable to man.
The nature of our knowledge of God has been the subject of much
discussion in Christian theology. Some have emphasized the negative
character of our knowledge, e.g., God is infinite, nontemporal,
incorporeal. Others, notably Aquinas, have advocated an analogical
knowledge that is similar to God's knowledge and yet dissimilar because
of his infinite greatness. Suffice it to say that even the negative
(such as infinite) conveys a positive concept of greatness, and, while
the position of analogy may be used to acknowledge a distinction in
depth and breadth of understanding, there is finally a sense in which
man's knowledge of divine things is the same as God's. For if man does
not know God's meaning, he does not know the true meaning.
Interestingly, the Scriptures view the problem of a true knowledge of
God as moral rather than noetic.
The personhood of God has been called into question on the basis of
our use of the word "person" with respect to human beings. Human
personhood involves limitation that allows relationship with another
person or the world. To be a person means to be an individual among
individuals. All of this cautions us against an erroneous
anthropomorphizing of God. Biblically it is more proper to see the
personhood of God as having priority over that of man and therefore to
understand human personhood theomorphously, i.e., a finite replica of
the infinite divine person. Despite the final incomprehensibility of
God's suprahuman personhood, the Scriptures portray him as a real
person who gives himself in reciprocal relationship to us as a genuine
Thou.
The biblical concept of the personhood of God refutes all abstract
philosophical ideas of God as merely First Cause or Prime Mover as well
as all naturalistic and pantheistic concepts. Modern equations of God
with immanent personal relations (e.g., love) are also rejected.
As spirit, God is the living God. He is the possessor of an infinite
life in himself (Ps. 36:9; John 5:26). Matter is activated by spirit,
but God is pure spirit. He is fully life. As such he is the source of
all other life (Job 33:4; Ps. 104:30). The spiritual nature also
prohibits any limitations of God derived from a materialistic
conception. For this reason images of God are prohibited (Exod. 20:4;
Deut. 4:12, 15-18). He cannot be restricted to any particular place or
in any sense be brought under man's control as a physical object. He is
the invisible transcedent living power from whom all derive existence
(Acts 17:28).
The transcendence of God expresses the truth that God in himself is
infinitely exalted above all creation. The concept of
revelation presupposes a transcendent God who must
unveil himself to be known. Transcendence is further seen in God's
position as Creator and Sovereign Lord of the universe. As the former
he distinguishes himself from all creation (Rom. 1:25), and in his
sovereignty he evidences his transcendent supremacy.
The transcendence of God is frequently expressed biblically in terms
of time and space. He exists before all creation (Ps. 90:2), and
neither the earth nor the highest heavens can contain him (I Kings
8:27). A certain anthropomorphic sense must be recognized in such
expressions lest God's transcendence be conceived in terms of our time
and space, as though he lives in a time and space like ours only beyond
that of creation. On the other hand, it is biblically incorrect to
conceive of God in his transcendence as existing in a realm of timeless
nowhereness outside of creation. In a manner that exceeds our finite
understanding God exists in his own infinite realm as transcendent Lord
over all creaturely time and space.
God's transcendent holiness is biblically balanced with the teaching
of his immanence, which signifies that he is wholly present in his
being and power in every part and moment of the created universe. He is
"over all and through all and in all" (Eph. 4:6). Not only does
everything exist in him (Acts 17:28), but there is no place where his
presence is absent (Ps. 139:1-10). His immanence is seen especially in
relation to man. The Holy One who lives in a high and holy place also
dwells with the "contrite and lowly of spirit" (Isa. 57:15). This dual
dimension of God is seen clearly in the description "the Holy One of
Israel" as well as in the name Yahweh, which describes both his
transcendent power and his personal presence with and for his people.
The biblical teaching of both God's transcendence and immanence
counters the human tendency throughout history to emphasize one or the
other. A one-sided transcendence is seen in the Greek philosophers'
concept of the ultimate ground of being as well as the later deists of
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The various forms of
pantheism throughout history give evidence of the opposite emphasis on
immanence. The attractiveness of these exaggerations to sinful man is
in the fact that in both man no longer stands before God in any
practical sense as a responsible creature.
The doctrine of the Trinity flows from the self-revelation of God in
biblical salvation history. As the one God successively reveals himself
in his saving action in the Son and the Holy Spirit, each is recognized
as God himself in personal manifestation. It is thus in the fullness of
NT revelation that the doctrine of the Trinity is seen most clearly.
God is one (Gal. 3:20; James 2:19), but the Son (John 1:1; 14:9; Col.
2:9) and the Spirit (Acts 5:3-4; I Cor. 3:16) are also fully God. Yet
they are distinct from the Father and each other. The Father sends the
Son and the Spirit, while the Son also sends the Spirit (Gal. 4:4; John
15:26). This unified equality and yet distinctness is seen in the
triadic references to the three persons. Christian baptism is in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). Likewise, all
three are joined in the Pauline benediction in a different order
suggesting the total equality of persons (II Cor. 13:14; cf. Eph.
4:4-6; I Pet. 1:2). Although the Trinity finds its clearest evidence in
the NT, suggestions of a fullness of plurality are already found in the
OT revelation of God. The plural form of the name of God (Elohim) as
well as the use of plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 11:7) and verbs (Gen.
11:7; 35:7) point in this direction. So also do the identity of the
angel of the Lord as God (Exod. 3:2-6; Judg. 13:21-22) and the
hypostatization of the Word (Ps. 33:6; 107:20) and Spirit (Gen. 1:2;
Isa. 63:10). The Word is not simply communication about God nor is the
Spirit divine power. They are rather the acting God himself.
As the product of the self-revelation of God, the Trinitarian
formulation is not intended to exhaust his incomprehensible nature.
Objections to the doctrine come from a rationalism that insists on
dissolving this mystery into human understanding, i.e., by thinking of
the oneness and threeness in mathematical terms and human personality.
Attempts have been made to draw analogies of the Trinity from nature
and the constitution of man. The most notable of these is Augustine's
trinity of lover, the object of love, and the love which binds the two
together. While this argues strongly for a plurality within God if he
is eternally a God of love apart from creation, it along with all other
suggestions from the creaturely realm proves finally inadequate to
explain the divine being.
The doctrine of the Trinity developed out of the church's desire to
safeguard the biblical truths of the God who is the transcendent Lord
over all history and yet who gives himself in person to act within
history. The natural human tendencies toward either a nonhistorical
divine transcendence or the absorption of the divine into the
historical process are checked by the orthodox concept of the Trinity.
The first is the ultimate error of the primary distortions of the
Trinity. Subordinationism, which made Christ less than God, and
adoptionism, which understood Christ only as a human endowed with God's
Spirit for a time, both denied that God truly entered history to
confront man in person. Modalism or Sabellianism makes the persons of
Christ and the Holy Spirit to be only historical roles or modifications
of the one God. This error likewise tends to separate man from God; he
is encountered not directly as he is in person, but as a role player
who remains hidden behind a mask.
The Trinitarian doctrine is thus central to the salvation kerygma of
Scripture, according to which the transcendent God acts personally in
history to redeem and share himself with his creatures. Origen rightly
drew the conclusion that the believer "will not attain salvation if the
Trinity is not complete."
Although Augustine's view was more balanced with a view of the
personal immanent, condescending God in the revelation of Christ, this
philosophical understanding of God dominated until the Reformation,
reaching its climax in Thomas Aquinas and the medieval scholastics.
Aquinas held that philosophical human reason could attain to the
knowledge of the existence of God. His stress, however, was on the
transcendence of God and how little he could be known.
With an emphasis on biblical rather than philosophical categories, the
Reformers brought more recognition of the immanence of God within human
history but maintained a strong emphasis on his transcendence, as
evidenced in the definition of the Westminister Confession of Faith.
Reaction to the traditional Protestant and Catholic understanding of
God with its stress on the transcendence of God came with the rise of
liberal theology in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The
combination of new philosophies (e.g., Kant, Hegel) making the mind of
man supreme for true knowledge, scientific advances that seemed to
substantiate human abilities, and a new historical perspective that
tended to relativize all tradition, including the Scriptures, led to a
new understanding of ultimate reality. Because, as Kant argued, human
reason could no longer establish the existence of a transcendent God,
God became increasingly identified with the ideals of human experience.
Talk of religious dependency (Schleiermacher) or ethical values (Kant,
Ritschl) became talk of God. There was an almost exclusive emphasis on
the immanence of God, with a tendency to see an essential kinship
between the human and divine spirit.
World events including two world wars and the rise of totalitarian
regimes brought the collapse of old liberalism with its immanentistic
understanding of God and the reassertion of divine transcendence. Led
by Karl Barth, theology sought to return not to the earlier
philosophical concepts of God but to the categories of the
Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Based upon a radical separation between
eternity and time, the transcendence of God was exaggerated to the
point that a direct revelation of God in human history was denied.
According to this neoorthodox theology God did not speak directly in
Scripture. As a result of this denial of a direct cognitive
communication, with the consequent skepticism of any knowledge of God
in himself, the accent on transcendence was gradually lost. The
religious experience of man, usually interpreted according to
existential philosophy, became increasingly viewed as the key to
theological knowledge. God was understood primarily as the meaning he
holds for the "existential experiences" of man.
This movement can be traced from Barth, whose theology maintained a
strong divine transcendence, to Bultmann, who, while not denying God's
transcendence, nevertheless focused almost entirely on God in the human
existential experience, and finally to Tillich, who denied entirely the
traditional God "out there" in favor of an immanent God as the "ground"
of all being. Thus the transcendence of God has been lost in much of
contemporary thought which seeks to do theology in the existential
philosophical framework. Divine transcendence is simply equated with
the hidden self-transcendence of human existence.
Other contemporary theologians seek to reconstruct theology in terms
of the modern scientific evolutionary understanding of the universe.
Such process theology, based on the philosophy of A. N. Whitehead, sees
the fundamental nature of all reality as process or becoming rather
than being or unchanging substance. Although there is an abstract
eternal dimension of God which provides the potential for the process,
he also is understood to encompass all changing entities in his own
life and therefore to be in the process of change himself. As the
universe is dynamic and changing, actualizing its potentialities, so
also is God.
The wide variety of contemporary formulations of God that tend to
define God in ways in which he is no longer the personal Creator and
sovereign Lord of human history are the direct result of denying a
knowledge of God through his cognitive self-revelation in the
Scriptures and the sinful human propensity to autonomy.
R L Saucy
Bibliography
Efforts to find the origins and significance of the Hebrew divine
names in other ancient Near Eastern cultures have yielded generally
disappointing results. One of the major reasons for this is that the
ancient Hebrew theology invested these names with a uniqueness that
renders investigation outside the narratives of the OT incapable of
exploring fully their historical and religious significance.
Basic to ancient Hebrew religion is the concept of divine revelation.
While God is conceived of as revealing his attributes and will in a
number of ways in the OT, one of the most theologically significant
modes of the divine self-disclosure is the revelation inherent in the
names of God.
This aspect of divine revelation is established in the words of Exod.
6:3, "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, as God Almighty,
but by my name the Lord [Yahweh] I did not make myself known to them."
According to classical literary criticism, the verse teaches that the
name Yahweh was unknown to the patriarchs. Thus, an ideological
conflict exists between the Priestly author and the earlier Yahwist,
who frequently put the name Yahweh on the lips of the patriarchs.
However, the words "by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to
them" have a somewhat hollow ring if the name Yahweh is understood only
as an appellative. The reason for this is that Moses asks in Exod.
3:13, "What is his name?" (mah-semo). M. Buber has demonstrated that
the syntax of this question does not connote an inquiry as to the name
of God but an inquiry into the character revealed by the name. He says,
"Where the word 'what' is associated with the word 'name' the question
asked is what finds expression in or lies concealed behind that name"
(The Revelation and the Covenant, p. 48). J. Motyer also concludes, "In
every case where ma is used with a personal association it suggests
enquiry into sort or quality or character, whereas mi expects an answer
instacing individuals, or, as in the case of rhetorical questions,
calling attention to some external feature" (The Revelation of the
Divine Name, 19).
Exod. 14:4 also supports the view that the name Yahweh embodies
aspects of God's character. It says, "and the Egyptians will know that
I am Yahweh." It is hardly likely that the intent of this assertion is
that they would learn only the name of the Hebrew God.
In the light of these observations, the use of the concepts of the
name of God in the early narratives of the book of Exodus is far
broader than simply the name by which the Hebrew God was known. It has
a strong element of divine self-disclosure within it.
The corpus of divine names compounded with el and a descriptive
adjunct also support this concept. The very fact that the adjunctive
element is descriptive is an indication of its value as a source of
theological content.
Typical of this type of name is el rot ("God who sees"; Gen. 16:13)
and el olam ("God eternal"; Gen. 21:33). These el names sometimes
emerge from a specific historical situation that illuminates their
significance.
Mowinckel proposed the theory that the tetragrammaton should be
understood as consisting of the ejaculatory element and the third
person pronoun hu,' meaning "O He!"
Another approach to the problem is to understand the tetragrammaton as
a form of paronomasia. This view takes account of the broad
representation of the name ya in extrabiblical cultures of the second
millennium B.C. The name Yahweh is thus understood as a quadriliteral
form, and the relationship of the name of haya ("to be") in Exod.
3:14-15 is not intended to be one of etymology but paronomasia.
The most common view is that the name is a form of a triliteral verb,
hwy. It is generally regarded as a 3 p. Qal stem imperfect or a 3 p.
imperfect verb in a causative stem. Another suggestion is that it is a
causative participle with a y preformative that should be translated
"Sustainer, Maintainer, Establisher."
With regard to the view that the tetragrammaton is an elongated form
of an ejaculatory cry, it may be pointed out that Semitic proper names
tend to shorten; they are not normally prolonged. The theory that the
name is paronomastic is attractive, but when appeal is made to the
occurrences of forms of ya or yw in ancient cultures, several problems
arise. It is difficult to explain how the original form could have
lengthened into the familiar quadriliteral structure. Mowinckel's
suggestion is attractive, but speculative. It is also difficult to
understand how the name Yahweh could have such strong connotations of
uniqueness in the OT if it is a form of a divine name that found
representation in various cultures in the second millennium B.C.
The derivation of the tetragrammaton from a verbal root is also beset
with certain difficulties. The root hwy on which the tetragrammaton
would be based in this view is unattested in West Semitic languages
before the time of Moses, and the form of the name is not consonant
with the rules that govern the formation of lamed he verbs as we know
them.
It is evident that the problem is a difficult one. It is best to
conclude that the use of etymology to determine the theological content
of the name Yahweh is tenuous. If one is to understand the theological
significance of the divine name, it can be only be determining the
theological content with which the name was invested in Hebrew
religion.
The compounding of yah with Yahweh in Isa. 12:2 (yah yhwh) indicates a
separate function for the form yah, but at the same time an
identification of the form with Yahweh.
The name El Elyon occurs only in Gen. 14: 18-22 and Ps. 78:35,
although God is known by the shorter title Elyon in a significant
number of passages.
There is a superlative connotation in the word 'elyon. In each case in
which the adjective occurs it denotes that which is highest or
uppermost. In Deut. 26:19 and 28:1 the superlative idea is apparent in
the fact that Israel is to be exalted above the nations. The use of the
word in I Kings 9:8 and II Chr. 7:21 may not seem to reflect a
superlative idea, but there is, as C. F. Keil suggests, an allusion to
Deut. 26:19 and 28:1, where the superlative idea exists. The
superlative is also evident in the use of the word in Ps. 97:9, where
it connotes Yahweh's supremacy over the other gods.
The name Shaddai frequently appears apart from El as a divine title.
Critical to the understanding of the meaning of the word is the suffix
ay. It is commonly suggested that the ending is the first person
possessive suffix on a plural form of 'adon ("my lord"). This is
plausible for the form adonay, but the heightened form adonay, which
also appears in the Massoretic text, is more difficult to explain,
unless it represents an effort on the part of the Massoretes "to mark
the word as sacred by a small external sign."
Attention has been drawn to the Ugaritic ending -ai, which is used in
that language "as a reinforcement of a basic word," However, it is
doubtful that this explanation should be applied in all cases. The
plural construction of the name is evident when the word occurs in the
construct as it does in the appellation "Lord of lords" ('adone ha
adonim) in Deut. 10:17. And the translation "my Lord" seems to be
required in such vocative addresses as "my Lord Yahweh, what will you
give me?" (Gen. 15:2; see also Exod. 4:10).
It appears, then, that it is best to understand the word as a plural
of majesty with a first person suffixual ending that was altered by the
Massoretes to mark the sacred character of the name.
Ancient of Days is an appellation applied to God in Dan. 7. It occurs
with other depictions of great age (vs. 9) to create the impression of
noble venerability.
Abba is an alternate Aramaic term for "father." It is the word that
Jesus used to address God in Mark 14:36. Paul pairs the word with the
Greek word for "father" in Rom. 8:15 and Gal. 4:6.
The 'alep that terminates the form 'abba' functions as both a
demonstrative and a vocative particle in Aramaic. In the time of Jesus
the word connoted both the emphatic concept, "the father," and the more
intimate "my father, our father."
While the word was the common form of address for children, there is
much evidence that in the time of Jesus the practice was not limited
only to children. The childish character of the word ("daddy") thus
receded, and 'abba' acquired the warm, familiar ring which we may feel
in such an expression as "dear father."
The clause 'ehyeh'aser 'ehyeh has been translated in several ways, "I
am that I am" (AV), "I am who I am" (RSV, NIV), and "I will be what I
will be" (RSV margin). Recently the translation "I am (the) One who is"
has been suggested. The latter translation has much in its favor
grammatically and fits the context well.
The main concern of the context is to demonstrate that a continuity
exists in the divine activity from the time of the patriarchs to the
events recorded in Exod. 3. The Lord is referred to as the God of the
fathers (vss. 13, 15, 16). The God who made the gracious promises
regarding Abraham's offspring is the God who is and who continues to
be. The affirmation of vs. 17 is but a reaffirmation of the promise
made to Abraham. The name Yahweh may thus affirm the continuing
activity of God on behalf of his people in fealty to his promise.
Jesus' application of the words "I am" to himself in John 8:58 not
only denoted his preexistence but associated him with Yahweh.
Jesus was the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham, the
fulfillment of which Abraham anticipated (John 8:56).
In the Pentateuch, Yahweh denotes that aspect of God's character that
is personal rather than transcendent. It occurs in contexts in which
the covenantal and redemptive aspects of God predominate. Cassuto says,
"The name YHWH is employed when God is presented to us in His personal
character and in direct relationship to people or nature; and 'Elohim,
when the Deity is alluded to as a Transcendental Being who exists
completely outside and above the physical universe" (The Documentary
Hypothesis, p. 31). This precise distinction does not always obtain
outside the Pentateuch, but Yahweh never loses its distinct function as
the designation of the God of Israel.
The name Yahweh Sabaoth appears for the first time in Israel's history
in connection with the cult center at Shiloh (1 Sam. 1:3). It is there
that the tent of meeting was set up when the land of Canaan had been
subdued by the Israelites (Josh. 18:1). The name apparently had its
origin in the period of the conquest or the postconquest period. It
does not occur in the Pentateuch.
It is possible that the name was attributed to Yahweh as a result of
the dramatic appearance to Joshua of an angelic being called the
"commander of the host of Yahweh" at the commencement of the conquest
(Josh. 5:13-15). The name would thus depict the vast power at Yahweh's
disposal in the angelic hosts.
The association of this name with the ark of the covenant in I Sam.
4:4 is significant in that Yahweh is enthroned above the angelic
figures known as the cherubim (II Sam. 6:2). Because the name was
associated with the ark of the covenant, David addressed the people in
that name when the ark was recovered from the Philistines (II Sam.
6:18). The name is often associated with the military activities of
Israel (I Sam. 15:2-3; II Sam. 5:10).
The almighty power of Yahweh displayed in this name is manifested in
the sphere of history (Pss. 46:6-7; 59:5). His power may be displayed
in the life of the individual (Ps. 69:6) as well as the nation (Ps.
80:7). Sometimes he is simply referred to as "the Almighty."
The military connotation of the name was not lost, even in the eighth
century, for Isaiah appeals to that name to depict the hosts of heaven
that accompany Yahweh in his intervention in history (Isa. 13:4).
Throughout Genesis and the early chapters of Exodus elohim is used
most often as a proper name. After Exod. 3 the name begins to occur
with increasing frequency as an appellative, that is, "the God of," or
"your God." This function is by far the most frequent mode of reference
to God in the book of Deuteronomy. When used in this fashion the name
denotes God as the supreme deity of a person or people. Thus, in the
frequent expression, "Yahweh your God," Yahweh functions as a proper
name, while "God" functions as the denominative of deity.
The appellative elohim connotes all that God is. As God he is
sovereign, and that sovereignty extends beyond Israel into the arena of
the nations (Deut. 2:30, 33; 3:22; Isa. 52:10). As God to his people he
is loving and merciful (Deut. 1:31; 2:7; 23:5; Isa. 41:10, 13, 17;
49:5; Jer. 3:23). He establishes standards of obedience (Deut. 4:2;
Jer. 11:3) and sovereignly punishes disobedience (Deut. 23:21). As God,
there is no one like him (Isa. 44:7; 45:5-21).
The same connotations obtain in the use of the shorter form el. He is
the God who sees (el ro i; Gen. 16:13) and he is el the God of Israel
(Gen. 33:20).
As El Elyon, God is described in his exaltation over all things. There
are two definitive passages for this name. In Ps. 83:18 Yahweh is
described as "Most High over the earth," and Isa. 14:14 states, "I will
ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the
Most High."
However, in the majority of cases the attributes of this name are
indistinguishable from other usages of El or Elohim. He fixed the
boundaries of the nations (Deut. 32:8). He effects changes in the
creation (Ps. 18:13). El Shaddai occurs most frequently in the Book of
Job, where it functions as a general name for the deity. As El Shaddai,
God disciplines (Job 5:17); he is to be feared (Job 6:14); he is just
(Job 8:3); he hears prayer (Job 8:5); and he creates (Job 33:4).
This name occurs six times in the patriarchal narratives. In most of
those instances it is associated with the promise given by God to the
patriarchs. Yet the name is often paired with Yahweh in the poetic
material, and thus shares the personal warmth of that name. He is known
for his steadfast love (Ps. 21:7) and his protection (Ps. 91:9-10).
The root of Adonai means "lord" and, in its secular usage, always
refers to a superior in the OT. The word retains the sense of "lord"
when applied to God. The present pointing of the word in the Massoretic
text is late; early manuscripts were written without vowel pointing.
In Ps. 110:1 the word is pointed in the singular, as it usually is
when it applies to humans rather than God. Yet Jesus used this verse to
argue for his deity. The pointing is Massoretic, and no distinction
would be made in the consonantal texts. Since the word denotes a
superior, the word must refer to one who is superior to David and who
bears the messianic roles of king and priest (vs. 4).
The name Abba connotes the fatherhood of God. This is affirmed by the
accompanying translation ho pater ("father") which occurs in each usage
of the name in the NT (Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).
The use of this name as Jesus' mode of address to God in Mark 14:36 is
a unique expression of Jesus' relationship to the Father. Jeremias
says, "He spoke to God like a child to its father, simply, inwardly,
confidently. Jesus' use of abba in addressing God reveals the heart of
his relationship with God" (The Prayers of Jesus, p. 62).
The same relationship is sustained by the believer with God. It is
only because of the believer's relationship with God, established by
the Holy Spirit, that he can address God with this name that depicts a
relationship of warmth and filial love.
In a sense the relationship designated by this name is the fulfillment
of the ancient promise given to Abraham's offspring that the Lord will
be their God, and they his people (Exod. 6:7; Lev. 26:12; Jer. 24:7;
30:22).
T E McComiskey
Bibliography
Jesus Christ
Saves Ministries
JCSM is a 501(c)(3), non-profit organization. Copyright ©
1997-2012.
Sponsored AdvertisementsGod is Just or Righteous
God's justice or righteousness is revealed
in his moral law expressing his moral nature and in his judgment,
granting to all, in matters of merit, exactly what they deserve. His
judgment is not arbitrary or capricious, but principled and without
respect of persons. OT writers frequently protest the injustice
experienced by the poor, widows, orphans, strangers, and the godly.
God, in contrast, has pity on the poor and needy (Ps. 72:12-14). He
answers, delivers, revives, acquits, and grants them the justice that
is their due. In righteousness God delivers the needy from injustice
and persecution. Eventually God will create a new heaven and a new
earth in which righteousness will dwell (Isa. 65:17).Emotionally, God Detests Evil, Is Long-suffering, Compassionate
A.H. Strong says God is devoid of passion and caprice. Indeed God is devoid
of caprice, injustice, or emotions out of control. We have earlier
sought to negate any passions unworthy of God. Strong rightly adds,
there is in God no selfish anger. However, God is personal and ethical,
and both senses call for healthy emotions or passions. One who delights
in justice, righteousness, and holiness for the well-being of his
creatures can only be repulsed by the injustice, unrighteousness, and
corruption that destroys their bodies, minds, and spirits. Hence the
Bible frequently speaks of God's righteous indignation at evil.
Righteous indignation is anger aroused, not by being overcome by
emotions selfishly but by injustice and all the works of fallen
"flesh." God detests evil.God is Free
From all eternity God is not conditioned by anything
other than himself contrary to his purposes. Good things, as we have
seen, are purposed with divine pleasure and enduement. Evil things are
permitted with divine displeasure. But God is self-determined, either
way. Self-determination is that concept of freedom which emphasizes
that personal thought, feeling, and volition are not determined by
external factors but by one's self.God is authentic, authentically himself
The God who in Christ so
unalterably opposed hyprocrisy is himself no hypocrite. We have
emphasized his intellectual integrity or faithfulness above. Here we
emphasize his integrity ethically, emotionally, and existentially. God
is self-conscious, knows who he is and what his purposes are (1 Cor.
2:11). He has a keen sense of identity, meaning, and purpose.Relationally, God Is Transcendent in Being, Immanent Universally in
Providential Activity, and Immanent with His People in Redemptive
Activity
As transcendent, God is uniquely other than everything in
creation. God's distinctness from the being of the world has been
implied in previous discussions of God's attributes metaphysically,
intellectually, ethically, emotionally, and existentially. God is
"hidden" relationally because so great in all these other ways. God's
being is eternal, the world's temporal. God's knowledge is total, human
knowledge incomplete. God's character is holy, humanity's character
fallen and sinful. God's desires are consistently against evil yet
long-suffering and compassionate; human desires fluctuate
inconsistently and often intermingle evil with the good. God's energy
is untiring and inexhaustible; the world's energy is subject to
depletion through entropy. Hence God is over and above persons in the
world in all these respects.Summary
In summary, God is a living, personal Spirit worthy of
whole-soul adoration and trust (because of his many perfect
attributes), separate from the world, and yet continously active in the
world.
H. Bavinck, The Doctrine of God; D. Bloesch, Essentials
of Evangelical Theology; J. M. Boice, The Sovereign God; E. Brunner,
The Christian Doctrine of God; J. O. Buswell, Jr., A Systematic
Theology of the Christian Religion; L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology;
S. Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God; C. F. H. Henry, God,
Revelation and Authority, 4 vols.; J. Lawson, Comprehensive Handbook of
Christian Doctrine; G. R. Lewis, "Categories in Collision?" in
Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, ed. K. Kantzer and S. Gundry; G.
R. Lewis, Decide for Yourself: A Theological Workbook and Testing
Christianity's Truth Claims; J. I. Packer, Knowing God; W. W. Stevens,
Doctrines of the Christian Religion; A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology;
H. Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith, 2 vols.; O. C. Thomas,
Introduction to Theology; A. W. Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy; H. O.
Wiley, Christian Theology, I.
Doctrine of God
Advanced Information - IIIThe Biblical Concept of God
Existence
Questions concerning the
reality of God are not discussed in the Scriptures; his existence is
everywhere assumed. The opening passage which reveals God as Creator
and Sovereign of heaven and earth sets the pattern for the remainder of
the Bible in which God is viewed as foundational for a view of life and
the world. The biblical question is therefore not does God exist, but
who is God?Knowledge of God
According to the Scriptures, God is known only
through his self-revelation. Apart from his initiative in disclosing
himself God could not be known by man. Human attempts to reason to God
by various means, including the so-called proofs of God, while they can
provide evidence for the need fo a god, do not yet attain to the
knowledge of the true God (cf. I Cor. 1:21 a). Limited to the realm of
creation, whether external nature or human subjective experience, man
is incapable of reasoning to a valid knowledge of the transcendent
Creator. God alone knows himself and discloses himself to whom he wills
by his spirit (I Cor. 2:10-11). As the subject of his revelation God at
the same time makes himself the object of human knowledge so that man
can know him truly.Definition of God
From the biblical viewpoint it is generally agreed
that it is impossible to give a strict definition of the idea of God.
Defining, which means limiting, involves the inclusion of the object
within a certain class or known universal and the indication of its
distinguishing features from other objects in that same class. Since
the biblical God is unique and incomparable (Isa. 40:25), there is no
universal abstract category of the divine. Studies in comparative
religions reveal that "god" is, in fact, conceived in the most
different ways. Attempts to provide a general definition that
encompasses all concepts of the divine, such as Anselm's "that than
which nothing greater is conceivable," or "the supreme Being," do not
convey much of the specific characteristics of the God of Scripture.
Instead of a general definition of God, therefore, the Bible presents
descriptions of God as he has revealed himself. These are conveyed
through express statements as well as through the many names by which
God identifies himself. Fundamental to the nature of God, according to
the biblical description, are the truths that he is personal,
spiritual, and holy.God Is Personal
Over against any abstract neutral metaphysical
concept, the God of Scripture is first and foremost a personal being.
He reveals himself by names, especially the great personal name Yahweh
(cf. Exod. 3:13-15; 6:3; Isa. 42:8). He knows and wills
self-consciously in accord with our concept of personality (I Cor.
2:10-11; Eph. 1:11). The centrality of God's personality is seen in the
fact that while he is the Creator and Preserver of all nature, he is
encountered in Scripture not primarily as the God of nature, as in
pagan religions, but rather as the God of history, controlling and
directing the affairs of man. The central place of the covenant by
which he links himself in a personal relationship to men is further
indication of the scriptural emphasis on the personal nature of God.
Nowhere is the personhood of God more evident than in his biblical
description as Father. Jesus constantly spoke of God as "my Father,"
"your Father," and "the heavenly Father." Beyond the unique Trinitarian
relationship of the divine Son with the Father, which certainly
involves personal traits, the fatherhood of God speaks of him as the
source and sustainer of his creatures who personally cares for them
(Matt. 5:45; 6: 26-32) and the one to whom man can turn in believing
trust.God Is Spiritual
The Scriptures preclude the reduction of the
personhood of God to a human level by the description of God as spirit
(John 4:24). As the word "spirit" has the basic idea of power and
activity, the spiritual nature of God refers to the infinite
superiority of his nature over all created life. The weakness of the
forces of this world, including men and beasts which are but flesh, are
contrasted to God who is spirit (cf. Isa. 31:3; 40:6-7).God Is Holy
One of the most fundamental features of God's being is
expressed by the word "holy." He is the incomparable God, "the Holy
One" (Isa. 40:25, cf. Hab. 3:3). The word "holy," which in both Hebrew
and Greek has the root meaning of separateness, is used predominantly
in Scripture for a separateness from sin. But this is only a secondary
meaning derived from the primary application to God's separateness from
all creation, i.e., his transcendence. "He is exalted above all the
peoples." Therefore, "holy is he" (Ps. 99:2-3). He is "the high and
exalted One... whose name is Holy," and he lives "on a high and holy
place" (Isa. 57:15). In his holiness God is the transcendent Deity.The Trinity
Crucial to the biblical doctrine of God is his
Trinitarian nature. Although the term "trinity" is not a biblical word
as such, Christian theology has used it to designate the threefold
manifestation of the one God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The
formulated doctrine of the Trinity asserts the truth that God is one in
being or essence who exists eternally in three distinct coequal
"persons." While the term "person" in relation to the Trinity does not
signify the limited individuality of human persons, it does affirm the
I-thou of personal relationship, particularly of love, within the
triune Godhead.The Doctrine in History
The history of Christian thought reveals
persistent problems concerning the nature of God and his relation to
the world. These involve the related issues of transcendence/immanence,
personal/nonpersonal perspectives, and the knowability of God. The
earliest Christian theologians, who attempted to interpret the
Christian faith in terms of Greek philosophical categories, tended
toward an emphasis on the abstract transcendence of God. He was the
timeless, changeless Absolute who was the final and adequate cause of
the universe. Little could be predicted of him, and his attributes were
defined primarily in the negative. He was the uncaused (possessing
aseity), absolutely simple, infinite, immutable, omnipotent Being,
unlimited by time (eternal) and space (omnipresent).
K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, II/1 and 2; H. Bavinck, The
Doctrine of God; E. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God; J. S.
Candlish, The Christian Doctrine of God; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the
OT,I; C. F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, II; C. Hodge,
Systematic Theology, I; Kleinknecht, Quell, Stauffer, Kuhn, TDNT, III,
65-123; G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought; H. Thielicke, The
Evangelical Faith, II; O. Weber, Foundations of Dogmatics, I.
Names of God
The Divine Names as Vehicles of Revelation
Advanced Information - IVThe Meaning of the Divine Names
Yahweh, Jehovah (LORD)
Efforts to
determine the meaning of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) through historical
investigation have been rendered difficult by the paucity of
informative data relative to the various forms of the name ya in
historical sources outside the OT. For this reason the investigation
has generally followed philological lines. G. R. Driver suggested that
the form ya was originally an ejaculatory cry, "shouted in moments of
excitement or ecstasy," that was "prologued to ya(h)wa(h), ya(h)wa(h)y,
or the like." He suggested further that the name Yahweh arose from the
consonance of an extended form of ya with the "imperfect tense of a
defective verb." Thus, he saw the origin of the name in a popular
etymology and asserted that its original form was forgotten (ZAW
46:24).Jah, Yah
This shorter form of Yahweh occurs twice in Exodus (15:2 and
17:15). The former passage is echoed in Isa. 12:2 and Ps. 118:14. It
also occurs numerous times in the formula haleluya ("praise yah"). Its
use in early and late poetic passages and its formulaic function in the
Hallel psalms suggest that this form of Yahweh is a poetic stylistic
device.Yahweh Seba'ot ("Lord of Hosts")
The translation "He creates the
heavenly hosts" has been suggested for this appellative. It is based on
the assumption that Yahweh functions as a verbal form in a causative
stem. This conclusion is rendered difficult by the fact that the
formula occurs in the expanded form yhwh elohe sebaot ("Yahweh God of
hosts"), which attributes the function of a proper name to Yahweh. The
word seba'ot means "armies" or "hosts." It is best to understand Yahweh
as a proper name in association with the word "armies."Elohim
The root of Elohim is El (el). The form elohim is a plural
form commonly understood as a plural of majesty. While the word occurs
in Canaanite ('l) and Akkadian (ilu[m]), its etymology is uncertain. In
the OT the word is always construed in the singular when it denotes the
true God. In the Pentateuch the name elohim connotes a general concept
of God; that is, it portrays God as the transcendent being, the creator
of the universe. It does not connote the more personal and palpable
concepts inherent in the name Yahweh. It can also be used to apply to
false gods as well as to judges and kings.El
El has the same general range of meaning as Elohim. It is
apparently the root on which the plural form has been constructed. It
differs in usage from Elohim only in its use in theophoric names and to
serve to contrast the human and the divine. Sometimes it is combined
with yah to become Elyah.El Elyon ("God Most High")
The word 'elyon, an adjective meaning
"high," is derived from the root 'lh ("to go up" or "ascend"). It is
used to describe the height of objects (II Kings 15:35; 18:17; Ezek.
41:7) as well as the prominence of persons (Ps. 89:27) and the
prominence of Israel as a nation (Deut. 26:19; 28:1). When used of God
it connotes the concept of "highest."El Shaddai
The etymology of sadday is obscure. It has been connected
with the Akkadian sadu ("mountain") by some. Others have suggested a
connection with the word "breast," and still others have seen a
connection with the verb sadad ("to devastate"). The theological
significance of the name, if it can be understood fully, must be
derived from a study of the various contexts in which the name occurs.El-Eloe-Yisrael
This appellation occurs only in Gen. 33:20 as the
name of the altar that marked the place of Jacob's encounter with God.
It denotes the unique significance of El as the God of Jacob.Adonai
The root 'dn occurs in Ugaritic with the meanings "lord and
father." If the word originally connoted "father," it is not difficult
to understand how the connotation "lord" developed from that. The basic
meaning of the word in the OT is "lord."Other Divine Names
The name Baali occurs only once, in Hos. 2:16 (AV;
"My Baal," RSV) in a play on words. The word means "my husband," as
does isi, the word with which it is paired.The Theological Significance of the Divine Names
Yahweh
The parallel
structure in Exod. 3:14-15 supports the association of the name Yahweh
with the concept of being or existence. It says, "I AM has sent me to
you" (vs. 14; "The LORD has sent me to you" (vs. 15). The name "I AM"
is based on the clause "I AM WHO I AM" found in 3:14 which, on the
basis of the etymology implied here, suggests that Yahweh is the 3.p.
form of the verb 'ehyeh (I am).Elohim
This is the more general name for God. In the Pentateuch, when
used as a proper name, it most commonly denotes the more transcendental
aspects of God's character. When God is presented in relation to his
creation and to the peoples of the earth in the Pentateuch, the name
Elohim is the name most often used. It is for this reason that Elohim
occurs consistently in the creation account of Gen. 1:1-2:42 and in the
genealogies of Genesis. Where the context takes on a moral tone, as in
Gen. 2:4bff., the name Yahweh is used.
W.F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity; W.
Eichrodt, Theology of the OT,I, 178ff.; L. Koehler, OT Theology; J.
Schneider et al., NIDNTT, II, 66ff.; G. Oehler, Theology of the OT; M.
Reisel, The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H.; H.H. Rowley, The Faith of
Israel; H. Schultz, OT Theology, II, 116ff.; T. Vriezen, An Outline of
OT Theology; H. Kleinknecht et al., TDNT, III, 65ff.
Also, see:
Arguments for the Existence of God
god
JCSM was founded in 1997 and exists to help the community and bring people into a life-changing and productive
relationship with
Jesus Christ. JCSM offers over 200,000 free web pages, including
its
weekly inspirational emails
that were sent continuously for over a decade.
P.O. Box 9297
San Diego, CA 92169
1-888-887-0417 or
Email