Doctrine of God (Part 18): Moral Attributes

5.  Moral Attributes

We’ve been talking about the personal attributes of God. We looked at God’s intellectual attributes, his volitional attributes, and today we want to turn to God’s moral attributes. Obviously God, as a being worthy of worship, possesses moral attributes.  A being that is very good but morally imperfect might be worthy of admiration or respect, but only a being that is morally perfect could be worthy of worship. Indeed, perfect being theology entails by definition that God is morally perfect, since to be morally imperfect or morally flawed is inconsistent with perfection. Hence, God must be perfectly good.

Important questions arise in connection with God’s perfect goodness, namely, What is the relationship between God and the Good? What is the content of God’s perfect goodness? In order to answer these questions, let us look first to the biblical data concerning divine goodness.

        a.  Goodness

                       (1)  Analysis

                           (a)  Scriptural Data concerning God’s Goodness

The Bible ascribes to God a wealth of moral properties, including holiness, righteousness, love, grace, mercy, long-suffering, loving kindness, faithfulness, and so on. We might think that the goodness of God is a general moral property designating God’s moral perfection and comprising His righteousness, love, grace, mercy, long-suffering, and so on, but biblically speaking this would be, in fact, incorrect. Rather, as John Feinberg explains, the Hebrew words for goodness t.ôb /t.ûb have, like the English word, a breadth of meanings: (1) practical, economic, or material blessing, (2) abstract properties such as desirability, pleasantness, and beauty, (3) quality or expense, (4) moral goodness, and (5) well-being (the “good life”).[i] When the biblical authors speak of God’s goodness, what they typically have in mind is not God’s moral goodness but God’s beneficence or generosity. Thus the Psalms are filled with grateful praises for the goodness of the Lord. Feinberg concludes, “When we look at the biblical concept of divine goodness, one major idea stands out. It is that God is concerned about the well-being of his creatures and does things to promote it. Of course, God is interested in doing what is morally good and right, but biblical writers capture that idea by referring to his righteousness and holiness.”[ii] Since our interest is in God’s moral goodness, we are therefore better advised to look more closely at the biblical data concerning God’s righteousness and holiness, rather than His goodness. 

The Hebrew word s.edeq (righteousness) and the Greek expression dikaiosynē theou (the righteousness of God) are terms used to denote, among other things, dual aspects of God’s moral character. That is to say, God’s righteousness in Scripture looks in two directions, as it were, covering both God’s love and His justice.

Mark Seifrid points out that righteousness language in the OT has primarily to do with God’s role as Judge and Ruler of creation. As such it is normative, having to do with God’s establishing right moral order in the world. It takes on a positive or salvific sense because the biblical writers expect God to intervene to reinstate right order when it is usurped by evil in the world.  It takes on a negative or punitive sense because the biblical writers expect reinstatement of right order to involve the punishment of the wicked. As Mark Seifrid so aptly puts it, “Retribution remains on the ‘backside’ of divine acts of righteousness.” God’s righteousness comprises both aspects.

The righteousness of God therefore seems to be the relevant biblical concept for God’s moral perfection and comprises both His love and justice. On the one hand, the Scriptures famously assert that “God is love” (I Jn 4.8) and even ascribe relationships of love to the eternal Trinitarian persons (Jn 3.35; 14.31; 17.22-26). At the same time the Scriptures are replete with references to God’s hatred of sin, jealousy, wrath, and vengeance, which are manifestations of His justice.

God’s Holiness

So let’s begin by looking at some of the scriptural data concerning God’s holiness (qōdesh).

1. God is the very standard of righteousness. This, it seems to me, is the implication of Romans 9:14-21. There he talks about the call of God upon the lives of Jacob and Esau.

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?

Here Paul says that God’s election is based upon God’s own sovereign decision. He has mercy upon whom he wills; he hardens whom he wills. There is no higher court of appeal beyond God. One cannot bring God before the bar of some higher justice to say that this is unjust on God’s part. Why? Because God is himself the highest court of appeal. God is himself the very standard of justice and righteousness. Therefore, he cannot be brought before any higher court of appeal. God is not answerable to anyone because he is himself the standard of goodness and justice.

2. The Scriptures indicate that God is absolutely holy. Look at Exodus 3:3-5. This is the story of God’s appearance to Moses in the burning bush.

And Moses said, “I will turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.” When the LORD saw that he [Moses] turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here am I.” Then he said, “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”

The presence of God made that hallowed ground, so that Moses is told to take the shoes off of his feet because of the holiness of that place.

Leviticus 19:2: “Say to all the congregation of the people of Israel, ‘You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.’” Here God’s command to the people is that his holiness should be reflected in their lives. They should be holy because God himself is holy.

Finally, in the very last book of the Bible, in Revelation 4:8 we read:

And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to sing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

So God is absolutely holy. That then is the basis for the holiness that should characterize our lives.

3. God’s holiness serves to expose man’s sinfulness. Isaiah 6:1-5 is the vision of God that Isaiah had in the temple.

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”

Here the vision of God’s awesome holiness creates in Isaiah a deep sense of his own uncleanness and unrighteousness by comparison with God’s holiness. The awful purity of God serves to expose our own wickedness and inadequacy.

4. God’s holiness separates man from God. Look at the prophet Habakkuk, Habakkuk 1:13a says of the Lord, “Thou who art of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look on wrong.” God’s eyes are too pure to behold evil. He cannot look upon wrongdoing because of his holiness. As a result, we (being wrongdoers and being unholy) are spiritually separated from him as a result. We cannot abide in his presence.

Isaiah 59:1-2 express this very well.

“Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear.”

Here Isaiah says, The problem isn’t on God’s part. He is omnipotent. He is omniscient. The failing isn’t with God. It is that your sin and wickedness have created this separation between you and God so that he does not hear your prayers.

So the holiness of God serves to separate sinful man from God’s fellowship and presence. God’s holiness disperses evil just as light disperses darkness. They cannot abide together.

(b)  Systematic Summary

Let’s take a look at a systematic analysis of this attribute.

                                i.  God’s Will or God’s Nature?

Here we confront what is called the “Euthyphro Dilemma.” The Euthyphro Dilemma is named after a character in one of Plato’s dialogues named Euthyphro. The dilemma basically goes like this: “Does God will something because it is good or is something good because God wills it?” If you say that something is good just because God wills it then that makes good and evil arbitrary. God just makes up what is right and wrong, and he could have declared that hatred is good and love is evil. Then we would be morally obligated to hate one another, and to try to do one another harm. It seems crazy that good and evil, right and wrong, are just arbitrary like that. So it can’t be the case that the good is simply whatever God wills.

But then if you say that God wills what is good, then the good is independent of God. God lives up to the standard of goodness. What is good and evil is independent of God, and God always wills the right thing. He always wills the good thing. In that case God isn’t the standard of justice and goodness. There is something beyond him to which God must conform. He has to, in order to be good, command things in line with what is good independently of him.

So the Euthyphro Dilemma has the implication that God cannot be the source of moral goodness. Either the good is independent of God and God does what is good, or else good and evil are purely arbitrary and made up by God.

Christian philosophers, however, have exposed the Euthyphro Dilemma as a false dilemma. The two alternatives, despite first appearances perhaps, are not exhaustive. It is not as though you have to choose between A or not-A. This is like choosing between A and B, and there can be a third alternative C. In fact, in this case I think that neither of the two alternatives is correct, but they are not exhaustive. The correct alternative is to say, “God wills something because he is good.” That is to say, God is the standard of goodness. God is what Plato called The Good. He is, by his very nature, fair, loving, kind, compassionate, truth-telling, loyal, and so forth. He has all of these virtues as part of his essence, and therefore these goods are anchored in the being of God. They are goods because they are God’s properties – God’s virtues. God is The Good and he determines the standard of goodness. The Good is not something that is independent of God to which God conforms, nor is The Good based in God’s will – in his arbitrary decision. Rather, God himself is The Good and he is that way by his very nature.

When God gives moral commands to us, these are expressions of his perfectly good nature. These become our moral duties, so right and wrong (moral obligation and prohibition) are based in the commands of a just and loving God. Good and evil (moral values) are determined by God’s nature; right and wrong (our moral duties) are anchored in God’s will, which is an expression of that nature and therefore not simply arbitrarily chosen.

What that would suggest, then, is God is not beneath the law. That would be the view that God somehow conforms to an independent moral law that exists apart from him. Rather, here I think the philosopher Immanuel Kant made a very helpful distinction between acting from duty or acting according to duty. God issues moral commands to us that constitute our moral duties or obligations. We act from duty. Duty, or obligation, is imposed upon us. When we do these things we do our duty. We act from duty. But when God does them it is not as though he is acting from duty because presumably he doesn’t issue commands to himself, right? So he doesn’t have any moral duties in a literal sense, but because of his perfectly good nature he acts in accordance with what would be moral duty. We act from duty, but God out of his very nature simply acts in accord with moral duty. But he doesn’t literally have moral duties because he doesn’t issue commands to himself, and commands are the source of moral obligation. Obligations arise as a result of moral imperatives: “Thou shalt do this,” “Thou shalt not do that.” These moral imperatives come from a qualified authority; namely, God, who is goodness itself.

This view of the relationship between God and The Good is sometimes called “divine command morality.” That is to say, our moral duties are based in the commandments of God to us – they constitute our duties – but those commands are not arbitrary. That would be a sort of voluntaristic divine command theory which some Christian thinkers have held, but the majority would say, no, these commandments that he gives are expressions of his own essence. So it is impossible that God could have commanded, say, that hatred be good and love be evil because that would be to contradict his very essence. He is by nature loving and so to issue such a command would contradict his nature which is logically impossible, as we’ve seen.