Chapter 3: The Names of God (weeks 6-8)

[Alex, Moderator]

Happy New Year, everyone! :) This week, we’re starting Chapter 3: The Names of God. It’s a fascinating chapter and one that I think can also be appropriately called The Attributes of God. It not only explores God’s proper names (e.g., Yahweh, Elohim, etc.) but also His attributes whereby we distinguish Him (e.g., Love, Holiness, Wisdom, etc). This chapter is very important to understand because it serves as the foundation for chapters 4-6. So, please, if you have any questions, post them here so we can tackle them before moving onto the subsequent chapters. I felt that this chapter was simply amazing and (admittedly) even moved me to tears at times! Without further ado, here is my summary of the key ideas I identified in chapter 3:

1. A Name is Linked to Personal Identity: A name, properly understood, is the way we come to know someone. It is "a sign of the person bearing it, a designation referring to some characteristic in which a person reveals himself or herself and becomes knowable" (p. 97). It represents a person’s honour, worth, and individuality—and this was particularly true in earlier cultures. Accordingly, the only one that is suited to name God is God Himself. Only God can name Himself because His name is part of His self-revelation. Through His names, we learn about who He is. "Summed up in his name, therefore, is his honour, his fame, his excellencies, his entire revelation, his very being" (p. 99). "The names of God are designations of his excellences, mighty deeds, [and] praises" (p. 111).

2. God’s Revealed Names are Ectypal and Analogical: God is both named and nameless (note: yet another antinomy, as Bavinck notes on pp. 104 and 121). Although God reveals Himself to us through His names, no single name can adequately express who He is completely (pp. 34, 125-126). As we know them, God’s names are merely ectypal and analogical (p. 107). God’s perfect self-knowledge is so great, so absolute, and so infinite that it is incommunicable to the finite creature. Inasmuch, all true revelation from God to His creatures must be accommodated to the finite consciousness so that it can be comprehended by the human mind using human language (from vol. 1, p. 214; vol. 2, pp. 99-100, 104). Therefore, the one name of God that describes Him fully is incomprehensible to us; rather we, as finite creatures, can only know Him imperfectly by His many names, which are given to us in human language (p. 99-100). As Augustine said, "All things can be said of God, but nothing can be said worthily of him. Nothing is more widespread than this poverty [of expression]. You are looking for a fitting name for him? You will not find it." (p. 101). In fact, there may exist even more attributes (names) of God that have not yet been revealed to us (pp. 121-122). It should be noted, however, that even though we have an incomplete and finite knowledge of God, it is nonetheless a true, pure, and trustworthy knowledge of Him (p. 106-107, 110). Even if there may be undisclosed attributes (names) of God, the ones that we know about already far exceed our finite, human comprehension—so we can and should be completely satisfied in what has been revealed!

3. It is a Privilege to Know God’s Names: As we established in Chapter 1, all knowledge of God is graciously given to us by Him. Recall, "No knowledge of God is possible except that which proceeds from and by God (Matt. 11:27; 1 Cor. 2:10ff.)… The fact that the creature knows anything of God at all is solely due to God. He is knowable only because and insofar as he himself wants to be known" (from vol. 1, p. 212). Without His voluntary revelation, He would forever remain afar and hidden from us. We need to recognize that by giving us His name, God has given us a special privilege and He expects us to address Him properly—in keeping with His revelation (p. 99). I think that this is perhaps this is why it is taught that "there is no sin greater or more provoking to God than the profaning of His name" (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 100).

4. Communicable and Incommunicable Attributes (Names): God speaks to us in creaturely ways, rather than with divine language, otherwise we would not be able to understand Him. We are unable to grasp (even an inkling) of divine truth except and only as it is related to the natural world analogically. For example, we understand God as King because we have human authority under whom we must likewise submit to on earth. As such, we understand all divine revelation in relation to the finite world around us. "This is why all the names by which God calls himself and allows us to call him are derived from earthly and human relations" (p. 100). "Our thinking is bound up with our senses… We never perceive spiritual realities directly but only by the medium of material things… This is why we refer to all spiritual matters with names that have their primary reference in the visible world" (p. 106). If we did not speak of God in reference to the created world, we simply would not be able to say (or think) anything correctly about God at all.

When God’s attributes (names) are analogically passed onto the creature, we speak of them as being communicable. These are sometimes related to humans anthropomorphically (e.g., when God is compared to a Father) and other times accommodated to other things within creation (e.g., when God is likened to food, drink, light, clothing, shelter, etc.) The communicable attributes are understood positively. For instance, we may see (to a finite degree) love in nature so we can positively understand that God is also loving by analogy. God’s attributes and perfections are first in God, then in creatures. "He possesses them because they belong to his essence; we possess them only by participation" (p. 107). All of God’s attributes and perfections that we see in creation are derivative and patterned after the divine (e.g., God is the Supreme Good, and we are good in a creaturely way because we are made in His image). All created things display God’s perfections—albeit to varying degrees—thus forming the basis of general revelation (cf. p. 109). Everything comes from God and so everything must also point back to God (p. 130). All creatures, however, only display God’s perfections weakly in likeness; "not all of them proclaim all of God’s perfections, and not all these creatures proclaim them with the same clarity" (p. 135), but human beings display His attributes most clearly because we are uniquely created in His image (Gen. 1:27; pp. 103, 135).

In contrast, when God’s attributes (names) are not passed onto the creature, we say they are incommunicable. These are understood negatively. However, even though these attributes are incommunicable, we still speak of them analogically in relation to the finite world. For example, God is immutable (i.e., unchanging, without mutation). There is nothing in the created universe that is immutable like Him, as all things are subject to mutation (change) over time. Therefore, God’s immutability is the negative (or absence) of mutability. We similarly understand His other incommunicable attributes in like manner—namely His independence, simplicity, eternity, and omnipresence as the absence of dependence, complexity, temporality, and locality. God is entirely free from the normal limitations that are placed on the finite creature.

5. Two vs. Three Ways We Attain Analogical Knowledge of God: Closely tied in with the idea of communicability and incommunicability of God’s attributes (see point #4 above), Bavinck explores the various ways that we are able to know God analogically (pp. 128ff). As we have already established, God is the primary, the archetype, the original. The creature is the derivative, the ectype, the likeness. We use comparisons and analogies to understand God. "On the one hand, in speaking of God, we deny that the imperfections and limitations we find in creatures also exist in him; on the other, we ascribe to God in an absolute sense all the perfections we observe in creatures" (p. 130). Some people speak of God’s positive and negative attributes (cf. communicable and incommunicable attributes) as the two ways we are able to understand God’s nature (see also p. 48).

Others, however, have expanded this to the triplex via, or three ways by which we know God: by negation, causality, and eminence (p. 129). First, negation is denying the presence of creaturely imperfections in God (e.g., when we speak of God’s immutability, we deny the imperfection of mutation). Second, positive causality is the affirmation of perfections that are represented in the creature to God in an analogous way (e.g., we express love therefore we are able to understand that God also loves). Thirdly, even when we ascribe to God all the perfections found in created things, we recognize that when they are applied to God, He possesses them without limit in a infinitely transcendent way; this is eminence (e.g., God loves but His love is far different than the creatures, as it is infinitely abundant and of indescribable quality).

Side Note: All these classifications are somewhat imperfect. For example, in an absolute sense, all of God’s communicable attributes are actually incommunicable as they exist in God (i.e., we are able to love, but we are not able to love in the absolute and perfect way that God loves). While useful for our personal study, it is still important to remember that we should not be overly rigid in applying these classifications to God’s attributes!

[Alex, Moderator]

6. Aseity, the Key to Understanding God’s Names and Attributes: A plight that all theologians face is the impossible task of trying to describe God adequately in His essence. It is simply impossible. But, the starting ground that most Reformed theologians have historically adopted is to begin with God’s aseity as the supreme, absolute being. This is the attribute that most differentiates God from all creatures; God’s aseity is also variably referred to as His self-existence, solitariness, independence, absoluteness, etc. (Note: these terms are sometimes used with subtle, nuanced differences, but for simplicity, I often think of them as the same and frequently use them interchangeably). It is from this attribute that we understand that God is "self-contained, self sufficient, self-satisfied; in need of nothing… He sustains all, but is himself independent of all. He gives to all, but is enriched by none" (Pink, A.W. The Attributes of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975. pp. 10, 12). The aseity of God is central to everything we know about Him (pp. 113, 122-123). Once we establish the aseity of God, we are able to understand and classify His other attributes in properly, as they are all interrelated. "Hence, in that respect aseity may be called the primary attribute of God’s being" (p. 124).

God’s aseity speaks of all His perfections, which are in turn dimly represented in His creation. "If God is God, the only, eternal, and absolute Being, this implies that he possesses all the perfections, a faint analogy of which can be discerned in his creatures. If God is the absolutely existing being, he is also absolute in wisdom and goodness, in righteousness and holiness, in power and blessedness. As One who exists of and through and unto himself, he is the fullness of being, the independent and supremely perfect Being" (p. 124).

7. Differentiating Between God’s Attributes? Yes and No: "God is ‘simple’, that is, sublimely free from all composition, and that therefore one cannot make any real [i.e., ontological] distinction between his being and his attributes. Each attribute is identical with God’s being: he is what he possesses" (p. 118, emphasis mine). This doctrine of God’s simplicity is clearly articulated by our confessional documents. Article 1 of the Belgic Confession states, "We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that there is only one simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that he is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good" (emphasis mine). Similarly, the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 2 states, "There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions ; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal, most just, and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty" (emphasis mine).

God’s simplicity means that God is completely and simultaneously everything that He possesses. He is not made up of different parts. His essence does not differ from His attributes or properties (p. 118). Therefore, God is not merely loving, good, wise, just, etc., but He is Love, Goodness, Wisdom, Justice, etc. Furthermore, this also means that "we cannot really make a distinction between God’s essence and his attributes (seeing that each attributes constitutes that essence)" (p. 124). Nevertheless, even though God is a simple Being wherein all His attributes are identical with His divine being, we still rightly distinguish between His attributes. It would be "an error to use the names [or attributes] of God interchangeably or to confuse them… Each attribute expresses something special" (p. 126). As Charles Hodge noted, "to say that the divine attributes differ only in name, or in our conceptions… is to destroy all true knowledge of God… If in God eternity is identical with knowledge, knowledge with power, power with ubiquity, and ubiquity with holiness, we are using words without meaning when we attribute any perfection to God" (Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology / Volume 1: Theology. [Peabody, Mass.]: Hendrickson, 1999. pp. 371-372).

But, this is not to say that there is no continuity between God’s attributes. "In God holiness and mercy may be the same in essence yet our understanding of these two attributes formed from God’s self-revelation, differs" (p. 128). All His attributes are interrelated. For example, A.W. Pink reflected on how God’s immutability implies that He is likewise eternal, infinite, and perfect: "God is immutable in his essence. His nature and being are infinite, and so, subject to no mutations. There never was a time when he was not; there never will come a time when he shall cease to be. God has neither evolved, grown, nor improved…. He cannot change for the better, for he is already perfect; and being perfect, he cannot change for the worse" (Pink, A.W. The Attributes of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975. pp. 46-47). Therefore, all of God’s attributes are indistinguishable from His essence, inextricably linked to one another, but still distinguishable in description as they are revealed to us.

8. One With No Name (Anonymous) Yet With Many Names (Polyonymous): "God reveals himself to finite creatures by many names. The divine essence is so infinitely and profusely rich that no creature can grasp it all at once. Just as a child cannot picture the worth of a coin of great value but only gains some sense of it when it is counted out in a number of smaller coins, so we too cannot possibly form a picture of the infinite fullness of God’s essence unless it is displayed to us now in one relationship, then in another, and now from one angle, then from another" (p. 127). The reason God reveals Himself to us with many names and attributes is so that we can better appreciate the greatness and fullness of who He is! "So referring to God by all these names, we indeed speak imperfectly, in finite terms, in limited humans ways, yet not falsely" (p. 128). "Given that reality, many names serve to give us an impression of his all-transcending grandeur" (p. 128).

9. Relative and Absolute Names of God: God’s relative names are relational and in some sense communicable. "Relative terms, such as ‘Lord,’ ‘Creator,’ ‘Sustainer,’ ‘Savior,’ and so on, belong to God only on account of, and upon the coming into being of, the creation. No one can be called ‘master’ unless he has servants" (pp. 133-134). Similarly, metaphorical names such as ‘good’, ‘holy’, and ‘wise’ are only meaningful to us because we see relative, analogical examples of these attributes in creatures. In contrast, His absolute names are incommunicable—names like infinity, immutability, omnipresence, oneness and aseity (p. 136). All these names reveal to us something of God’s perfections.

[Alex, Moderator]

10. Proper Names of God: God has additionally revealed Himself using proper names through His Word. These are personal names of address that we are privileged to use, each with special meaning:

El (and its derivates: Elohim, El Shaddai, Adonai) is commonly used in the Old Testament, referring to the God of creation and nature. Its meaning "points to God as the Strong One or as the object of dread" (p. 138). Sometimes, this name appears in a plural form (i.e., Elohim). Although there are some that have hypothesized that the pluralization of His name is a reference to His trinitarian nature, Bavinck argues that this is unlikely so. Rather, the pluralization more likely refers to an intensity that serves to "denote God as the fullness of life and power" (p. 139). It expresses that He is above and transcendent over His creation. Sometimes, the name Edonay (Adonai) is also used and refers to "God as the Ruler to whom all things are subject and to whom humans are related as servants" (p. 139). Later on, the name El Sadday (El Shaddai) was revealed to the patriarchs and means "The All-Sufficient One" and "he who bountifully supplies all things". This later name "makes God known to us as the One who possesses all power, and can therefore overcome all resistance and make all things subservient to his will… [God] is no longer an object of dread but a source of well-being and comfort" (p. 140).

YHWH (also known as the tetragrammaton, the ineffable name of God; sometimes rendered Jehovah or Yahweh) describes God’s essence. The meaning of the name is given in Ex. 3:12-15, and is understood as "He will be what He will be", the same yesterday, today, and forever (p. 143). Although the name communicates the idea of aseity, it also carries with it a much deeper meaning. Notably, the name YHWH was given to God’s people before Moses (e.g., Gen. 14:22; 15:2, 7-8; 24:3; 28:13, 16; 32:9) and was already known to God’s people—but the meaning of the name was never explained until the time of Moses (cf. Ex. 6:3). The reason for that is because the name speaks of God’s unchanging grace and faithfulness, "something that could not have been disclosed before the time of Moses. A long time had to pass to prove that God is faithful and unchanging. A person’s faithfulness can only be tested in the long run and especially in times of distress. So it was also in the case of Israel. Centuries had elapsed following the period of the patriarchs. Israel had been oppressed and had experienced great distress. Now God says: ‘I am who I am, YHWH, the unchangingly faithful One, the God of the fathers, your God even now and forever.’ At this point God injects a totally fresh meaning into an old name, one that could only now be understood by the people. And for that reason YHWH is Israel’s God ‘from the land of Egypt’ (Hos. 12;9; 13:4)" (p. 144). The name YHWH is God’s guarantee that He would remain faithful to His people, One who never leaves or forsakes His own, but always seeks and saves those that He loves. He "will be what he is because he is always himself" (p. 143). God’s covenantal faithfulness is revealed when His people were under bondage. Think: the same is true today! God continues to save His people out of the bondage of sin and death and delivers them faithfully, remembering His eternal promises because He never changes!

YHWH Sabaoth is variably translated in our English Bibles as Lord of Saboath (KJV, NASB, NKJV), Lord of hosts (ESV), and Lord Almighty (NIV). The word "Sabaoth" probably refers to angels (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; Isa. 37:16; Hos. 12:5-6; Ps. 80:1, 4; 89:5-8, etc). The name "is the solemn royal name of God full of majesty and glory… [characterizing God] as king in the fullness of his glory who, surrounded by regimented hosts of angels, governed throughout the world as the Almighty, and in his temple receives the honour and acclamation of all his creatures" (p. 146).

Finally, Father is the last name that Bavinck deals with in this chapter. It expresses the special relationship God has with His people. Particularly now, through Christ, we are adopted as His children. "This name is the supreme revelation of God. God is not only the Creator the Almighty the Faithful One, the King and Lord; he is also the Father of his people… for here is a king who is simultaneously a Father who does not subdue his subjects by force but who himself creates and preserves his subjects" (p. 147). God is our Father as we are united to Christ by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Truly, this is a trinitarian name of God!

11. Proper Study of God’s Attributes Leads to Praise: Throughout the chapter, I noticed that Bavinck (perhaps uncontrollably or even unintentionally) slips into frequent exclamations of praise and doxology. Studying God’s attributes should stir up the same thing in all of us! "He speaks and things come to be; he commands and they stand forth. From everlasting to everlasting he is God, the First and the Last, from whom, through whom, and to whom are all things" (p. 123). Indeed, "it is God himself who reveals all his perfections and puts his names on our lips… The final goal of all his ways is that his name will shine out in all his works and be written on everyone’s forehead [i.e., displayed for all to see] (Rev. 22:4)" (p. 127). May God be praised!

Bonus Material #1: For anyone that’s interested in comparing how different theologians have classified God’s attributes (names), here is a neat document from Professor Gregory Nichols, taken from his class notes for a course he taught at the Reformed Baptist Seminary (source: the Reformed Baptist Fellowship and Theology Forum on Facebook). In it, he shows the similarities and differences between notable theologians like H. Bavinck, L. Berkhof, C. Hodge, A.A. Hodge, W.G.T. Shedd, S. Charnock, A.W. Pink, J. Gill, J.H. Thornwell, R.L Dabney, etc. It’s interesting to see it all laid out side-by-side!

Bonus Material #2: The Puritan theologian Stephen Charnock’s work The Existence and Attributes of God is considered to be the most comprehensive treatment on this subject and is available for free here (as it is in the public domain). I doubt that most people will be able to read it front-to-back (as it’s 817 pages!) but you may want to save it onto your computer for occasional reference. :)

[Alex, Moderator]

Here's a message I'm posting on behalf of Pastor Overduin at his request (as he's having technical problems posting right now):

Thanks again, Alex, for a very comprehensive and stimulating summary! We appreciate you guiding us through this all, along with the extra notes and resources that you mention. Isaiah 40:18&25 comes to mind. “To whom then will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?... To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.” Psalm 145:3 as well. “Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.” I am looking forward to the meeting on Friday, Jan. 24, God willing.

[Hslingerland]

Alex thank you for your reviews. I am always amazed anew when thinking of God's names they are all so encompassing to all He does for us.

[Alex, Moderator]

Yes, I agree! I am continually amazed too! :)

[Alex, Moderator]

We just finished our second meeting (in person) and had lots of great discussion! Thanks to everyone that participated.

One of the big topics that we brought up was the doctrine of divine impassibility. Essentially, this doctrine teaches that God is without passion (a term that is mentioned in confessional documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 2, where God is said to be "without body, parts, or passions").

What exactly does this mean? There appears to be some disagreement about the terminology. But, the root of the issue is that those who defend the doctrine of divine impassibility state that God is not subject to the same emotions or passions as humans. The idea of "passions" is related to being "passive". When passions arise in humans, they are reactionary. For example, when we get to eat our favorite food, we are happy. When we receive bad news, we are unhappy. Our passions are stirred up by external causes.

But God is different. He is always the initiator. He doesn't react like we do. God is not subject to change (as He is immutable). He is never subject to the creature (as He possesses aseity). His love, for example, is not triggered by the loveliness in the creature. Nothing can change it. Moreover, the doctrine of impassibility has bearing with the Reformed teaching of predestination (especially that of unconditional election) whereby God shows favor and love without occasion from the creature.

As I mentioned during the meeting, there is an excellent article by Dr. Robert Gonzales on this topic (just written yesterday!) that goes into this in much more detail. He further explores how different theologians have treated this topic throughout history. Take a look!