4. § 23. The Names of God.
§ 23. The Names of God.
. All that becomes knowable to us of God in his revelation is designated in Holy Scripture by the Name of God. The original meaning of the word ֵׁשם is probably that of sign, distinguishing mark, σημα, signum, just as the gr. ὀνομα and the lat. nomen are derived from the stem gno and thus denote that by which something is known, distinguishing mark. A name is a [63] sign of him who bears it, a designation according to one or another property in which he reveals himself and becomes knowable.
There is a connection between the name and its bearer, and that connection is not arbitrary but grounded in the bearer himself. Even among us, and still now, when names have mostly become sounds without meaning, that connection is still felt. A name is something personal and wholly something other than a number or a specimen of its kind. It always makes a more or less unpleasant impression when our name is written or used incorrectly. On the name hangs our honor, our worth, our person and individuality. But much stronger was that connection in earlier times, when names still had a transparent meaning and were a revelation of the person or the thing that
received it. So it is also in Scripture. Adam had to give the animals names according to their nature, Gen. 2:19, 20. Of many names in Scripture the meaning is indicated and at the same time the reason why they are given, e. g. Eve, Gen. 3:20, Cain, 4:1, Seth, 4:25, Noah, 5:29, Babel, 11:9, Ishmael,
16:11, Esau and Jacob, 25:25, Moses, Ex. 2:10, Jesus, Mt. 1:21 etc. More than once a name is changed or a byname added, when a person appears in another quality, Abraham, Gen. 17:5, Sarah, 17:15, Israel, 32:28, Joshua,
Num. 13:16, Jedidjah, 2 Sam. 12:25, Mara, Ruth 1:20, Peter, Mk. 3:16, etc.
After his ascension Christ has received a name above every name, Phil. 2:9, Hebr. 1:4, and to the believers in the new Jerusalem a new name is given,
Op. 2:17, 3:12, 22:4. The same holds for the name of God. There is an intimate connection between God and his name. This connection too is according to Scripture not accidental or arbitrary but established by God himself. Human beings do not name him: he gives himself a name. In the foreground therefore stands the name as revelation from God's side, in an active and objective sense, as nomen editum. Then the name of God is identical with the virtues or perfections which he reveals outwardly, with his glory, Ps. 8:2, 72:19, his honor, Lev. 18:21, Ps. 86:11, 102:16, his redeeming power, Ex. 15:3. Jes. 47:4, his service, Jes. 56:6, Jer. 23:27, his holiness, 1 Chr. 18:10, Ps. 105:3, 3:21 etc. The name is God himself, as he reveals himself in one relation or another. That name as revelation of God is therefore great, [64] Ezech. 36:23, holy, Ezech. 36:20, fearful, Ps. 111:9, a high refuge, Ps. 20:2, a strong tower, Spr. 18:10. With proper names, specifically with the name Ihvh, God has made himself known to Israel.
Through the Malak, in whose inward part his name is, Ex. 23:20, he has revealed himself to Israel. And through him he has laid his name upon the children of Israel, Num. 6:27, established the remembrance of his name
among them, Ex. 20:24, set his name among them and caused it to dwell, Deut. 11:14, 12:5, especially in the temple that is built for his name, 2 S.
7:13. In that temple now his name dwells, 2 Chr. 20:9, 33:4. By that name he delivers, Ps. 54:3 and for the sake of that name he cannot forsake Israel,
1 S. 12:22, Jes. 48:9, 11, Ps. 31:4, 23:3, 143:11 v. But Israel then also may not blaspheme, profane, or use that name in vain. Ex. 20:7, Lev. 18:21,
24:11. On the contrary, that name must be invoked, recounted, magnified, known, confessed, feared, exalted, awaited, sought, hallowed, Gen. 4:26,
12:2, Ex. 9:16, Deut. 28:58, 1 K. 8:33, Ps. 5:12, 34:4, 52:11, 83:17, 122:4, Jes. 26:8, Mt. 6:9, Joh. 12:28 etc. In the N. Test. there is but one name by which God grants salvation; it is the name of Jesus Christ, Hd. 4:12. But in that one name he has also revealed himself fully; in it is included all that God is and will be for his own; in that name he communicates himself, with all his benefits, to his people, Mt. 28:19, Luk. 24:47, Joh. 20:31, Hd. 2:38, 1
Cor. 6:11, Jak. 5:14. And still richer revelation the believers have to await in the new Jerusalem, Op. 3:12, when his name will be on everyone's forehead, Op. 22:4. The name of God in Holy Scripture is the designation, not of God as he exists in himself, but of God in his revelation, in his manifold relations to the creatures. This name, however, is not arbitrary, but God reveals himself thus and in that manner, because he is who he is. On his name therefore hangs his honor, his renown, all his virtues, his whole revelation, his own divine being. But that name therefore grants to him to whom it is revealed special privileges and at the same time imposes on him peculiar obligations. The name of God includes that he, revealing himself therein, is now also named accordingly by creatures. The nomen editum passes over into the nomen inditum. The εἰναι and καλεισθαι are in [65]
Holy Scripture two sides of the same thing. God is what he is called, and he
is called what he is. What he reveals of himself is expressed and represented in definite names. He grants to his creatures the privilege, on the basis of and in accordance with his revelation, to name and address him. The one name of God, as the comprehending whole of his entire revelation both in nature and grace, for us falls apart into many, many names. Only in that way do we obtain an overview of the richness of his revelation and the deep significance of his name. We name him and may name him according to all that of his being becomes manifest in creation and re-creation. But all those names, as designations of God, impose on us the obligation to hallow and glorify them. It is the one name, the full revelation, and insofar the very being of God himself, with which we have to do in all those names. God places himself by his name in a definite relation to us; to that we ought in our relation to him to correspond, Schultz, Altt. Theol.4 513 f. Oehler,
Theol. des A. T. § 56. art. Name in Herzog2. Smend, Lehrb. S. 281 f.
Cremer, s. v. ὀνομα.
2. The names by which God is named and addressed by us are therefore not arbitrary; they have not been devised by us according to our own pleasure. It is God himself, who in nature and grace consciously and freely reveals himself, who grants us the right, on the ground of this revelation, to name Him, indeed who in his Word has made known to us his own names on the ground of his revelation. All these names now without distinction bear this character, that they are derived from the revelation. There is not a single name that designates God's essence an sich. The nomen editum is the foundation of all nomina indita. And because the revelation of God in nature and Scripture is specifically directed to human beings, therefore it is a human language in which God speaks of himself to us; therefore they are human words of which He makes use; therefore they are human forms
under which He appears. In Scripture, therefore, there do not occur here and there a few anthropomorphisms; the whole of Scripture is anthropomorphistic. From the first to the last page it testifies of a coming of God to and a seeking of man. The whole revelation of God concentrates itself in the Logos, who has become σαρξ, and is [66] as it were one humanization, one incarnation of God. If God spoke to us in a divine manner, no creature would understand Him, but this is his grace, which already began with the creation, that He bends down to his creatures and speaks to them and appears to them in a human manner. Therefore all the names by which God names himself and allows himself to be named by us are derived from earthly and human relations. Thus in Scripture He is called
El, the Strong One, Elschaddai the Mighty One, Jahveh, the Being One, further Father, Son, Spirit, good, merciful, gracious, righteous, holy etc., all concepts that first apply to creatures and then are transferred to God in an eminent sense. Even the so-called incommunicable attributes, such as immutability, independence, simplicity, eternity, omnipresence, are presented in Scripture in forms and expressions borrowed from the finite and therefore also in a negative sense; eternity cannot be presented except as a negation of time. Scripture does not even make a single attempt to describe these perfections of God positively, according to their own essence, abstracted from their relation to the finite. But the anthropomorphism goes in Scripture much further. Everything that is proper to human beings and even to creatures is also ascribed to God, in particular partes hominis, membra corporis, sensus, affectus, actiones, subjecta and adjuncta humana. God has a soul, Lev. 26:11, Mt. 12:28, and a Spirit, Gen.
1:2 etc. Of a body of God there is never any mention, although God in Christ also assumed a true body, Joh. 1:14, Col. 2:17, and the church is
called Christ's body, Ef. 1:22. But all bodily organs are nevertheless attributed to God. There is spoken of his face, Ex. 33:20, 23, Jes. 63:9, Ps.
16:11, Mt. 18:10, Op. 22:4, of his eyes, Ps. 11:4, Hebr. 4:13, of his eyelids, Ps. 11:4, of his eyeball, Deut. 32:10, Ps. 17:8, Zach. 2:8, of his ears, Ps.
55:2, of his nose, Deut. 33:10, of his mouth, Deut. 8:3, of his lips, Job 11:5, of his tongue, Jes. 30:27, of his neck, Jer. 18:17, of his arm, Ex. 15:16, of his hand, Num. 11:23, of his right hand, Ex. 15:12, of his finger, Ex. 8:19, of his heart, Gen. 6:6, of his inward parts, Jes. 63:15, Jer. 31:20, Luk. 1:78, of his bosom, Ps. 74:4, of his lap, Joh. 1:28, [67] of his foot, Jes. 66:1.
Further, there is no human emotion or it is also present in God, such as joyfulness, Jes. 62:5, rejoicing, Jes. 65:19, sorrow, Ps. 78:40, Jes. 63:10, grief, Ps. 95:10, Jer. 7:18, 19, fear, Deut. 32:27, love with all its modifications such as mercy, compassion, grace, long-suffering etc., further zeal and jealousy, Deut. 32:21, repentance, Gen. 6:6, hatred, Deut. 16:22, wrath, Ps. 2:5, vengeance, Deut. 32:35. Further, all human actions are also transferred to God, such as taking knowledge, Gen. 18:21, investigating, Ps.
7:10, knowing, Gen. 3:5, thinking, Gen. 50:20, forgetting, 1 Sam. 1:11, remembering, Gen. 8:1, Ex. 2:24, speaking, Gen. 2:16, calling, Rom. 4:17, commanding, Jes. 5:6, scolding, (= rebuking, reproving) Ps. 18:16, 104:7, answering, Ps. 3:5, testifying, Mal. 2:14; resting, Gen. 2:2, working, Joh.
5:17; seeing, Gen. 1:10, hearing, Ex. 2:24, smelling, Gen. 8:21, tasting, Ps.
11:4, 5; sitting, Ps. 9:8, rising, Ps. 68:2, going, Ex. 34:9, coming, Ex. 25:22, walking, Lev. 26:12, descending, Gen. 11:5, meeting, Ex. 3:18, visiting,
Gen. 21:1, passing by, Ex. 12:13, leaving, Richt. 6:13; writing, Ex. 34:1, sealing, Joh. 6:27, engraving, Jes. 49:16; striking, Jes. 11:4, chastising,
Deut. 8:5, punishing, Job 5:17, binding up, Ps. 147:3, healing, Ps. 103:3, making whole, Deut. 32:39, killing and making alive, Deut. 32:39; wiping
away, Jes. 25:8, blotting out, 2 Kon. 21:13, washing, Ps. 51:4, cleansing, Ps.
51:4, anointing, Ps. 2:6, adorning, Ezech. 16:11, clothing, Ps. 132:16, crowning, Ps. 8:6, girding, Ps. 18:33; destroying, Gen. 6:7, laying waste,
Lev. 26:31, killing, Gen. 38:7, plaguing, Gen. 12:17, judging, Ps. 58:12, condemning, Job 10:2 etc. Further, God is also very often designated with names that make known a certain profession, office, relation, relationship among human beings. He is a bridegroom, Jes. 61:10, a man, Jes. 54:5, a father, Deut. 32:6, a judge, king, lawgiver, Jes. 33:22, a warrior, Ex. 15:3, a hero, Ps. 78:65, Zef. 3:17, an artist and builder, Hebr. 11:10, a husbandman,
Joh. 15:1, a shepherd, Ps. 23:1, a physician, Ex. 15:26 etc.; while then in these capacities there is again mention of his seat, throne, footstool, rod, scepter, weapons, bow, arrow, sword, shield, chariot, banner, book, seal, treasure, inheritance etc. Yes, even, in order to express what God is for his own, [68] all kinds of images are borrowed from animate and inanimate creation. He is compared to a lion, Jes. 31:4, an eagle, Deut. 32:11, a lamb,
Jes. 53:7, a hen, Mt. 23:37, to the sun, Ps. 84:12, the morning star, Op.
22:16, to a light, Ps. 27:1, a candle, Op. 21:23, a fire, Hebr. 12:29, a spring or fountain, Ps. 36:10, a vein of water, Jer. 2:13, to food, bread, drink, water, ointment, Jes. 55:1, Joh. 4:10, 6:35, 55, to a rock, Deut. 32:4, a hiding place, Ps. 119:114, tower, Spr. 18:10, an upper chamber, Ps. 9:10, a shadow, Ps. 91:1, 121:5, a shield, Ps. 84:12, a way, Joh. 14:6, a temple, Op.
21:22 etc., Polanus, Synt. Theol. II c. 35, Alsted, Theol. schol. 104 sq.
Glassius, Philol. Sacra 1691 p. 1116-1181.
3. The whole creation, the entire nature with all its kingdoms, the world of men above all, are in Holy Scripture made serviceable to the description of the knowledge of God. No limit is set to anthropomorphism. All creatures, living and lifeless, animate and inanimate, organic and inorganic, offer
names, in order to bring the greatness of God in some measure to our consciousness. Although ἀνωνυμος in himself, God is nevertheless πολυωνυμος in his revelation. Omnia possunt dici de Deo, et nihil digne dicitur de Deo. Nihil latius hac inopia. Quaeris congruum nomen, non invenis; quaeris quoquo modo dicere, omnia invenis, August., tract. 13 in Ev. Joh. n. 5. And for elucidation, why God can be named in so many ways,
Augustine made use of a striking image. Our body has manifold needs, for light and air, food and drink, dwelling and clothes etc., and all these things are different and lie alongside one another in the creatures. Our spirit also has many and manifold needs, but what provides for them is not manifold but is always the one and the same Divine being. In terra aliud est fons, aliud lumen. Sitiens quaeris fontem, et ut pervenias ad fontem, quaeris lucem, et si dies non est, accendis lucernam, ut ad fontem pervenias. Fons ille ipse est lux: sitienti fons est, caeco lux est; aperiantur oculi ut videant lucem, aperiantur fauces cordis ut bibant fontem; quod bibis hoc vides, hoc audis. Totum sit tibi Deus, quia horum quae diligis totum tibi est. Si visibilia attendis, nec panis est Deus, nec aqua est Deus, nec lux ista est
Deus, nec vestis est Deus, nec domus est Deus. Omnia enim [69] haec visibilia sunt et singula sunt; quod est panis non hoc est aqua, et quod est vestis, non hoc est domus, et quod sunt ista, non hoc est Deus, visibilia enim sunt. Deus tibi totum est; si esuris, panis tibi est; si sitis, aqua tibi est; si in tenebris es, lumen tibi est, quia incorruptibilis manet; si nudus es, immortalitatis vestis tibi est, cum corruptibile hoc induerit incorruptionem et mortale hoc induerit immortalitatem, tract. 13 in Ev. Joh. Likewise
Pseudodionysius says that God is ἀνωνυμος and at the same time πολυωνυμος, He is at the same time παντα τα ὀντα και οὐδεν των ὀντων, de div. nom. c. I. § 6. 7. With Thomas we read, quod Deus in se praehabet
omnes perfectiones creaturarum, quasi simpliciter et universaliter perfectus, S. Theol. I qu. 13 art. 2. And more beautifully still with Bonaventure: ut laudibus Deum possimus extollere, atque ad Dei cognitionem promoveamur, necessaria nobis sunt translationes ad divina. Ratio vel finis translationis duplex est. Una in qua est laus Dei, alia manuductio intellectus nostri. Propter laudem Dei necessaria est translatio. Et quoniam Deus multum est laudabilis, ne propter inopiam vocabulorum contingeret cessari a laude, sacra Scriptura docuit nomina creaturarum ad Deum transferri; et hoc in numero indefinito, ut sicut omnis creatura laudat Deum, sic Deus laudatur ex omni nomine creaturae, et qui non poterit uno nomine laudari, tamquam superexcellens omne nomen, laudaretur ex omni nomine. Alia ratio est manuductio intellectus nostri. Quia cum per creaturas ad cognoscendum creatorem venimus, ut plurimum, fere omnes creaturae habent proprietates nobiles, quae sunt ratio intelligendi Deum, ut leo fortitudinem, agnus mansuetudinem, petra soliditatem, serpens prudentiam et consimilia; ideo oportuit plura nomina transferri ad Deum, Sent. I dist. 34 art. 1 qu. 4. And Calvin agreed with that, when he said: nulla est mundi particula, in qua non scintillae saltem aliquae gloriae ipsius emicare cernantur. God is immanent in all that is created. The pure in heart sees God everywhere. Everything is full of God. Fateor pie hoc posse dici, modo a pio animo proficiscatur, naturam esse Deum, Inst. I 5, 1. 5. But there is ascent in the creatures. The place and the rank which the creatures occupy is determined by their affinity to God. All creatures name a name of God. But among all creatures man stands at the top. He alone bears the high name of image, son, child of God. He alone [70] is called God's offspring. And therefore the most and the most exalted names of God are derived from man. Never, however, may man be detached from nature. And never may
any creature or any part of the world be placed alongside or over against God. There is nothing outside and without God. To be sure, there has repeatedly been sinned against here. The dualism of Plato, Neoplatonism,
Gnosticism, Manichaeism restricted God's revelation and set a matter hostile over against Him. And in all kinds of forms this exercised influence and worked on in theology. When in more recent times under the influence of Kant and Jacobi the revelation of God is limited to the religious and ethical; when Scripture is acknowledged only in its religious-moral content; when the seat of religion is sought only in heart or conscience, in feeling or will, there is in all this the same dualistic principle speaking. Nature, with its elements and forces, man in his social and political life, art and science come to stand outside the revelation of God and become neutral, i.e. Godless terrains. Naturally, then, the O. Test. and a very great part of the N.
Test. can no longer be appreciated; that nature and world have nothing more to say to the believer; that the revelation, that the Word of God loses all influence on public life; that religion, pushed back into a hidden refuge of heart and inner chamber, forfeits every claim to respect; that dogmatics, specifically also the locus de Deo, shrinks from day to day, and that theology no longer knows how to maintain its place. Theology no longer knows how to speak of God, because it does not speak from and through Him. It has no more names with which it can name God. God becomes the great Unknown and the world first becomes ἀθεος, then ἀντιθεος.
4. The names by which God in his revelation calls himself, however, bring with them for thought a peculiar difficulty. For, earlier it appeared to us that God is incomprehensible and exalted far above all that is finite; here, however, in his names, he descends to all that is finite and becomes like the creatures. There presents itself here an antinomy, which seems insoluble.
Ἀνωνυμος on the one hand, God is yet πολυωνυμος on the other hand. After first all anthropomorphism has been banished, it is here [71] nevertheless brought in again. With what right then can these names be used of God? On what ground are they ascribed to Him, who stands infinitely high above all creature and cannot be comprehended by the finite? That ground can lie only in this, that the whole creation, although as creature infinitely far removed from God, is nevertheless a creature, a work of God and akin to Him. The world is no antithesis alongside and over against God, no independent power, no second God, but wholly and entirely God's work in its being and its thus being: it is from the beginning designed to reveal God.
The whole people of Israel is in all its laws and institutions, offices and ministries, character and customs etc. arranged to proclaim God's virtues, and the human nature of Christ has been made capable by the H. Spirit, to declare the Father and to make his name known to men. The apostolic band with its diversity of upbringing, preparation, gift and calling is destined, to tell the μεγαλεια του θεου. And therefore God can and may be named by us in a creaturely way. The right of anthropomorphism rests on this, that God himself has descended in and to his creatures and has revealed his name in and through creatures. Anthropomorphism thus by no means resides only, as was already remarked, in a single word such as personality. Of God there is no other way of speaking than in an anthropomorphic way. For Him himself we do not see. We can see Him only in his works and, according to the revelation in those works, name Him. More still, we cannot see God, at least here on earth, face to face. If God then nevertheless wills that we shall know Him, then He must descend to us, accommodate himself to our limited, finite, human consciousness, speak to us in human language.
Whoever therefore contests the right of the anthropomorphisms, in principle
thereby denies the possibility that God reveals himself in his creatures, must from there proceed to the denial of creation and in the end retains nothing but an eternal dualism between God and world, between the infinite and the finite. If indeed our naming of God with anthropomorphic names includes a finiting of God, then this holds much more of the revelation in creation.
God as the Infinite is then powerless, to bring forth another being outside his [72] own essence; the world is in no respect a revelation, it is solely and only a concealment of God; man is solely and only opposed to God and not akin to Him; and God is eternal βυθος, nameless σιγη, both for himself and for man. Naturally then too no knowledge of God is any longer possible. If anthropomorphic, creaturely names fall short of God's essence, then He cannot and may not be named by us with any name, then we must be absolutely silent; every name, with which we would wish to designate Him, is then a dishonouring of God, an assault on his majesty, a blasphemy, cf. above p. 22. One has sought to evade this consequence, which however lies close at hand, by making a distinction between representation and concept.
Plato already began with that. Neoplatonism and gnosticism continued this.
And Hegel has come forward with it again. But thereby one nevertheless does not get a step further. Even the highest speculation and the most profound philosophy must nevertheless think and speak about God; even if they now cast away all representations and retain only pure, abstract concepts, they do not thereby rise above human, creaturely thinking and speaking and do not approach the Infinite himself. Even the most abstract names, such as being, substance, the absolute, the one, spirit, reason, are and remain anthropomorphisms. For man there is only a choice between these two: absolute silence or human thinking and speaking about God, between agnosticism, i.e. theoretical atheism, or anthropomorphism.
Philosophy has therefore also always again returned to anthropomorphism, otherwise it would naturally also have ended with a negative critique. Plato,
Philo, Plotinus, Pseudodionysius, Damascenus, Erigena have in the end nevertheless again ascribed all sorts of names to God. Cataphatic theology built up what apophatic had broken down. The substance of Spinoza received many attributes and modes. With Hegel God nevertheless again became life, spirit, thinking, reason, subject. Rauwenhoff lets the imagination appear, where the understanding must end, Wijsb. v. d. godsd.
611 v. By many philosophers therefore the right of anthropomorphism is defended, Kant, Kr. der Urtheilskraft ed. Kirchmann S. 346 f. Jacobi, Werke
III 276 f. Paulsen, Einl. in die Philos. 1892 S. 262 f. Hartmann, [73] Philos. d. Unbew. II9 414 etc. And thus naturally also Christian theology has always judged. God therein walks the way of men, ֶּדֶרְך ְּבֵני ָאָדם, as the Jews expressed it. Incomprehensibilia sunt Dei opera et actiones, neque nos assequi aliquid de iis possemus, nisi Sacra Scriptura iis uteretur loquendi de
Deo formulis, quae rebus humanis propinqua sunt. Itaque Spiritui Sancto, Scripturarum auctori, placet, propter captus nostri imbecillitatem nostro more balbutire et blandius humiliusque quam majestati tantae convenit, nobiscum per signa et verba agere, Flacius bij Glassius p. 116, cf. Luther bij
Oehler S. 169. Gerhard, Loci Theol. II c. 8 sect. 1. Ursinus, Tract. theol. 49, Polanus, Synt. p. 192 sq. Martyr, Loci p. 2, Alsted, Theol. schol. 148,
Bretschneider, Dogm. I 477, Id. Syst. Entw. 365 f. Hengstenberg, Auth. d.
Pent. II 445 f. Philippi II 27 f. Twesten II 16. Lange, II 32 f. Kahnis, Dogm.
I 337. Beck, Vorles. II 3 f. Dr. Graue, on reaching an understanding concerning the analogical character of the knowledge of God, Jahrb. f. prot.
Theol. Oct. 1888 S. 481-503.
5. The right of these names may thus be established, but what is their value? What and what kind of knowledge do they provide us concerning the Divine being? There can be no question of it, that this knowledge is an adaequate one. It is in every respect finite and limited, but for that reason it is nevertheless not impure and untrue. Adaequate knowledge we have very little; everywhere and in every domain we finally run up against a mystery; the inner being of things, the Ding an sich, escapes our observation. We perceive phaenomena and from that conclude to the being, we come to know properties and thereby climb up to the substance, but this itself lies behind the appearance and is unknown to us. Natural science assumes atoms as the last constituents of reality but has not the least empirical knowledge of them. A definition can be given only of the very simplest things; as soon as they are of a somewhat higher order, they cannot be fully described in any concept. That already holds for the visible world; but still more it is applicable in the world of the invisible things. Man is namely a bodily, sensuous being. All his knowledge begins with and arises out of sensuous perception. Our thinking is bound to the senses, as our soul to the body. The spiritual [74] things we never perceive directly but only through the medium of material things. We see everything ἐν αἰνιγματι. Not only
God, but also the soul and the whole spiritual world comes to our knowledge only through the sensuous world. Hence it is that we designate all the spiritual with names, which in the first place apply in the visible world. The soul of man we name after bodily phenomena. Its activities, such as knowing, thinking, understanding, comprehending, judging, deciding, feeling etc. we bring to consciousness in ourselves and others by means of words, which originally indicate a bodily action. All our speaking of invisible things is thus metaphora, image, likeness, poetry. Τα γαρ
νοητα.... προσηγοριας δε πασης ἐκτος, ἐπειδη κυριον ὀνομα των νοητων τε και ἀσωματων οὐδεν, Greg. Naz., Orat. 45. But for that reason we nevertheless do not speak untruthfully and incorrectly. On the contrary, genuine poetry is truth, for it rests on the likeness, the correspondence, the affinity of the different groups of phenomena. The whole of language is built on that, all figures proceed from that. If speaking in images were untrue, all our thinking, and all our knowing would be appearance, and speaking itself would be impossible. This same also holds in religion and theology. Adaequate knowledge of God does not exist. We cannot name
Him, as He exists in himself. All his names are borrowed from the creatures. But for that reason they are not untrue, a fruit of human imagination. Just as there exists likeness and thus comparison is possible between the different parts of the world, so there is also affinity between God and his creatures, which gives us the right to speak of Him in a creaturely way. More still, temporally, in reality, the natural does indeed precede the spiritual; but logically and ideally the spiritual is first and thereafter the natural. The natural would not be able to lead us to the spiritual, if it had not itself proceeded from it. Plato saw in the cosmos a realization of the ideas. And Scripture teaches, that all things have been made through the Logos and have not come into being out of things that appear before the eyes, Joh. 1:3, Hebr. 11:3. It is God himself, who has made the whole creation, also the material, serviceable to the revelation of his virtues. He could do that, because He is the almighty creator and has absolute dominion also over matter. Even if it is then also the case, that we
[75] call God with names borrowed from the creatures, in those creatures they have first been placed by God himself. We do indeed use the names with which we designate God first of the creatures, because we know these
earlier than God. But materially they apply first to God and thereafter to the creatures. All virtues are first in Him, then in the creatures. He possesses them per essentiam, these have them only per participationem. Just as the temple is made according to the τυπος, shown to Moses on the mountain,
Hebr. 8:5, so every creature is first eternally thought and thereafter created in time. All πατρια i.e. not every lineage but all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named from the Πατηρ who created all things, Ef. 3:15, cf. Mt.
23:9, Damascenus, de fide orthod. I 9. Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 3 art. 2, qu.
13 art. 3 and 6. Bonaventura, Sent. I dist. 22 art. 1 qu. 3. Zanchius, Op. II col. 11-14 etc. All heavenly things are in Scripture painted for us in earthly paints and colors. God himself comes to us through the whole creation and has dwelt among us in the human nature of Christ. This human nature was certainly no adaequate organ of his Godhead; it was even a concealment of his glory. And yet the fullness of the Godhead has dwelt bodily in Him; whoever saw Him, beheld the Father. Both thus can be very well united, a knowledge, which is inadaequate, finite, limited and yet at the same time true, pure, sufficient. God reveals himself in his works, and according to that revelation He is named by us. He permits us to name Him in our weak, human language, because He himself in the creatures has displayed his virtues before us. We are thus actually not the ones who give God a name; how could we do and may we do that? It is God himself, who through nature and Scripture lays his glorious names upon our lips. According to an old distinction the names of God are no product of the ratio ratiocinans, the subjective reason of man, but of the ratio ratiocinata, the objective reason in revelation. God's self-consciousness is the archetype, and our knowledge of God, drawn from his Word, is the ectype.
6. By this the character is indicated which the knowledge of God always bears in creatures. Two extremes are thereby avoided. On the one side stand those who deem an essential, [76] quidditative, adequate knowledge of God possible, whether through mystical contemplation (Plotinus, Malebranche, the ontologists and the Roman Catholics as teaching the visio Dei per essentiam in the state of glory), or through logical thinking (Eunomius,
Scotus, Spinoza, Hegel). Against all these the word remains true: no one has ever seen God; only the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, has declared Him to us. Moses saw God's glory only when it had passed by.
The prophets beheld God only in vision. Both in the creation outside us and in our own life of the soul, the created always remains standing in between God and our consciousness; ideae innatae do not exist. We see in a mirror and walk by faith. An absolute, an adequate knowledge of God is therefore impossible. The conversion of representation into concept, of the language of imagination into that of thought, of kataphatic into apophatic theology, of the Semitic-concrete into the Japhetic-abstract, always ends in the loss of all knowledge of God. But on the other hand, by the name of ectypal theology the feeling is also rejected of those who indeed deem the creaturely names for the designation of the being of God unavoidable, but in them see nothing but symbols, products of the poetic imagination. In a certain sense even Damascenus belongs here, de fide orthod. I 12 and Pseudodionysius, de div. nom. c. 1, cf. also Mozes Maimon., More Neb. I c. 58, Cusanus, de docta ignor. I c. 24. They asserted namely, that all those names made God known to us only as cause of all things, so that e.g. the name of wisdom ascribed to God contained nothing more than that He was the cause of all wisdom. But Thomas already rightly remarked against that, that God could then just as well be called gold, silver, sun, moon, body, etc., since He is
nevertheless the cause of all those creatures; and furthermore we all mean something else and more when we call God good, than when we call Him the cause of the good. The virtues of God are not all to be seen in all creatures and in all in the same way, S. Theol. I qu. 13 art. 2. Zanchius, Op.
II col. 11-13. Yet later that feeling was especially renewed again by Schleiermacher. God is only absolute causality; his attributes are subjective designations; the character of theology is not to be called ectypal or analogical but symbolic, Schleiermacher, Reden über die Relig. S. 46, [77]
Bretschneider, Dogm. I4 477, Paulsen, Einl. in die Philos. 263. The religious representations are then products of the poetic imagination, aesthetically to be valued ideals (Rauwenhoff, Pierson, F. A. Lange etc.) In some modern circles in recent times the tendency is to be perceived, to continue to use the biblical and ecclesiastical names as symbols of higher, spiritual truths. This conception of the character of theology, however, is not tenable. Symbolic can indeed be called that theological science which occupies itself with the explanation of the sacred symbols occurring in Scripture and in the church, as e.g. Vitringa gives to that the name of theologia symbolica 1726, cf. d'Outrein, Proefstukken van heilige
Sinnebeelden 1700. A symbol is always a sensible object or a sensible action for the designation of a spiritual truth. But theology as such does not have to do with such symbols, but with spiritual realities. When consciousness, will, holiness etc. is ascribed to God, no one understands this in a symbolic sense. Not a single religious person sees in such representations products of his imagination, as everyone gladly acknowledges this in works of art. The religious person, on the contrary, holds those religious representations to be objectively true, and his religion languishes and dies away as soon as he begins to doubt that. If they then are
products of the imagination, their objective truth is not to be maintained.
Aesthetically they may then still be valued, religiously and ethically they have lost their value; religion can no more be converted into art than into philosophy. Attempts to maintain them then still as symbols always end in disappointment; he who, like Hegel, makes a distinction between representation and concept, no longer lets himself be satisfied with the representation; he always tries to come to the pure concept and then later in vain reaches back to the religious representations as symbols. The symbolic character of theology makes the names of God into a reflex of one's own life of feeling, deprives them of all truth, and seeks their ground only in the ever-changing ratio ratiocinans. Man is then the measure of religion; as man is, so is his God. For these reasons theology is not to be called symbolic, but ectypal or analogical. Herein is enclosed: 1o. that all our knowledge of God is from and through God, is grounded on his revelation, i.e. [78] on the ratio ratiocinata; 2o. that God, in order to communicate his knowledge to creatures, must descend to those creatures and accommodate himself to their capacity; 3o. that the possibility of this συγκαταβασις cannot be denied, since it is given of itself with the creation, i.e. with the existence of a finite being; 4o. that our knowledge of God therefore nevertheless is always only analogical, i.e. formed according to analogy of what of God is to be perceived in his creatures; has as its object not God himself in his unknowable being but God in his revelation, in his relation to us, in τα περι την φυσιν, Damasc., de fide orthod. I 4, in his habitudo ad creaturas,
Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 12 art. 12; and thus is only a finite image, weak likeness and creaturely imprint of that perfect knowledge which God possesses of himself; and 5o. that our knowledge of God nevertheless is yet true and pure and reliable, because it has the self-consciousness of God as
archetype and his self-revelation in the cosmos as foundation, Thomas, S.
Theol. I qu. 13 art. 5 c. Gent. I c. 32-34. Zanchius, Op. II col. 23. 24.
Junius, de theologia, Op. 1607 I 1378 sq. ed. Kuyper p. 51 sq. Gomarus, Disp. theol. I. Owen, Θεολογουμενα 1661 p. 10 sq. Calovius, Isag. ad theol.
1652 p. 25 sq. Kuyper, Enc. II 201 v.