Justification in the Resurrection of Christ

The idea that sinners are in some sense of the word justified in the resurrection of Christ was stressed by some Antinomians, is taught by those Reformed theologians who believe in a justification from eternity, and is also held by some other Reformed scholars. This view is based on the following grounds:

By His atoning work Christ satisfied all the demands of the law for His people. In the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead the Father publicly declared that all the requirements of the law were met for all the elect and thereby justified them. But here too careful distinction is required. Even though it be true that there was an objective justification of Christ and of the whole body of Christ in His resurrection, this should not be confounded with the justification of the sinner of which Scripture speaks. It is not true that, when Christ rendered full satisfaction to the Father for all His people, their guilt naturally terminated. A penal debt is not like a pecuniary debt in this respect. Even after the payment of a ransom, the removal of guilt may depend on certain conditions, and does not follow as a matter of course. The elect are not personally justified in the Scriptural sense until they accept Christ by faith and thus appropriate His merits.

In Romans 4:25 we read that Christ was "raised up for (dia, causal, on account of) our justification," that is, to effect our justification. Now it is undoubtedly true that dia with the accusative is causal here. At the same time it need not be retrospective, but can also be prospective and therefore mean "with a view to our justification," which is equivalent to saying, "in order that we may be justified." The retrospective interpretation would be in conflict with the immediately following context, which clearly shows (1) that Paul is not thinking of the objective justification of the whole body of Christ, but of the personal justification of sinners; and (2) that he conceives of this as taking place through faith.

In 2 Corinthians 5:19 we read: "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses." From this passage the inference is drawn that the objective reconciliation of the world in Christ involves the non-imputation of sin to the sinner. But this interpretation is not correct. The evident meaning of the apostle is: God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, as appears from the fact that He does not impute to men their sins, and that He has entrusted to His servants the word of reconciliation. Notice that me logizomenos (present tense) refers to what is constantly going on. This cannot be conceived as a part of the objective reconciliation, for then the following clause, "and having committed to us the word of reconciliation," would also have to be so interpreted, and this is quite impossible.

In connection with this matter it may be said that we can speak of a justification of the body of Christ as a whole in His resurrection, but this is purely objective and should not be confounded with the personal justification of the sinner.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

The Difference Between Justification and Sanctification

The following points of difference between justification and sanctification should be carefully noted:

Justification removes the guilt of sin and restores the sinner to all the filial rights involved in his state as a child of God, including an eternal inheritance. Sanctification removes the pollution of sin and renews the sinner ever-increasingly in conformity with the image of God.

Justification takes place outside of the sinner in the tribunal of God, and does not change his inner life, though the sentence is brought home to him subjectively. Sanctification, on the other hand, takes place in the inner life of man and gradually affects his whole being.

Justification takes place once for all. It is not repeated, neither is it a process; it is complete at once and for all time. There is no more or less in justification; man is either fully justified, or he is not justified at all. In distinction from it sanctification is a continuous process, which is never completed in this life.

While the meritorious cause of both lies in the merits of Christ, there is a difference in the efficient cause. Speaking economically, God the Father declares the sinner righteous, and God the Holy Spirit sanctifies him.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

The Doctrines of Grace in the Church

The teachings of Scripture respecting the grace of God stress the fact that God distributes His blessings to men in a free and sovereign manner, and not in consideration of any inherent merit of men; that men owe all the blessings of life to a beneficent, forbearing, and longsuffering God; and especially that all the blessings of the work of salvation are freely given of God, and are in no way determined by supposed merits of men. This is clearly expressed by Paul in the following words: "For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory," Ephesians 2:8, 9. He strongly emphasizes the fact that salvation is not by works, Romans 3:20-28; 4:16; Galatians 2:16.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

Proof for the Doctrine of Limited Atonement

The following proofs may be given for the doctrine of particular atonement: It may be laid down, first of all, as a general principle, that the designs of God are always surely efficacious and cannot be frustrated by the actions of man. This applies also to the purpose of saving men through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. If it had been His intention to save all men, this purpose could not have been frustrated by the unbelief of man. It is admitted on all hands that only a limited number is saved. Consequently, they are the only ones whom God has determined to save.

Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called "His sheep," John 10:11, 15, "His Church," Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25-27, "His people," Matthew 1:21, and "the elect," Romans 8:32-35. The sacrificial work of Christ and His intercessory work are simply two different aspects of His atoning work, and therefore the scope of the one can be no wider than that of the other. Now Christ very definitely limits His intercessory work, when He says: "I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me." John 17:9. Why should He limit His intercessory prayer, if He had actually paid the price for all? It should also be noted that the doctrine that Christ died for the purpose of saving all men, logically leads to absolute universalism, that is, to the doctrine that all men are actually saved.

It is impossible that they for whom Christ paid the price, whose guilt He removed, should be lost on account of that guilt. The Arminians cannot stop at their half-way station, but must go all the way. If it be said, as some do say, that the atonement was universal, but that the application of it is particular; that He made salvation possible for all, but actually saves only a limited number—it should be pointed out that there is an inseparable connection between the purchase and the actual bestowal of salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that the design and effect of the atoning work of Christ is not merely to make salvation possible, but to reconcile God and man, and to put men in actual possession of eternal salvation, a salvation which many fail to obtain, Matthew 18:11; Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:4; 3:13; Ephesians 1:7. And if the assertion be made that the design of God and of Christ was evidently conditional, contingent on the faith and obedience of man, attention should be called to the fact that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ by His death purchased faith, repentance, and all the other effects of the work of the Holy Spirit, for His people. Consequently these are no conditions of which the fulfilment is simply dependent on the will of man.

The atonement also secures the fulfilment of the conditions that must be met, in order to obtain salvation, Romans 2:4; Galatians 3:13, 14; Ephesians 1:3, 4; 2:8; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 3:5, 6.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

Statement of the Reformed Position on the Extent of the Atonement

The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, and the elect only. This is equivalent to saying that He died for the purpose of saving only those to whom He actually applies the benefits of His redemptive work. Various attempts have been made in circles that claimed to be Reformed to modify this position. The Dutch Arminians maintained that Christ died for the purpose of making salvation possible for all men without exception, though they will not all be saved. Salvation is offered to them on lower terms than it was to Adam, namely on condition of faith and evangelical obedience, a condition which they can meet in virtue of God's gift of common or sufficient grace to all men. The Calvinistic Universalists sought to mediate between the Reformed position and that of the Arminians. They distinguished a twofold decree of God:

(a) A decree to send Christ into the world to save all men by His atoning death on condition of faith in Him. However, because God saw that this purpose would fail, since no one would accept Christ by faith, He followed up the first by a second decree.

(b) A decree to give a certain elect number special grace, in order to engender faith in their hearts and to secure their salvation.

This dubious and very unsatisfactory view was held by the school of Saumur (Cameron, Amyraldus, and Testardus), and also by such English scholars as Wardlaw, John Brown, and James Richards. Some New England theologians, such as Emmons, Taylor, Park, and Beman held a somewhat similar view. The Marrow-men of Scotland were perfectly orthodox in maintaining that Christ died for the purpose of saving only the elect, though some of them used expressions which also pointed to a more general reference of the atonement. They said that Christ did not die for all men, but that He is dead, that is, available, for all. God's giving love, which is universal, led Him to make a deed of gift and grant to all men; and this is the foundation for the universal offer of salvation. His electing love, however, which is special, results in the salvation of the elect only.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

Berkhof on the Purpose for the Return of Christ

The second coming of Jesus Christ will be for the purpose of judging the world and perfecting the salvation of His people. Men and angels, the living and the dead, will appear before Him to be judged according to the record which was kept of them, Matthew 24:30, 31; 25:31, 32. It will be a coming with terrible judgments upon the wicked, but also with blessings of eternal glory for the saints, Matthew 25:33-46. While He will sentence the wicked to everlasting punishment, He will publicly justify His own and lead them into the perfect joy of His eternal Kingdom. This will signalize the completed victory of Jesus Christ.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

The Necessity of the Two Natures in Christ

Many do not recognize the necessity of assuming two natures in Christ. To them Jesus is but a man; yet at the same time they feel constrained to ascribe to Him the value of a God, or to claim divinity for Him in virtue of the immanence of God in Him, or of the indwelling Spirit. The necessity of the two natures in Christ follows from what is essential to the Scriptural doctrine of the atonement.

The necessity of His manhood.

Since man sinned, it was necessary that the penalty should be borne by man. Moreover, the paying of the penalty involved suffering of body and soul, such as only man is capable of bearing, John 12:27; Acts 3:18; Hebrews 2:14; 9:22. It was necessary that Christ should assume human nature, not only with all its essential properties, but also with all the infirmities to which it is liable after the fall, and should thus descend to the depths of degradation to which man had fallen, Hebrews 2:17, 18. At the same time, He had to be a sinless man, for a man who was himself a sinner and who had forfeited his own life, certainly could not atone for others, Hebrews 7:26. Only such a truly human Mediator, who had experimental knowledge of the woes of mankind and rose superior to all temptations, could enter sympathetically into all the experiences, the trials, and the temptations of man, Hebrews 2:17, 18; 4:15-5:2, and be a perfect human example for His followers, Matthew 11:29; Mark 10:39; John 13:13-15; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 12:2-4; 1 Peter 2:21.

The necessity of His Godhead.

In the divine plan of salvation it was absolutely essential that the Mediator should also be very God. This was necessary, in order that (1) He might bring a sacrifice of infinite value and render perfect obedience to the law of God; (2) He might bear the wrath of God redemptively, that is, so as to free others from the curse of the law; and (3) He might be able to apply the fruits of His accomplished work to those who accepted Him by faith. Man with his bankrupt life can neither pay the penalty of sin, nor render perfect obedience to God. He can bear the wrath of God and, except for the redeeming grace of God, will have to bear it eternally, but he cannot bear it so as to open a way of escape, Psalm 49:7-10; 130:3.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

Berkhof on Creationism

This view is to the effect that each individual soul is to be regarded as an immediate creation of God, owing its origin to a direct creative act, of which the time cannot be precisely determined. The soul is supposed to be created pure, but united with a depraved body. This need not necessarily mean that the soul is created first in separation from the body, and then polluted by being brought in contact with the body, which would seem to assume that sin is something physical. It may simply mean that the soul, though called into being by a creative act of God, yet is pre-formed in the psychical life of the fœtus, that is, in the life of the parents, and thus acquires its life not above and outside of, but under and in, that complex of sin by which humanity as a whole is burdened.

Arguments in favor of Creationism.

The following are the more important considerations in favor of this theory:

(1) It is more consistent with the prevailing representations of Scripture than Traducianism. The original account of creation points to a marked distinction between the creation of the body and that of the soul. The one is taken from the earth, while the other comes directly from God. This distinction is kept up throughout the Bible, where body and soul are not only represented as different substances, but also as having different origins, Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 42:5; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9. Cf. Numbers 16:22. Of the passage in Hebrews even Delitzsch, though a Traducianist, says, "There can hardly be a more classical proof text for creationism."

(2) It is clearly far more consistent with the nature of the human soul than Traducianism. The immaterial and spiritual, and therefore indivisible nature of the soul of man, generally admitted by all Christians, is clearly recognized by Creationism. The traducian theory on the other hand, posits a derivation of essence, which, as is generally admitted, necessarily implies separation or division of essence.

(3) It avoids the pitfalls of Traducianism in Christology and does greater justice to the Scriptural representation of the person of Christ. He was very man, possessing a true human nature, a real body and a rational soul, was born of a woman, was made in all points like as we are—and yet, without sin. He did not, like all other men, share in the guilt and pollution of Adam's transgression. This was possible, because he did not share the same numerical essence which sinned in Adam.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

Scriptural Proof for the Doctrine of Creation

The Scriptural proof for the doctrine of creation is not found in a single and limited portion of the Bible, but is found in every part of the Word of God. It does not consist of a few scattered passages of doubtful interpretation, but of a large number of clear and unequivocal statements, which speak of the creation of the world as a historical fact.

We have first of all the extended narrative of creation found in the first two chapters of Genesis, which will be discussed in detail when the creation of the material universe is considered. These chapters certainly appear to the unbiased reader as a historical narrative, and as the record of a historical fact. And the many cross-references scattered throughout the Bible do not regard them in any other light. They all refer to creation as a fact of history. The various passages in which they are found may be classified as follows:

(1) Passages which stress the omnipotence of God in the work of creation, Isaiah 40:26, 28; Amos 4:13.

(2) Passages which point to His exaltation above nature as the great and infinite God, Psalm 90:2; 102:26, 27; Acts 17:24.

(3) Passages which refer to the wisdom of God in the work of creation, Isaiah 40:12-14; Jeremiah 10:12-16; John 1:3.

(4) Passages regarding creation from the point of view of God's sovereignty and purpose in creation, Isaiah 43:7; Romans 1:25.

(5) Passages that speak of creation as a fundamental work of God, 1 Corinthians 11:9; Colossians 1:16. One of the fullest and most beautiful statements is that found in Nehemiah 9:6: "Thou art Jehovah, even thou alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are thereon, the seas and all that is in them, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee." This passage is typical of several other, less extensive, passages that are found in the Bible, which emphasize the fact that Jehovah is the Creator of the universe, Isaiah 42:5; 45:18; Colossians 1:16; Revelation 4:11; 10:6.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The deity of the Holy Spirit may be established from Scripture by a line of proof quite similar to that employed in connection with the Son:

(1) Divine names are given to Him, Exodus 17:7 (Hebrews 3:7-9); Acts 5:3, 4; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Timothy 3:16 (2 Peter 1:21).

(2) Divine perfections are ascribed to Him, such as omnipresence, Psalm 139:7-10, omniscience, Isaiah 40:13, 14 (comp. Romans 11:34); 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11, omnipotence, 1 Corinthians 12:11; Romans 15:19, and eternity, Hebrews 9:14 (?).

(3) Divine works are performed by Him, such as creation, Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; 33:4, providential renovation, Psalm 104:30, regeneration, John 3:5, 6; Titus 3:5, and the resurrection of the dead, Romans 8:11.

(4) Divine honour is also paid to Him, Matthew 28:19; Romans 9:1; 2 Corinthians 13:13.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

The Deity of the Son

The deity of the Son was denied in the early Church by the Ebionites and the Alogi, and also by the dynamic Monarchians and the Arians. In the days of the Reformation the Socinians followed their example, and spoke of Jesus as a mere man. The same position is taken by Schleiermacher and Ritschl, by a host of liberal scholars, particularly in Germany, by the Unitarians, and by the Modernists and Humanists of the present day. This denial is possible only for those who disregard the teachings of Scripture, for the Bible contains an abundance of evidence for the deity of Christ. We find that Scripture (1) explicitly asserts the deity of the Son in such passages as John 1:1; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6; Titus 2:13; John 5:20; (2) applies divine names to Him, Isaiah 9:6; 40:3; Jeremiah 23:5, 6; Joel 2:32 (Acts 2:21); 1 Timothy 3:16; (3) ascribes to Him divine attributes, such as eternal existence, Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1, 2; Revelation 1:8; 22:13, omnipresence, Matthew 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13, omniscience, John 2:24, 25; 21:17; Revelation 2:23, omnipotence. Isaiah 9:6; Philippians 3:21; Revelation 1:8, immutability, Hebrews 1:10-12; 13:8, and in general every attribute belonging to the Father, Colossians 2:9; (4) speaks of Him as doing divine works, as creation, John 1:3, 10; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2, 10, providence, Luke 10:22; John 3:35; 17:2; Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3, the forgiveness of sins, Matthew 9:2-7; Mark 2:7-10; Colossians 3:13, resurrection and judgment, Matthew 25:31, 32; John 5:19-29; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Philippians 3:21; 2 Timothy 4:1, the final dissolution and renewal of all things, Hebrews 1:10-12; Philippians 3:21; Revelation 21:5, and (5) accords Him divine honour, John 5:22, 23; 14:1; 1 Corinthians 15:19; 2 Corinthians 13:13; Hebrews 1:6; Matthew 28:19.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

The Church Confesses The Trinity To Be A Mystery Beyond The Comprehension of Man

The Trinity is a mystery, not merely in the Biblical sense that it is a truth, which was formerly hidden but is now revealed; but in the sense that man cannot comprehend it and make it intelligible. It is intelligible in some of its relations and modes of manifestation, but unintelligible in its essential nature. The many efforts that were made to explain the mystery were speculative rather than theological. They invariably resulted in the development of tritheistic or modalistic conceptions of God, in the denial of either the unity of the divine essence or the reality of the personal distinctions within the essence. The real difficulty lies in the relation in which the persons in the Godhead stand to the divine essence and to one another; and this is a difficulty which the Church cannot remove, but only try to reduce to its proper proportion by a proper definition of terms. It has never tried to explain the mystery of the Trinity, but only sought to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity in such a manner that the errors which endangered it were warded off.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

The Immutability of God

The Immutability of God is a necessary concomitant of His aseity. It is that perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change, not only in His Being, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises. In virtue of this attribute He is exalted above all becoming, and is free from all accession or diminution and from all growth or decay in His Being or perfections. His knowledge and plans, His moral principles and volitions remain forever the same. Even reason teaches us that no change is possible in God, since a change is either for better or for worse. But in God, as the absolute Perfection, improvement and deterioration are both equally impossible. This immutability of God is clearly taught in such passages of Scripture as Exodus 3:14; Psalm 102:26-28; Isaiah 41:4; 48:12; Malachi 3:6; Romans 1:23; Hebrews 1:11, 12; James 1:17. At the same time there are many passages of Scripture which seem to ascribe change to God. Did not He who dwelleth in eternity pass on to the creation of the world, become incarnate in Christ, and in the Holy Spirit take up His abode in the Church? Is He not represented as revealing and hiding Himself, as coming and going, as repenting and changing His intention, and as dealing differently with man before and after conversion? Cf. Exodus 32:10-14; Jonah 3:10; Proverbs 11:20; 12:22; Psalm 18:26, 27.

The objection here implied is based to a certain extent on misunderstanding. The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility, as if there were no movement in God. It is even customary in theology to speak of God as actus purus, a God who is always in action. The Bible teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were, lives their life with them. There is change round about Him, change in the relations of men to Him, but there is no change in His Being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises. The purpose to create was eternal with Him, and there was no change in Him when this purpose was realized by a single eternal act of His will. The incarnation brought no change in the Being or perfections of God, nor in His purpose, for it was His eternal good pleasure to send the Son of His love into the world. And if Scripture speaks of His repenting, changing His intention, and altering His relation to sinners when they repent, we should remember that this is only an anthropopathic way of speaking. In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man's relations to God. It is important to maintain the immutability of God over against the Pelagian and Arminian doctrine that God is subject to change, not indeed in His Being, but in His knowledge and will, so that His decisions are to a great extent dependent on the actions of man; over against the pantheistic notion that God is an eternal becoming rather than an absolute Being, and that the unconscious Absolute is gradually developing into conscious personality in man; and over against the present tendency of some to speak of a finite, struggling, and gradually growing God.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

The Self-Existence of God

God is self-existent, that is, He has the ground of His existence in Himself. This idea is sometimes expressed by saying that He is causa sui (His own cause), but this expression is hardly accurate, since God is the uncaused, who exists by the necessity of His own Being, and therefore necessarily. Man, on the other hand, does not exist necessarily, and has the cause of his existence outside of himself. The idea of God's self-existence was generally expressed by the term aseitas, meaning self-originated, but Reformed theologians quite generally substituted for it the word independentia (independence), as expressing, not merely that God is independent in His Being, but also that He is independent in everything else: in His virtues, decrees, works, and so on. It may be said that there is a faint trace of this perfection in the creature, but this can only mean that the creature, though absolutely dependent, yet has its own distinct existence. But, of course, this falls far short of being self-existent. This attribute of God is generally recognized, and is implied in heathen religions and in the Absolute of philosophy.

When the Absolute is conceived of as the self-existent and as the ultimate ground of all things, which voluntarily enters into various relations with other beings, it can be identified with the God of theology. As the self-existent God, He is not only independent in Himself, but also causes everything to depend on Him. This self-existence of God finds expression in the name Jehovah. It is only as the self-existent and independent One that God can give the assurance that He will remain eternally the same in relation to His people. Additional indications of it are found in the assertion in John 5:26, "For as the Father hath life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in Himself"; in the declaration that He is independent of all things and that all things exist only through Him, Psalm 94:8ff.; Isaiah 40:18ff.; Acts 7:25; and in statements implying that He is independent in His thought, Romans 11:33, 34, and in His will, Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:19; Ephesians 1:5; Revelation 4:11. in His power, Psalm 115:3, and in His counsel, Psalm 33:11.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

The New Testament Names for God and their Interpretation

THEOS. The New Testament has the Greek equivalents of the Old Testament names. For 'El, 'Elohim, and 'Elyon it has Theos, which is the most common name applied to God. Like 'Elohim, it may by accommodation be used of heathen gods, though strictly speaking it expresses essential deity. 'Elyon is rendered Hupsistos Theos, Mark 5:7; Luke 1:32, 35, 75; Acts 7:48; 16:17; Hebrews 7:1. The names Shaddai and 'El-Shaddai are rendered Pantokrator and Theos Pantokrator, 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14. More generally, however, Theos is found with a genitive of possession, such as mou, sou, hemon, humon, because in Christ God may be regarded as the God of all and of each one of His children. The national idea of the Old Testament has made place for the individual in religion.

KURIOS. The name Yahweh is explicated a few times by variations of a descriptive kind, such as "the Alpha and the Omega," "who is and who was and who is to come," "the beginning and the end," "the first and the last," Revelation 1:4, 8, 17; 2:8; 21:6; 22:13. For the rest, however the New Testament follows the Septuagint, which substituted 'Adonai for it, and rendered this by Kurios, derived from kuros, power. This name does not have exactly the same connotation as Yahweh, but designates God as the Mighty One, the Lord, the Possessor, the Ruler who has legal power and authority. It is used not only of God, but also of Christ.

PATER. It is often said that the New Testament introduced a new name of God, namely, Pater (Father). But this is hardly correct. The name Father is used of the Godhead even in heathen religions. It is used repeatedly in the Old Testament to designate the relation of God to Israel, Deuteronomy 32:6; Psalm 103:13; Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; Jeremiah 3:4, 19; 31:9; Malachi 1:6; 2:10, while Israel is called the son of God, Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:19; Isaiah 1:2; Jeremiah 31:20; Hosea 1:10; 11:1. In such cases the name is expressive of the special theocratic relation in which God stands to Israel. In the general sense of originator or creator it is used in the following New Testament passages: 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 3:15; Hebrews 12:9; James 1:18. In all other places it serves to express either the special relation in which the first Person of the Trinity stands to Christ, as the Son of God either in a metaphysical or a mediatorial sense, or the ethical relation in which God stands to all believers as His spiritual children.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology

The Old Testament Names for God and their Meaning

'EL, 'ELOHIM, and 'ELYON. The most simple name by which God is designated in the Old Testament, is the name 'El, which is possibly derived from 'ul, either in the sense of being first, being lord, or in that of being strong and mighty. The name 'Elohim (sing. 'Eloah) is probably derived from the same root, or from 'alah, to be smitten with fear; and therefore points to God as the strong and mighty One, or as the object of fear. The name seldom occurs in the singular, except in poetry. The plural is to be regarded as intensive, and therefore serves to indicate a fulness of power. The name 'Elyon is derived from 'alah, to go up, to be elevated, and designates God as the high and exalted One, Genesis 14:19, 20; Numbers 24:16; Isaiah 14:14. It is found especially in poetry. These names are not yet nomina propria in the strict sense of the word, for they are also used of idols, Psalm 95:3; 96:5, of men, Genesis 33:10; Exodus 7:1, and of rulers, Judges 5:8; Exodus 21:6; 22:8-10; Psalm 82:1.

'ADONAI. This name is related in meaning to the preceding ones. It is derived from either dun (din) or 'adan, both of which mean to judge, to rule, and thus points to God as the almighty Ruler, to whom everything is subject, and to whom man is related as a servant. In earlier times it was the usual name by which the people of Israel addressed God. Later on it was largely supplanted by the name Jehovah (Yahweh). All the names so far mentioned describe God as the high and exalted One, the transcendent God. The following names point to the fact that this exalted Being condescended to enter into relations with His creatures.

SHADDAI and 'EL-SHADDAI. The name Shaddai is derived from shadad, to be powerful, and points to God as possessing all power in heaven and on earth. Others, however, derive it from shad, lord. It differs in an important point from 'Elohim, the God of creation and nature, in that it contemplates God as subjecting all the powers of nature and making them subservient to the work of divine grace. While it stresses the greatness of God, it does not represent Him as an object of fear and terror, but as a source of blessing and comfort. It is the name with which God appeared unto Abraham, the father of the faithful, Exodus 6:2.

YAHWEH and YAHWEH TSEBHAOTH. It is especially in the name Yahweh, which gradually supplanted earlier names, that God reveals Himself as the God of grace. It has always been regarded as the most sacred and the most distinctive name of God, the incommunicable name. The Jews had a superstitious dread of using it, since they read Leviticus 24:16 as follows: "He that nameth the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death." And therefore in reading the Scriptures they substituted for it either 'Adonai or 'Elohim; and the Massoretes, while leaving the consonants intact, attached to them the vowels of one of these names, usually those of 'Adonai. The real derivation of the name and its original pronunciation and meaning are more or less lost in obscurity. The Pentateuch connects the name with the Hebrew verb hayah, to be, Exodus 3:13, 14. On the strength of that passage we may assume that the name is in all probability derived from an archaic form of that verb, namely, hawah. As far as the form is concerned, it may be regarded as a third person imperfect qal or hiphil. Most likely, however, it is the former. The meaning is explained in Exodus 3:14, which is rendered "I am that I am," or "I shall be what I shall be." Thus interpreted, the name points to the unchangeableness of God. Yet it is not so much the unchangeableness of His essential Being that is in view, as the unchangeableness of His relation to His people. The name contains the assurance that God will be for the people of Moses' day what He was for their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It stresses the covenant faithfulness of God, is His proper name par excellence, Exodus 15:3; Psalm 83:19; Hosea 12:6; Isaiah 42:8, and is therefore used of no one but Israel's God. The exclusive character of the name appears from the fact that it never occurs in the plural or with a suffix. Abbreviated forms of it, found especially in composite names, are Yah and Yahu.

Adapted from Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology