Chapter II:

CHAPTER 2: WHICH EXPLAINS THE HOMONYMS OF THE WORD

First, the homonyms of the word Elohim.

§ 12. In the sacred language, God is called most especially by three names: Jehovah, Elohim, and Adonai. The name “Jehovah,” as also Adonai with a qamets, is proper for God alone, as we shall show later.

Elohim, which is a plural, from the singular Eloah, is taken properly [proprie] or improperly [improprie]. Properly, it is attributed to the one true God, the Creator of all things, and this either essentially or personally. It is taken essentially whenever it is understood to refer to all three persons of the Godhead, as in Gen. 1:1: “In the beginning (God) created …” The Targum uses so that the one true God may be understood, just as Moses explains himself: “On the day when Jehovah Elohim made the earth and the heavens …” (Gen. 2:4). Moses immediately explains who that true God is, Jehovah Elohim, when, in the following chapter, he distinctly makes mention of one speaking and of the Word and of the Spirit, that is, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

People say that it is taken personally either for two persons, as in Gen. 1:2 where “the Spirit of Elohim,” that is, the Spirit of the Father and the Son, “was moving over the waters.” (Although according to the opinion of others, nothing keeps one from taking this by apposition in this way: the Spirit who is Elohim, true God along with the Father and the Son, was moving. In this way the statement would belong to the part following.) Or it is taken for one person, as in Ps. 45:[7]: “Therefore Elohim Elohecha [“God, Your God”] anointed You,” so the meaning is, “God the Father has anointed You the Messiah, You who are the true God, with the oil of gladness,” that is, with the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, because the word Elohim is plural not only with regard to its ending but also with regard to its meaning (and also because somehow the argument that is drawn from this word in favor of the mystery of the Trinity appears to totter if it is proved that it is taken elsewhere singularly for only one person), we leave it as a matter for devout minds to consider whether or not it can be said that the name Elohim here is not taken personally but essentially for all three persons of the Deity in this sense: “Elohim, that is, the true God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who is also ‘your God’ (John 20:17), has anointed You as the Messiah.” I say, “He has anointed You according to the human nature with the oil of gladness,” because Christ as God has anointed Himself as man. The Damascene, Orth. fid., bk. 3, c. 3: “In His own person He (Christ) anointed Himself—as God, anointing His body with His own divinity, and as man, being anointed. For He is Himself both God and man, and the anointing is the divinity of His humanity.” This interpretation is confirmed from the fact that there is a royal pazer accent in the word . From this it can be concluded that a distinction must be made there.

§ 13. The name Elohim is taken improperly when it is attributed to either creatures or idols. It is attributed to creatures analogically, to idols imitatively; to creatures truly but secondarily, to idols only apparently.

[It is attributed] to “creatures,” for instance, incorporeal creatures such as spirits: both good (as in Ps. 86:8: “There is none like You among the gods,” or as in the Targum: among the angels on high”) and evil (as in 1 Sam. 28:13: “I see Elohim ascending,” or as in the Targum: , “the Angel of the Lord”). Angels are called both good and evil Elohim both by reason of their bravery and strength and by reason of their ministry because God employs their efforts in exercising His judgments and completing His works. Or [it is attributed to] corporeal [creatures] such as humans set in magistracies and high office. Exod. 22:[28]: “You shall not despise the gods (elohim) …” The Targum reads , “judges.” Rulers are called Elohim because they are God’s substitutes on earth. 2 Chron. 19:6: “They exercise the judgment not of man but of God.” John 10:35: “He called them ‘gods’ to whom the Word of God came,” that is, they have been called and set up to administer a divine responsibility on earth.

The name Elohim is given to idols in Exod. 22:20: “Whoever sacrifices to strange gods,” that is, to idols, “will be killed.” The Targum reads , “to idols” or “to the pains of the heathen” in a metonymic sense. Idols are called Elohim because idolaters create them for divine worship and elevate them into the place of the true God, though they actually are not Elohim but (Lev. 10:4; Isa. 9:10, from , “nothing, nothingness,” a nonexistent, nonuseful thing) because idols are nothing and provide no benefit. 1 Cor. 8:4: “We know that an idol is nothing in the world,” that is, they are , “not gods” (2 Chron. 13:9). In fact, in contempt Scripture calls idols , “dung,” and stinking gods in 1 Kings 15:12 and 2 Kings 17:12. This can also be a diminutive from , “God,” that is, they are little gods (Götterchen in German, so-called in contempt). It can also be , “not God,” for idols are not truly gods, or it can be , “god of night, the nocturnal god, the god of darkness,” as are the demons who are made into idols. Or it can come from , “he was cursed,” because idols are things we should curse.

Second, the homonyms of the word

§ 14. The same thing should be understood about the Greek word as was said about the Hebrew Elohim, namely, that it is taken either properly, as it is attributed to the one true God—and that either essentially to all three persons (John 4:24) or personally concerning the Father (John 3:16), the Son (John 1:1), the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:4)—or improperly, in which manner it is given either to creatures or to idols.

Nevertheless here we must note carefully that the name “God” is being attributed to neither creatures nor idols absolutely and simply but with a certain limitation and restriction which reveals that this is done not literally but figuratively, not directly but merely in a certain respect expressed in the same place. Thus the devil is not called simply “a god” but “the god of this world” because the world is obedient to him, and in this respect it worships him instead of God (2 Cor. 4:4). (Here, however, Irenaeus prefers to claim a transposition in that statement. Adv. haeres., bk. 3, c. 17, p. 176: “God blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world.”) The belly is called a god, but of the Epicureans, who do all things for the sake of their belly (Phil. 3:19). Moses is called a god, but of Pharaoh and Aaron, namely, because, fortified as he was by God’s authority, he was carrying out his duty and in this respect had been established as God over Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1; 4:16).

The devout ancients confirm this observation. Irenaeus, bk. 3, c. 5, p. 174: “Not the Lord nor the Holy Spirit nor the apostles at any time would have definitely and absolutely called him ‘God’ who was not God unless he were the true God.” C. 6, p. 176: “Moses, being a man of God, was put before Pharaoh as God, but he is not truly named ‘the Lord’ nor do the prophets call him ‘God.’ Rather, faithful Moses is called by the Spirit ‘the servant and slave of God,’ which he indeed was.” Ibid.: “When Scripture calls ‘gods’ those who are not gods, it does not totally reveal them as gods but with some additional signification which shows that they are not gods.” Justin (or whoever else is the author), QQ. et. resp. ad orth., q. 142, p. 378: “Both angels and men, because of order and familiarity, because of the responsibility entrusted to them, were allowed to have both the dignity and title of ‘God,’ but when that responsibility ceased, they ceased to be called ‘gods,’ etc. He called leaders ‘gods’ because He said, ‘I have given you My position, dignity, and title.’ ” Hilary, De Trinit., bk. 7: “God is not said to have made Moses a god but to have appointed him as God. He is not called a god in a precise and absolute sense but with this addition: ‘… of Pharaoh.’ Moses was not given a nature by which to be God but the authority by which as God to frighten Pharaoh, to punish him and force him, though unwilling, to release the Hebrews.” Ambrose, De fide, bk. 5, c. 5: “According to Scripture, either ‘God’ is true (such as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) or is so-called (such as angels and judges) or is false (such as demons and idols).” Gregory, homily 8 on Ezekiel: “In Holy Scripture, God is sometimes named essentially, sometimes nominally. You see, though we may share with God in many names and operations, nevertheless we never share with Him in essence.”

In fact, as Scripture carefully discerns the true God, properly speaking, from improperly and falsely named gods, it calls Him “God by nature” (Gal. 4:8) but calls them “so-called gods” (1 Cor. 8:5). We use this observation against the Photinians, who deny that the true divinity of Christ can be demonstrated from the name “God,” which has been attributed to Him. Basil includes all of these points briefly when, in Epistle 141 (which is addressed to the people of Caesarea), he explains that the name “God” is used in three ways. For it is said: (1) , according to substance, with regard to the highest and unchangeable good, which is God Himself. (2) , according to grace, with regard to those upon whom a divine responsibility rests. (3) , according to a lie, either concerning one to whom a man voluntarily subjects himself and whom he serves, or one whom a person regards or venerates as the greatest good, or one whom people venerate as God because of superstition.

Questions.

§ 15. (I) The question arises: Must we establish between the word with the article and the same word without the article the sort of difference where the former is proper to the true God only but the latter is not? (1) The Arians formerly defended the affirmative, as is known from Chrysostom’s homily 3 on John.

(2) Epiphanius also goes off in the same direction: “If we say , that is, ‘God’ without the article, we have named any god of the heathen but not the true God. If we say it is clear from the article that we mean the true God, who exists and is known” (Contra Samar., bk. 1, vol. 1, col. 22).

(3) The Photinians strongly urge this very thing to overthrow the argument for asserting the divinity of the Son from the name , which is attributed to Him. Socinus, Tr. de Deo, Christo et S. s., p. 55: “That passage, John 1:1, can indicate quite clearly that Jesus Christ is not equally true God, as is His Father, because there His Father is called , that is, ‘the one God,’ while He is simply called , that is, simply ‘a god.’ ” Socinus again, Contra Bellarm. et Wiekum, p. 335: “Our adversaries at times contend that the Son is sometimes called ‘God’ with the article, though they are greatly deceived.” p. 383: “I admit that somewhere in the New Testament Christ is called ‘God’ absolutely. Nevertheless the name ‘God’ holds the place of the predicate, and the article that retains its full force is absent.” Goslavius, part 1, c. 5, p. 57: “The Father is called ‘God’ with the article; Christ is called ‘God’ without the article. In all of Scripture, however, we do not find that Christ is called ‘God’ with the article.” Eniedinus, introduction to the Gospel of John, p. 160: “Hence is set down without the article, and this indicates that here this word does not mean the great and only God whom the preceding and following clauses indicate.” Schmalz, explanation of John 1, translates into German as follows: Die Rede war ein Gott (“The discourse was a God”), namely, someone who was created, because does not have an article.

We, on the other hand, draw the following conclusion. If the name , attributed to the true God, at times lacks the article and in turn at times is attributed to the “so-called gods” when it has the article added, the consequence is that this hypothesis of the Photinians is false. Now, the first statements are true; thus the latter is also. The logical sequence of the major premise is quite obvious because the idea that the name always has the article added when used concerning the true God and that the name sometimes lacks the article when used concerning the true God are diametrically opposed, as well as the idea that the name with the article at times is attributed to the “so-called gods.”

The first part of the minor premise can be proved with various examples that are obvious throughout the New Testament: Matt. 4:4; 5:9; 6:24; 12:28; etc. (See the Concordantiae biblicae of Robertus Stephanus.) Chrysostom, homily 3 on John, urges that in the first chapter of John the name of God as referring to the Father is uttered twice without the article: v. 6 (“There was a man sent from God”) and v. 18 (“No one has ever seen God”).

Furthermore, the latter part of the minor premise also cannot be denied: Acts 7:43: “You took up the tent of Moloch and the star [“of your god”] Rephan.” Acts 14:11: “ [“The gods”] have come down to us in the likeness of men.” 2 Cor. 4:4: “ [“The god of this world”] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.” Gal. 4:8: “Ignorantly you used to serve [“those who by nature are not gods”].” Phil. 3:19: “Whose [“god”] is their belly.” We also have similar things in the Septuagint translation: Ps. 95:[3]: “He is terrible [“above all gods”].”

Therefore though the name without the article is attributed to Christ in John 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:16, from this fact one cannot void the argument that we deduce in favor of establishing the divinity of Christ from the name , which is attributed to Him: (1) Because in many other passages He is called (with the article), such as in Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:16; Acts 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; etc. (2) Because in John 1:1 the article is omitted not to weaken the deity of the Son but to designate the predicate (to show that the name in that phrase functions as the predicate). (3) Because in 1 Tim. 3:16 the name is put in the place of the subject. But now the Photinians have the rule that when the name “God” is placed absolutely in the subject of a sentence, it then indicates the true God. Socinus, Resp. ad Bellarm., c. 6, class. 4, arg. 1, p. 370: “In the New Testament, when the word ‘God’ holds the place of the subject absolutely, whether it occurs with or without the article, or when it functions as a predicate, if it have the article simply, either without such an addition or by a construction that breaks the force of the article, it is never attributed except to [God] alone, not even to Christ.” (4) Because in that same first chapter, John used the name “God” four times to refer to Him who beyond controversy is that true God (vv. 12, 13, 18); nevertheless he did not put the article ahead of these references. Therefore the omission of the article does not weaken the true Deity.

Thus we reject that invented rule of the Photinians and oppose another to it: Whoever is called “God” absolutely and simply, without any limitation and restriction, in such a way that such praises and epithets are added to the noun “God” that befit only the true and eternal God, He is the true and eternal God. In this manner, we shall demonstrate in its own place that Christ is called “God.”

§ 16. (II) The question arises: From the article added to the noun , when it is used properly in reference to the true God, can we understand that it must be taken in a personal sense []? Didymus of Alexandria forms this rule: “The epithet or the article added to the word indicates that that word must be taken to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit. The omission thereof advises us to take it as a reference to his gifts” (De Spirit. sanct., bk. 1). In the same way also, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples thinks that from the omission or addition of the article one can understand when the noun is taken personally or essentially [].

Indeed, in some examples that observation is possible. Thus John 1:1: “The Word was with God [],” that is, with the Father, as the noun “God” is taken in a personal sense. In John 20:28, Thomas says to Christ: “My God [].” Nevertheless as the rule of Didymus is not one of permanent and immovable truth (as we have shown in our treatise On the Holy Spirit [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 6], § 17), so also at times that observation of d’Étaples is out of place, as in John 4:24: “God is a spirit [].” Here, nevertheless, the word “God” is taken essentially.

§ 17. (III) The question arises: Is the noun “God,” used in the place of the predicate, nowhere taken properly as the true and eternal God? This, too, is a hypothesis of the Photinians, invented for this purpose: to weaken the force of our arguments when we affirm the divinity of the Son from the name “God.” This is evident from Socinus: “When the word ‘God,’ expressed simply, has the position of the subject, it means God the Father, which is nothing else but that the Father alone is the one true God” (Defens. animadv., c. 4, p. 130). In his book Contra Wiek., p. 383: “I admit that elsewhere in the New Testament Christ is called ‘God’ in an absolute sense, but with the word ‘God’ having the position of the predicate.”

But we set against them: (1) Their own confession. They refuse to understand the words of 1 John 5:20 (“This is the true God and eternal life”) as referring to Him who by nature is the eternal God. The Catech. Racov., p. 76: “Those words cannot be referred to Christ because the Greek adds .” Goslavius, Contra Kecker., part 1, c. 5, p. 62: “These words must be referred not to the Son, who is mentioned right next to them, but to the true God named in a place farther away.” Yet the noun “God” is used there in the place of the predicate. They are also compelled to acknowledge that the noun “God” used in the place of the predicate sometimes denotes the true and eternal God.

(2) The genuine, proper meaning of this word. The word “God” does not change its proper meaning and acquire another when it is used in the place of the predicate, but it keeps the same meaning in both places. If a term used in the predicate were to receive a meaning other than that which it had when it was used in the subject, the syllogistic inference in the first figure would be endangered.

(3) The usage in Scripture. Matt. 22:32: “I am the God of Abraham,” etc. Acts 7:32: “I am the God of your fathers.” 2 Cor. 6:16: “I shall be their God.” Heb. 11:16: “He is not ashamed to be called their God,” etc. Here we do not have what they are saying (that the word “God” is not being placed in the predicate absolutely). Instead, [it is found] with the addition “the God of Abraham,” “the God of their fathers,” “their God,” [and] those additions do not change the proper meaning of this word. Rather, they explain and describe it. They do not produce a new noun but determine it in the manner of an adjective and periphrasis. Furthermore, they get nowhere with their attempt to escape when they say that the word “God” used absolutely in the predicate is not taken as the true and eternal God but only a God limited by an addition. You see, Christ is not only called “God” absolutely, but also the word “God,” when it is attributed to Christ, is marked with the sort of praising descriptions that befit only the true and eternal God. Thus He is called “mighty God” (Isa. 9:6), “our great God” (Titus 2:13), “the true God” (1 John 5:20), “the God blessed over all things” (Rom. 9:5), “the God of Thomas” (John 20:28), so also the “God of Israel,” who is no one but the one true God, and He calls Himself “the God of Abraham” (Exod. 3:15).

§ 18. (IV) The question arises: Does God have a proper name? This is denied by Philo (De vit. Moysis), Justin (Paraenesis ad Graec.), and others. Galatino cites the statement of Rabbi HaKadosh from the Gale razeia: “God does not have a name, the knowledge of which we can have. In fact, His substance is His name and vice versa. As we can have no familiarity with His substance (because if we knew that, we would become like Him), so also we cannot have a knowledge of His name” (De arc. Cathol. verit., bk. 2, c. 10). On the other hand, others affirm that God certainly does have a proper name and that this name is “Jehovah.”

We think that the matter can be resolved with a distinction. That is called a proper name which either expresses the complete nature and essence of the thing named or which befits some one thing alone and distinguishes it from everything else. In the first sense, God does not have any proper name, but in the second sense He does. (In God there is “the incomprehensible and the knowable, and not all things are unknowable nor are they all knowable,” says John of Damascus, Orth. fid., bk. 1, c. 2.) With respect to the former sense, the fathers call God “unnameable and unspeakable” (Dionysius, De div. nomin., c. 1; Clement of Alexandria, Stromat., bk. 5; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 6.). With respect to the latter, they say that God can truly be named by us. Thomas, [ST,] part 1, q. 13, art. 1: “In some way we can know God; therefore we can also name Him because words are signs of concepts, and by their mediation, [they point to] the things themselves. We cannot know God, however, with a perfect knowledge; therefore we also cannot name Him. However, you say, if some proper name were to belong to God, it would be either abstract or concrete. But we can attribute neither to God. It is not concrete because God is utterly simple; it is not abstract because God is a thing that truly exists and abstract names signify a thing that does not exist of itself.”

We respond with an inversion. It is right to attribute both names to God: concrete because He is a truly existing thing, abstract because He is utterly simple without any composition of matter.

§ 19. (V) The question arises: Is the name “God” apellative [i.e., merely nominal] or truly proper? The Photinians claim that it is appellative so that they may hold that the true and eternal deity of Christ cannot be proved from the name “God” that is attributed to Him in the Scriptures. Eniedinus writes in his introduction to his commentary on John, p. 160: “The word ‘God’ is attributed to many different things, as is clear from the Old and New Testaments. Therefore it does not follow that if someone is called ‘God,’ we must immediately consider him to be the eternal Creator of heaven and earth.”

** Eniedinus again, on John 1, p. 199: “The word ‘God’ is the name of an office and responsibility rather than of nature and essence. Everyone who deals with sacred matters should be very aware of this.” **

Socinus, Contra Wiekum, p. 379: “We must know that the name ‘God’ is by its own nature an appellative name and, therefore, befits many things.”

** Schmalz, De div. verbi incar. natura, c. 26, p. 144: “The word ‘God’ is a title of dignity, not of essence and office. Whoever has true dignity, that is, true divine power, he is in his own way the true God.” **

The Papist Cornelio Musso (Postill., vol. 1, p. 545) yields to the Photinians as he denies that the name “God” is the proper name for God.

We distinguish between a proper and a modified understanding of the word. You see, when the name “God” is assigned to others besides the one and only true God, then we do not take it in a proper but in a modified sense, as is clear from the restrictions that are added. On the other hand, when it is taken properly, it befits only the one true and eternal God in Scripture. Bernard, Serm. super Missus est: “We take the name ‘God’ either substantively or nominally.” You see, the true God is called God “by nature” (Gal. 4:8). The rest are called “the so-called gods” (1 Cor. 8:5). The true God is called “the only God besides whom there is no other god” (Deut. 32:39; Ps. 86:10; Isa. 37:16; etc.). However, there are many “so-called gods” (1 Cor. 8:5). The true God is called “God of gods,” “the great God above all gods,” “the God whom no one is like” (Ps. 50:1; 95:3; 96:4; 97:9; etc.). However, this cannot be said about any of the “so-called gods.”

Consequently, the Photinians themselves confess that the word “God” is attributed according to preeminence and in a unique manner to the one great Author and Creator of things, the eternal God. Socinus, in Tract. de Deo, Christo et Spir. s., p. 3: “The word ‘God’ is taken especially in two ways in Holy Writ. The first way is when it means Him who rules and presides over others both in heaven and on earth and is the Author and Origin of things in such a way that He has no one as His chief or superior nor does He depend on anyone. The other way is when it means that person who has some authority or might or power from the one God Himself or who in some other way is a partaker of the divinity of that same God, that is, of Jehovah, who is called ‘the God of gods.’ ” In his Animadv. defens., p. 74: “Although the word ‘God’ is appellative by its own nature, it is still used commonly as a proper name and is spoken here and there about that God of all gods preeminently—not only predicatively, as we say, but also subjectively.” Contra Wiek., c. 6, class. 4, arg. 1, p. 379: “The name ‘God’ is attributed uniquely through excellence to that one great Author and Creator of things.” Goslavius, p. 1, c. 5, p. 55: “The name ‘God’ is given to that one great Creator of things preeminently, as if it were proper to Him, namely, because the significance of this name fits Him especially and in a unique manner beyond others.”

Yet whatever befits someone preeminently as his proper name, to this extent and respect it is not appellative and common to many but takes on the nature of a proper name. However, as to how one can determine where the name “God” is taken properly and where figuratively, we must note the general rule concerning this matter: “Wherever the name ‘God’ is used, we must take it in a literal sense unless the circumstances of the text show the contrary.” Dr. Hunnius gives special rules in his Exam. error. Photin. de nomin. Dei, c. 3, p. 245.

Here, in favor of our opinion, we draw the following conclusions: (1) If the name “God” is not proper to God, God would absolutely not be one, for that which fits many is common and that which fits only one is proper; it is necessary that a name of just one thing is a proper name. Therefore because Scripture always teaches that God is one, the consequence is that the name “God” is a proper name for God and is not common to many. (2) When a name befits someone per se but also befits others because of their relation and respect to him, then we must declare that this is his proper name. The name “God,” however, befits God per se and also others with respect to the true God. Therefore. (3) The name “God” cannot equally signify the divine nature and the divine likeness or participation. Instead, it signifies primarily the nature of divinity but secondarily the likeness to it. Therefore it is the proper name for God.

↑ Back to top