Evangelical Answers : Does God’s Love Extend to Fallen Angels in Any Sense? (The Satan and the Devils?)

Tuesday, June 8, 2021

Does God’s Love Extend to Fallen Angels in Any Sense? (The Satan and the Devils?)

Outline.

1. Types of Love / Goodness.

1.1. General vs. Special Love.

2. God’s Love of His Creation.

2.1. Genesis 1.

2.2. Psalm 145:9.

2.3. 1 Timothy 4:4a.

3. Common Grace: God’s Preservation of All His Creatures.

3.1. Matthew 5:43-45; Luke 6:35-36.

3.2. Excursus: Common Grace — Judgment and Condemnation.

4. The Image of God.

5. Appendix: Wrath and Love: Ephesians 2:3 and Romans 5:8.

1. Types of Love / Goodness. Return to Outline.

John Calvin:

…all the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love. To distinguish the degrees of love is, therefore, a matter of importance.

(John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Volume Second, trans. William Pringle, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], on Mark 10:21, pp. 398-399.)

Andrew Fuller:

That God loves all mankind I make no doubt, and all the works of his hands, as such considered, fallen angels themselves not excepted; but the question is whether he loves them all alike; and whether the exercise of punitive justice be inconsistent with universal goodness.

(Andrew Fuller, ‘Defence of the “Gospel Worthy if All Acceptation,” In Reply to Mr. Button And Philanthropos,’ Reply to the Observations of Philanthropos, §. 4; In: The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller: In Three Volumes: Vol. II, [Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1848], p. 494.)

Note: See further: The Will(s) of God.

Francis Turretin:

From goodness flows love by which he communicates himself to the creature and (as it were) wills to unite himself with and do good to it, but in diverse ways and degrees according to the diversity of the objects. Hence is usually made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that by which he follows creatures, called “love of the creature” (philoktisia); the second, that by which he embraces men, called “love of man” (philoanthrōpia); the third, which is specially exercised towards the elect and is called “the love of the elect” (eklektophilia). For in proportion as the creature is more perfect and more excellent, so also does it share in a greater effluence and outpouring (aporroēn) of divine love. Hence although love considered affectively and on the part of the internal act is equal in God (because it does not admit of increase and diminution), yet regarded effectively (or on the part of the good which he wills to anyone) it is unequal because some effects of love are greater than others.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume One, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992], 3.20.4, p. 241.)

John Frame:

As with goodness, God’s love extends to everyone, but in different ways. God loves himself in his Trinitarian society. The Father loves the Son (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; John 17:24, 26); the Son loves the Father (John 14:31). The love between the three persons is eternal. So he would have been a loving God even if he had not created the world. His love is a necessary attribute, one without which he would not be God. As 1 John 4:8 and 16 teach us, God is love.

God also loves everything that he has made, including his enemies (Matt. 5:43-48), as we have seen.

(John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2013], Chapter 12: God’s Attributes: Love and Goodness.)

Richard Muller:

Considered as a divine attribute, the amor Dei can be defined as the propensity of the divine essence or nature for the good, both in the sense of God’s inward, intrinsic, benevolentia, or willing of the good, and in the sense of God’s external, extrinsic, beneficentia, or kindness, toward his creatures. The amor Dei, then, is directed inwardly and intrinsically toward God himself as the summum bonum, or highest good, and, among the persons of the Trinity, toward one another. Externally, or extrinsically, the amor Dei is directed toward all things, but according to a threefold distinction. The amor Dei universalis encompasses all things and is manifest in the creation itself, in the conservation and governance of the world; the amor Dei communis is directed toward all human beings, both elect and reprobate, and is manifest in all blessings, or benefits (beneficia) of God; and the amor Dei proprius, or specialis, is directed toward the elect or believers only and is manifest in the gift of salvation.

(Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], pp. 31-32.)

Cf. Richard Muller:

The Reformed orthodox also make a set of distinctions within the category of amor voluntarius, dividing it either into two main parts, the amor benevolentiae (love of benevolence) and amor complacentiae vel amicitiae (love of delight or friendship) and then dividing the amor benevolentiae into subcategories of general and special — or, in a more soteriologically specified approach for the purpose of identifying the love of God toward rational creatures, into three parts: the amor benevolentiae; the amor beneficentiae (love of beneficence or kindness); and the amor complacentiae vel amicitiae. The first of these approaches, the amor benevolentiae, is defined as an antecedent love resting on the benevolentia or good will of God toward all creation — and must be distinguished, like the providence of God, into the categories of universal (or general) “affective” love and special “effective” love, specifically, the universal love of God for all created good and the special love according to which God unequally loves various creatures, given the inequality of the goodness in them — and, beyond this, the special love that he has for Christ and for rational creatures and, among the rational creatures, for his elect…

(Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725: Volume Three: The Divine Essence and Attributes, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], p. 566.)

A. A. Hodge:

Benevolence is the goodness of God viewed generically. It embraces all his creatures, except the judicially condemned on account of sin, and provides for their welfare.

The love of complacency is that approving affection with which God regards his own infinite perfections, and every image and reflection of them in his creatures…

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1878], p. 252.)

Charles Hodge:

Goodness, in the Scriptural sense of the term, includes benevolence, love, mercy, and grace. By benevolence is meant the disposition to promote happiness; all sensitive creatures are its objects. Love includes complacency, desire, and delight, and has rational beings for its objects. Mercy is kindness exercised towards the miserable, and includes pity, compassion, forbearance, and gentleness, which the Scriptures so abundantly ascribe to God. Grace is love exercised towards the unworthy. The love of a holy God to sinners is the most mysterious attribute of the divine nature.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. I, [New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1872], p. 427.)

Charles Hodge:

4. Positively, it means that love in God, as desire, complacency and benevolence, is essential, eternal and infinite, a. It is universal, extending to all his creatures, b. It is intelligent, c. It is holy. d. It is unfathomable, e. It is sovereign and discriminating. One creature is an angel, another a man, and another a brute, another an insect. Of rational creatures, some are preserved holy, some left to sin. Of the latter some are redeemed and others are not. f. It is affluent, rejoicing in enriching and adorning his creatures, g. It is immutable in all its forms, whether of simple benevolence or of electing saving love. h. It is manifold, manifesting itself in one form towards merely sentient creatures, in another towards rational beings, in another towards the unholy, and in another towards the redeemed, his peculiar ones, his יְחִידִים. (if that word can have a plural.)

(Charles Hodge, Princeton Sermons, [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879], “I. God and His Attributes,” VIII. God is Love, p. 12.)

Johannes Maccovius:

6. Goodness is either natural, or moral, or supernatural.

Natural goodness belongs to all being. In this respect the devil is also good. Moral goodness is an ethical virtue such as the gentiles possessed. Supernatural goodness belongs to Christians in so far as they believe.

(Johannes Maccovius, Distinction et Regulæ Theologicæ ac Philofophicæ, [Franequeræ: Sumptibus Joannis Archerii, 1653], 23.4.6, p. 178; trans. Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, trans. & ed. Willem J. van Asselt, Michael D. Bell, Gert van den Brink, Rein Ferwerda, [Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009], 23.4.6, p. 327.)

W. Brenton Greene:

(5) His goodness, in all its forms, is boundless. It includes (a) benevolence, which has for its objects all sensitive creatures (Ps. CXLV:9); (b) love, which has rational beings for its objects (John III: 16); (c) mercy, which has for its objects the miserable (Isa. LXIII:9); (d) grace, which has for its objects the undeserving (Rom. V:8). When any suffer, it is at least because this is right; it cannot be because of lack of power or of mercy in God. When sinners are lost it is at least because His justice so requires; it cannot be because God lacks either the power (Heb. VII: 25) or the wish to save them (I Tim. II:4). Hence, “God is love” (I John IV:8). Though He is much else, love is that in which He delights. Moreover, as the expression of His love ever harmonizes with His justice, so His justice is always exercised in love. God never feels so much compassion as when He punishes most severely (Ezek. XXXIII: 11).

(W. Brenton Greene, Christian Doctrine, [Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1905], pp. 15-16.)

Note: Greene was a close personal friend of J. Gresham Machen. (Cf. Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1954], p. 439.)

Johnathan Edwards:

Love is commonly distinguished into love of benevolence and love of complacence. Love of benevolence is that affection or propensity of the heart to any Being, which causes it to incline to its well being, or disposes it to desire and take pleasure in its happiness. And if I mistake not, it is agreeable to the common opinion, that beauty in the object is not always the ground of this propensity: But that there may be such a thing as benevolence, or a disposition to the welfare of those that are not considered as beautiful; unless mere existence be accounted a beauty. And benevolence or goodness in the divine Being is generally supposed, not only to be prior to the beauty of many of its objects, but to their existence: So as to be the ground both of their existence and their beauty, rather than they the foundation of God’s benevolence; as it is supposed that it is God’s goodness which moved him to give them both Being and beauty. So that if all virtue primarily consists in that affection of heart to Being, which is exercised in benevolence, or an inclination to its good, then God’s virtue is so extended as to include a propensity, not only to Being actually existing, and actually beautiful, but to possible Being, so as to incline him to give Being, beauty and happiness. But not now to insist particularly on this. What I would have observed at present, is, that it must be allowed, benevolence doth not necessarily presuppose beauty in its object.

What is commonly called love of complacence, presupposes beauty. For it is no other than delight in beauty; or complacence in the person or Being beloved for his beauty.

(Johnathan Edwards, “The Nature of True Virtue,” Ch. 1; In: The Works of President Edwards: In Eight Volumes: Volume II, [Worcester: Isaiah Thomas, 1808], pp. 398-399.)

1.1. General vs. Special Love. Return to Outline.

Thomas Larkham:

But this Attribute of Love is to be considered as it hath a double object, either general, or special. The former is every creature, every entity; in this respect God’s love reacheth to the very meanest creature. Neither are these creatures in general only said to be the objects of God’s love, in regard of those acts which he exerciseth on them; as in their creation, so in their preservation and ordering of them: but also the creation is an object of God’s love of complacency in some sort, for Omne Ens est bonum, Every created being is good; and therefore God must needs love it, because the divine Will was the cause of their being, even of the being of each thing.

(Thomas Larkham, The Attributes of God Unfolded, and Applied: The Second Part, [London: Printed for Francis Eglesfield, 1656], p. 158.)

Wilhelmus à Brakel:

The love of His benevolence is either general as it relates to the manner in which God delights in, desires to bless, maintains, and governs all His creatures by virtue of the fact that they are His creatures (Ps 145:9), or it is special. This special love refers to God’s eternal designation of the elect to be the objects of His special love and benevolence.

(Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service: Volume 1: God, Man and Christ, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992], pp. 123-124.)

Petrus Van Mastricht:

(3) Through his own infinite goodness, God has dispensed and does dispense all good that all creatures—even the worst, down to the reprobate and the demons—possess, but by his goodness he is not strictly bound to dispense eternal salvation to each and every person. (4) Nor does it hinder the divine goodness that he dispenses his goodness in various ways and degrees among his own creatures and does not confer every good to every creature, that for example, the goodness he confers on angels he does not confer on men, and what he dispensed to man he does not cast to the beasts. Thus, it absolutely does not hinder the divine goodness that he does not dispense to dogs the good that belongs to his children (Matt. 15:24). Furthermore, (5) with his goodness not standing in the way, he wills to condemn most of mankind eternally (Prov. 1:26-27; Rom. 9:15, 18).

(Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 2: Faith in the Triune God, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019], Part 1, Book 2, Chapter 16, §. 14.) Preview.

Cf. Petrus Van Mastricht:

…love, which is nothing except goodness as it is communicative of itself…

Cf. John Murray:

In other words, the goodness bestowed is surely goodness expressed.

(John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” p. 105.)

Cf. Petrus Van Mastricht:

X. Moreover, the goodness of God is transferred to the creatures in different ways: (1) in a universal way, to all creatures, by creating, bearing, governing, and equipping them (Ps. 36:6; 147:9). (2) In a common way, to men indiscriminately, to the elect as well as the reprobate (1 Tim. 4:10), in piling upon them various common kindnesses (Rom. 2:4; 1 Tim. 6:17). (3) In a special way, to the elect (Ps. 36:7; 73:1), in dispensing saving goods to them (Eph. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3-4). For this reason, according to its various respects it takes on various names: love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, patience, clemency, and kindness (all which will be treated expressly in the next chapter).

James P. Boyce:

2. The second kind of love, is the love of benevolence, which corresponds to the idea of God’s goodness towards his creatures.

This is the product of his wishes for their happiness. It is not dependent on their character, as is the love of complacency, but is exercised towards both innocent and guilty.

It is general in its nature, not special, and exists towards all, even towards devils, and wicked men, because God’s nature is benevolent, and, therefore, he must wish for the happiness of his creatures.

That that happiness is not attained, nor attainable, is due, not to him, but to their own sin.

When the benevolence of God is exercised actively in the bestowment of good things upon his creatures, it is called his beneficence. By the former, he wishes them happiness, by the latter, he confers blessings to make them so.

This is done to the wicked also, as well as to the righteous. It is to this that Christ refers, Matt. 5:45, “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.”

(James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, [Louisville: Chas. T. Dearing, 1882], p. 104.)

Heinrich Heppe:

32.—God’s holiness is manifested generally as perfect kindness and love and as perfect righteousness. Both rest upon a “certain benevolent and beneficent propension towards the creatures”, which is present in God (MASTRICHT II, xvii, 3). “The love of God is the essential property or essence of God, whereby delighting Himself in it He wishes it the good which He approves.” To be distinguished are the “general love of God”, the object of which is creation generally, so that “no one either of men or even of demons may say that he is not loved by God”; God hates the sin in the godless, but loves the nature created by Him—and the “special love of God, by which He peculiarly pursues the separate elect” (POLAN, II, 122). Herein is manifested the “goodness of God”, according to which God is in and for Himself “supremely good” and towards creation “beneficent” (RISSEN III, 41). Since then God’s love for the creature is essentially a “love not due”, it appears as grace. “God’s grace is His virtue and perfection, by which He bestows and communicates Himself becomingly on and to the creature beyond all merit belonging to it” (HEIDEGGER III, 94). Over against the misery of the creature God’s love is manifested (1) as mercy. Etymologically misericordia is wretchedness of heart due to a sense of another’s wretchedness together with alacrity in succouring the wretched. Actually in God it is nothing but grace towards the wretched” (MASTRICHT II, xvii, 22); (2) as patience and long suffering. “Patientia Dei is His most benign will, by which He so controls His anger, that He either bears sinning creatures long and puts off punishment, awaiting their repentance, or He does not pour forth all His anger in one moment upon them, lest they should be reduced to naught”; and (3) as gentleness: “God’s clemency is His most benign will, by which mindful of His mercy in wrath He is propitious to us and spares us, although we have deserved otherwise, preferring our repentance and conversion to our death” (POLAN II, 24 and 25).

(Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], pp. 95-96.)

Amandus Polanus:

The goodnesse of God, is his wil, by which he himselfe is by all meanes good, being both in himselfe and without himselfe, the authour of all good things.

In himselfe he is good, by his essence and chiefly.

In his essence, because he is good, not by participation of good from another, but naturally, and of himselfe, and that from eternitie: neither is he so, by any accidentall goodnesse, but it is his owne very goodnesse.

Chiefly, because he only is the chiefe good, that is to be desired of all.

Without himselfe hee is the authour of all goodnesse, both in making so many good creatures, and also by doing good to the creatures that he hath made.

This goodnesse of God, by which he is the author of all good things without himselfe, is either generall or speciall.

Generall is that, which generally extendeth it selfe unto all creatures, not onely towards them, which have continued in that goodnes in which they were created, but also towards those which have fallen from their first goodnesse, as towards the evill Angels, and wicked men.

The speciall goodnesse of God is that, by which God willeth well to the elect Angels, and his chosen amongst men. Psal. 73.1.

(Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Wilcocks, [London: Printed by Arn. Hatfield for William Aspley, 1608], pp. 16-17.)

Cf. Amandus Polanus:

So likewise his generall love &c, so God hates nothing of that he hath made so farre forth as he made it.

(Amandus Polanus, A Treastise of Amandus Polanus Concerning Gods Eternall Predestination, [Cambridge: Printed by John Legat, 1599], p. 178.)

Amandus Polanus:

The love of God towards the creatures, is either generall or speciall.

The generall love of God, is that with which hee embraceth altogether all things which hee hath made, and doth good unto them, and preserveth and sustaineth them.

For though he hate sinne, yet he loveth the nature which he hath created.

The speciall love of God is that, with which he doth peculiarly prosecute the elect only.

(Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Wilcocks, [London: Printed by Arn. Hatfield for William Aspley, 1608], p. 18.)

Amandus Polanus:

When love is attributed to God in Scripture, it does not mean a passion or an affect, for God is dispassionate [ἀπαθής], the freest, the most blissful, the most blessed, the most perfect. Nothing slavish happens to Him, nothing lowly, and finally nothing that indicates any imperfection. But God’s love denotes three completely, perfect things: eternal benevolence, actual beneficence, and actual delight in the thing loved. For he who loves something is well-disposed towards it, does it whatever good he is capable of, and delights in it. These three things are found in the love of God. Now this love is first the love of God in himself, and then towards his creatures. For God loves himself and above all things: the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit the Father and the Son. God’s love for his creatures is first general and then special. That general love is the one by which he fully embraces all things created by him, blesses them, and preserves and sustains them. In this way there is no one, no man, and no devil either, who can say that he is not loved by God. The special love is that by which alone he leads the elect to eternal life, as he acknowledges them to be his own children in Christ: this passage [Mal. 1:2] here must be understood from this special love.

(Amando Polano à Polansdorf, Analysis Libelli Prophetae Malachiae, Aliquot Praelectionibus Genevæ Proposita, [Basileae: Per Conradum Waldkirch, 1597], p. 10; trans. Damianus Cathedralulus.)

Marcus Friedrich Wendelin:

That is called voluntary in a special manner, wherewith God freely pursues His creatures: and it is either universal or special.

That is universal, whereby God in some manner loves all creatures: according to that saying in Wisdom of Solomon 11:24, thou lovest all the things that are, and abhorrest nothing which thou hast made. The same is proven by reason: For, to love is to will good to anyone. But God wills some good to all creatures. Hence Christ in Matthew 5:45, He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. Now, evil men, whom God hates, He nevertheless loves, not with respect to their evil, but with respect to nature, which is not effaced by sin. Whence that saying of Augustine, book 1 ad Simplicianum, question 2, God does not hate Esau as man, but Esau as sinner.

There is a special love, because God unequally loves these and those creatures, with respect to the unequal good that He wills to them. Thus He loves irrational creatures in one degree, rational creatures in another: and among rational creatures, the man Christ in one degree, the remaining mere men in another: and among these, the elect and pious in one degree, and the reprobate and impious in another. Hence Augustine in tractate 110 on John, God loves all the things that He has made, and among those He loves rational creatures more, and among them those that are members of His only begotten even more: and much more the only begotten Himself.

(Marci Friderici Wendelini, Christianæ Theologiæ: Libri II, [Hanoviæ: Typis Wechelianis, sumptibus Clementis Schleichii, & Petri de Zetter, 1634], Lib. I, Cap. I, Thes. XXIII, pp. 78-79; trans. Steven Dilday.)

Edward Leigh:

Gods love to Christ is the foundation of his love to us, Matth. 3. 17. Ephes. 1.6.

God loves all creatures with a General Love, Matth. 5.44, 45. as they are the work of his hands; but he doth delight in some especially, whom he hath chosen in his Son…

(Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, [London: Printed by A. M. for William Lee, 1654], 2.8, p. 167.)

Loenard Riissen:

The question is not of God’s general love and φιλανθρωπία, which He exercises towards all creatures, but of His special saving love, by which He has willed to pity them unto salvation.

(Leonardus Riissenius, Francisci Turretini Compendium Theologiae didacticoelencticae ex theologorum nostrorum Institutionibus auctum et illustratum, [Amsterdam, 1695], VI.18.2; Quoted in: Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], p. 173.)

Cf. Heinrich Heppe:

19.—Therefore the number of the elect has been fixed by God from eternity. His universal love and grace God of course shows to all His creatures. But His redeeming grace is not universal but particular. It has only chosen those whom according to His unsearchable counsel God wished to elect, in order to make known to them the glory of His sin-forgiving love, which rescues them from eternal death.

(Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], p. 172.)

Thomas Goodwin:

There is a common love to men as creatures, so he loves every man and thing he hath made…

(Thomas Goodwin, “An Exposition of the First Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians,” Sermon 2; In: The Works of Thomas Goodwin: Vol. I, [Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1861], p. 41.)

Geerhardus Vos:

94. What is God’s goodness and what is it sometimes called?

It is His love toward personal and sentient creatures in general and can also be called Amor Dei generalis, “God’s general love.”

(Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics: Single-Volume Edition, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2020], 1.2.94, p. 38.)

John Ball:

Q. What is goodnesse in God?

A. Goodnesse is that whereby God being the chief good, Mark 10.18. sheweth himselfe very good and bountiful to all his Creatures, Psalm 86.5. Gen. 1. 31. Psalm 33.5. and 36.6. and 145.9.

(John Ball, A Short Treatise Containing all the Principal Grounds of Christian Religion, [London: For John Wright, 1656], p. 74.)

Edward Leigh:

Bonitas rei Bonitas creatæ est illa perfectio, qua apta sit ad usum, cui inservit, Amesius. Hæc bonitas duplex est, 1. Generalis omnium creaturarum, viz. Integritas & Perfetio omnium donorum & virium naturalium, quarum beneficio suas operationes exercere possunt conformiter ad divinam voluntatem & ordinare ad proprios fines. 2. Specialis, creaturæ rationalis, Angelorum & hominum; qui donis supernaturalibus ornat: sunt, quæ vocantur uno nomine sanctitas sive imago Dei. Gen.1.26.

(Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, [London: Printed by A. M. for William Lee, 1654], 3.2, p. 228.) See also: books.google.com.

English:

The goodness of a thing, the goodness of the created thing, is that perfection by which it is suited for the use it serves, according to Ames. This goodness is twofold: 1. General, of all creatures, namely, the integrity and perfection of all natural gifts and powers, by which they can perform their operations in accordance with the divine will and be directed to their proper ends. 2. Special, of rational creatures, Angels and humans, who are adorned with supernatural gifts: these are called by one name, holiness or the image of God (Genesis 1:26).

John Norton:

The goodness communicated from God unto the creature, is either special, bestowed upon Angels and men: Or common, bestowed upon the rest of the Creation: The Earth is full of the goodness of the Lord, Psal. 33.5. The impression of his Image is upon the reasonable, the impression of his Footsteps, is upon the unreasonable creature.

(John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter I, p. 13.)

Amandus Polanus:

Bonitas Dei, quâ extra se omnis boni autor existit vel generalis est vel specialis.

Generalis bonitas Dei, est quæ ad omnes creaturas generatim se extendit, non tantùm erga eas quæ in bonitate, cum qua creatæ erant, manserunt: sed etiam erga illas, quæ à bonitate primigenia defecerunt; ut erga malos Angelos & homines, Psalm.33.versic.5. Repleta est terra bonitate Jehovæ.

Specialis bonitas Dei, est quâ Deus bene vult electis Angelis & hominibus: de qua dicitur Psalm. 73. versiculo primo. Atqui bonus est Israëli Deus, puris animo. Et Psalm.103.versicul.11.17. Quàm alti sunt cæli supra terram, prævalet benignitas ejus erga timentes eum. Benignitas Jehovæ inde à seculo usque in seculum est erga timentes ipsum. Inprimis erga Ecclesiam adhuc in terris militantem, demonstrat bonitatem suam, tum liberando eam à malis, tum afficiendo bonis. Psalm.136.versic.10. & sequentibus. Idq́ue inde ab initio mundi quo vis tempore, Psalm.25.6. Recordare miserationum tuarum, Jehovæ, & benignitatum tuarum, eas à seculo esse.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 2.20, pp. 295-296.)

English:

The goodness of God, by which He is the author of all good things outside Himself, is either general or special.

The general goodness of God extends to all creatures universally, not only to those who remained in the goodness with which they were created but also to those who have fallen from their original goodness, such as evil Angels and humans, as stated in Psalm 33:5, “The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord.”

The special goodness of God is that by which God wills good for the elect Angels and humans. Of this, it is said in Psalm 73:1, “Surely God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart,” and in Psalm 103:11,17, “For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. The lovingkindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him.” Especially towards the Church still militant on earth, He demonstrates His goodness by both delivering it from evils and bestowing good things upon it, as seen in Psalm 136:10 and following. This is true from the beginning of the world and at all times, as stated in Psalm 25:6, “Remember, O Lord, Your compassion and Your lovingkindnesses, for they have been from of old.”

Amandus Polanus:

Gratia Deo propriissimè attribuitur; est enim ei essentialis, imò essentia ipsa divina: & sic describitur;

Gratia in Deo residens, est essentialis proprietas ejus, nimirum benignissima voluntas Dei & favor, per quem verè & propriè est gratiosus, quo favet & gratis benefacit creaturæ suæ.

Eaq́ue vel generalis est vel specialis.

Generalis gratia Dei, est voluntas ejus quæ communiter ad universas res à Deo conditas extenditur, quatenus omnibus illis ex favore benefacit, omniumq́; est conservator, ita ut de hac gratia conqueri nulla res queat, ac si eam Deus non declaret erga ipsam.

Specialis gratia Dei, est gratuita benevolentia Dei, quâ in Christo peculiariter complectitur solos electos, Angelos & homines servandos: & dicitur gratia gratum faciens, item gratia acceptans, hoc est, quæ Deo sive Angelum, sive hominem gratum & acceptum facit; item hominum respectu gratia salvans, gratia justificans, gratia regenerans, quâ ad lucem æternam in Christo electi, vocati, justificati, regenerati sumus.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 2.21, p. 297.)

English:

Grace is most properly attributed to God; it is essential to Him, indeed it is His very essence, and is described as follows:

The grace residing in God is His essential property, namely the most benevolent will of God and favor, by which He is truly and properly gracious, favoring and freely doing good to His creatures.

This grace is either general or special.

The general grace of God is His will that extends universally to all things created by God, in that He does good to all of them out of favor and is the preserver of all, so that no thing can complain about this grace, as if God did not declare it toward them.

The special grace of God is the free benevolence of God, by which in Christ He particularly embraces only the elect, Angels, and humans to be saved. It is called grace making one acceptable, or accepting grace, that is, which makes either an Angel or a human pleasing and acceptable to God; in respect to humans, it is saving grace, justifying grace, regenerating grace, by which the elect are called, justified, and regenerated to eternal light in Christ.

Amandus Polanus:

Amor Dei voluntarius, est quo creaturas suas amat.

Estq́ue vel generalis vel specialis.

Generalis seu communis amor Dei, est quo omnes prorsus res abs se conditas, quatenus creaturæ sunt, complectitur; ijsq́ue benefacit, easq́; conservat & sustenta. Sap.11.v.24.

Hoc pacto nemo est vel hominum vel etiam dæmoniorum, qui dicere queat, se non amari à Deo. Etsi enim Deus in illis odio habeat peccatum, amat tamen naturam quam creavit, Matt.5.44.45. Hujus amoris cursus peccato hominis inhibetur.

Specialis seu singularis amor Dei, est quo singulos electos peculiariter prosequitur.

Estq́ue tum erga Christum quò ad humanam ejus naturam, tum erga electos in Christo.

Amor Dei erga Christum, est quo Pater Christum complectitur; non tantùm ut λόγον, sed etiam ut hominem & Mediatorem ab æterno constitutum, Joh.3.v.35. Pater diligit Filium, & omnia dedit ei in manum. Atque hic amor Patris erga Filium, est fundamentum amoris Dei erga nos: quia Deus dilexit nos in illo dilecto, Eph.1.v.6.

Amor Dei erga electos in Christo est tum erga sanctos Angelos, tum erga homines servandos.

De speciali amore erga homines servandos dicitur Joh.3.v.16. Ita Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum Unigenitum dederit; ut quisquis credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam æternam. Et Rom.8.39. Nulla res condita potest nos separare à charitate Dei, quæ est in Christo Jesu Domino nostro. Ergo quatenus homines, complectitur Deus singulos communi amore; quatenus Christianos, complectitur eos singulari amore in Christo.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 2.22, p. 313.)

English:

The voluntary love of God is that by which He loves His creatures.

This love is either general or special.

The general or common love of God is that by which He embraces all things created by Himself, insofar as they are creatures, does good to them, preserves and sustains them, as stated in Wisdom of Solomon 11:24. Thus, there is no one among humans or even demons who can say they are not loved by God. Although God hates sin in them, He still loves the nature He created, as seen in Matthew 5:44-45. The course of this love is hindered by human sin.

The special or singular love of God is that by which He particularly pursues each of the elect.

This love is both towards Christ in respect to His human nature, and towards the elect in Christ.

The love of God towards Christ is that by which the Father embraces Christ, not only as the Word [λόγον] but also as a man and mediator appointed from eternity, as stated in John 3:35, “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand.” This love of the Father towards the Son is the foundation of God’s love towards us, because God loved us in the beloved, as stated in Ephesians 1:6.

The love of God towards the elect in Christ is both towards the holy Angels and towards humans to be saved.

Regarding the special love towards humans to be saved, it is said in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life,” and in Romans 8:39, “No created thing can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Therefore, insofar as humans, God embraces each with common love; insofar as Christians, He embraces them with singular love in Christ.

2. God’s Love of His Creation. Return to Outline.

W. G. T. Shedd:

Goodness is a special attribute with varieties under it. 1. The first of these is Benevolence. This is the affection which the Creator feels towards the sentient and conscious creature, as such. Benevolence cannot be shown to insentient existence; to the rocks and mountains. It grows out of the fact that the creature is his workmanship. God is interested in everything which he has made. He cannot hate any of his own handiwork. The wrath of God is not excited by anything that took its origin from him. It falls only upon something that has been added to his own work. Sin is no part of creation, but a quality introduced into creation by the creature himself. . . . Disobedience and ingratitude deaden and destroy the benevolent feeling of man towards man, but not that of God towards his creatures. Sinful men are the objects of God’s providential care, as well as renewed men. Even Satan and the fallen angels are treated with all the benevolence which their enmity to God will admit of. God feels no malevolence towards them.

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume I: Second Edition, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889], pp. 385-386.)

William Gearing:

There is some Print of Gods goodness in many that are not Godly, which ought to draw our affection to it; Goodness being the Object of Love. This is the reason why God himself loveth all his Creatures, because there is a participation of his Goodness in them.

(William Gearing, Philadelphia, Or, A Treatise of Brotherly-Love, [London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1670], p. 40.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

…because our iniquity had not devoured his work in every part, he knew how simultaneously in each one of us both to hate what we had made and to love what he had made. And this indeed can be understood in all things about him to whom it was truly said, “You hate none of the things that you have made.”[fn. 29. Wis 11.25 (NAB 11.24).] For he would not have wanted whatever he hated to exist, nor would what the Omnipotent did not want to exist at all exist unless there were also in that which he hates [something] that he might love. For indeed, he rightly hates and repudiates vice as incompatible, as it were, with the rule of his creative knowledge; nevertheless even in the doers of vice he loves either his own benefaction by healing or judgment by damnation. Thus, God both hates none of the things that he made (for, the Creator of natures, not of vices, he did not make the evils that he hates); and concerning the same evils, either by his healing them through mercy or by his setting them in order through judgment, the things that he makes are good.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 110.6; trans. FC, 90:296-297.)

Wisdom of Solomon 11:23-26:

…you are merciful to all, for you can do all things . . . you love all things that exist and detest none of the things that you have made, for you would not have formed anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord…

(New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition.)

John Robinson:

For first, it is true, that God hateth nothing that he hath made, so far as it is his work but as sin, coming in, hath destroyed the work of God, though not in respect of the nature, or being, yet of the integrity, and holy being of the creature; so God, through his unchangeable holiness, hating sin, doth, also, most fervently hate and abhor from the sinful creature, in whom it reigneth, in respect of it, as the Scriptures do expressly and plentifully teach, Mal. ii. 8; Psa. v. 5, 6; Prov. xvi. 5; Tit. i. 16. And God loving himself and his own holiness in the first place and most, and the creature and his good, but in the second place, the love of the creature must give way to the love of himself, and so he, necessarily, hate the obstinate sinner. And this it is most needful for all men firmly to believe, and continually to bear in mind, that they may always bewail their sins, and nourish in themselves the hatred of that which God so hateth, and for it, the creature; and for which he punisheth it with most horrible curses, and punishments for ever.

And yet, even in the very execution of his most fearful vengeance upon the reprobate, men and angels, he retaineth the general love of a Creator; and out of it, preserveth the being of the creature, which in itself, and in respect of the universal is better than not to be, though not so in the sense of the person and also moderateth the extremity of that torment, which he both could, and might in justice, inflict.

(John Robinson, “Of Religious Communion, Private and Public,” Ch. 6, Sect. 2; In: The Works of John Robinson: Volume III, [London: John Snow, 1851], pp. 253-254.)

Stephen Charnock:

God’s goodness extends to the angels, that, kept their standing, and to man in innocence, who in that state stood not in need of mercy. Goodness and mercy are distinct, though mercy be a branch of goodness; there may be a manifestation of goodness, though none of mercy. Some think Christ had been incarnate, had not man fallen; had it been so, there had been a manifestation of goodness to our nature, but not of mercy, because sin had not made our natures miserable. The devils are monuments of God’s creating goodness, but not of his pardoning compassions. The grace of God respects the rational creature, mercy the miserable creature, goodness all his creatures, brutes, and the senseless plants, as well as reasonable man.

(Stephen Charnock, Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God: First American Edition, In Two Volumes: Vol. II., [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1840], Discourse XII: The Goodness of God, pp. 256-257.)

Cf. Petrus Van Mastricht:

…love, which is nothing except goodness as it is communicative of itself…

Cf. John Murray:

In other words, the goodness bestowed is surely goodness expressed.

(John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” p. 105.)

Henry Ainsworth:

Gods vertues in respect of his will are bounty, and justice: Bounty is that, by which out of love, God procureth to every creature the good thereof, and it is common, and particular: common bounty is towards all creatures, even such as offend him, directing them to their naturall good, and sustaining them therein, so long as justice suffereth, Luk. 6.36. God cannot hate his creatures, as his workes, for so they carry a similitude of God, the first cause: and none can hate himselfe, or his similitude, for a similitude is something of himselfe. Gods bounty to his creatures presupposeth not any debt or duty, which implyeth imperfection; and if God were bound to his creatures, he should depend on them, and be imperfect.

Gods bounty which is infinite, giveth creatures good things, of nature, of soule, and body, and of outward things.

Such is Gods bounty, as the creatures suffer no evill, unlesse Gods justice require it, or a greater good confirme it; of this vertue God is called patient, and long suffering.

(Henry Ainsworth, The Old Orthodox Foundation of Religion, [London: Printed by E. Cotes, 1653], Part 2, p. 16.)

Louis Berkhof:

The love of God. When the goodness of God is exercised towards His rational creatures, it assumes the higher character of love, and this love may again be distinguished according to the objects on which it terminates. In distinction from the goodness of God in general, it may be defined as that perfection of God by which He is eternally moved to self-communication. Since God is absolutely good in Himself, His love cannot find complete satisfaction in any object that falls short of absolute perfection. He loves His rational creatures for His own sake, or, to express it otherwise, He loves in them Himself, His virtues, His work, and His gifts.

(L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology: Fourth Revised and Enlarged Edition, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976], p. 71.)

John Arrowsmith:

It is twofold, one essential, that wherewith God is good in himself, the other relative, that whereby he doth good to his creatures. The former is here set forth by the term Jehovah, which is doubled, and doth most fully serve to express it, as coming from a root, that signifieth being. For goodness and entity are convertible, and every thing so far forth as it partaketh of being, partaketh also of goodness… Diabolus in quantum est bonus est [The devil, insofar as he exists, is good].

(John Arrowsmith, Armilla Catechetica: A Chain of Principles, [Edinburgh: Printed By Thomas Turnbull, 1822], Aphorism IV, Exercitation I, §. 2, p. 118.)

Cf. John Arrowsmith: (Original)

It is twofold, one Essential, that wherewith God is good in himself, the other Relative, that whereby he doth good to his creatures. The former is here set forth by the term Jehovah, which is doubled, and doth most fully serve to express it, as coming from a root, that signifieth Being. For Goodness and Entity are convertible, and every thing so far forth as it partaketh of Being, partaketh also of Bonity… Diabolus in quantum est bonus est [The devil, insofar as he exists, is good].

(John Arrowsmith, Armilla Catechetica: A Chain of Principles, [Cambridge: Printed by John Field, Printer to the University, 1659], Aphorisme IV, Exercitation I, §. 2, pp. 158-159.)

Note: The word “bonity” comes from the Latin bonitās and means goodness.

St. Augustine of Hippo:

3. For we Catholic Christians worship God, from whom all goods come, whether great or small, from whom all limit comes, whether great or small, from whom all form comes, whether great or small, and from whom all order comes, whether great or small. For it is certainly the case that all things are better to the extent that they are more limited, formed, and ordered. But they are less good to the extent that they are less limited, less formed, and less ordered. These three, then, limit, form, and order to pass over in silence countless features that are shown to pertain to these three these three, then, limit, form, and order, are like universal goods in the things made by God, whether in a spirit or in a body. God is therefore above every limit of a creature, above every form, above every order. He is not above them by spatial distance but by his ineffable and singular power, for from him comes all limit, all form, and all order. Where these three are great, there are great goods; where they are small, there are small goods; where they are not at all, there is no good. And again, where these three are great, there are great natures; where they are small, there are small natures; where they are not at all, there is no nature. Every nature, therefore, is good.

4. Hence, when the question arises where evil comes from, one should first ask what evil is. For it is nothing but the corruption of either a natural limit or form or order. A nature that has been corrupted, then, is said to be evil. For an uncorrupted nature is certainly good. But even a corrupted nature is good insofar as it is a nature, while it is evil insofar as it has been corrupted.

5. But it is possible that a certain nature that has received a more excellent order by its natural limit and form is still better, even when corrupted, than another uncorrupted nature that has received a lower order with a lesser natural limit and form. For example, in the judgment of human beings, in terms of the quality that is exposed to their eyes, gold, even when corrupted, is certainly better than uncorrupted silver, and silver, even when corrupted, is better than uncorrupted lead. In that way, in natures that are more powerful and spiritual, a rational spirit, even when corrupted by an evil will, is better than an uncorrupted non-rational spirit. And any spirit, even when corrupted, is better than any uncorrupted body. For a nature that, when it is present to a body, gives it life is better than the nature to which life is given. But, however corrupt may be the spirit of life that has been made, it can give life to the body, and, for this reason, even when it has been corrupted it is better than an uncorrupted body.

(Augustine of Hippo, The Nature of the Good (De Natura Boni), 3-5; PL, 42:553; trans. WSA, I/19:326-327. Cf. NPNF1, 4:352.)

Johnathan Edwards:

When I say, true virtue consists in love to being in general, I shall not be likely to be understood, that no one act of the mind or exercise of love is of the nature of true virtue, but what has Being in general, or the great system of universal existence, for its direct and immediate object: So that no exercise of love or kind affection to any one particular Being, that is but a small part of this whole, has any thing of the nature of true virtue. But, that the nature of true virtue consists in a disposition to benevolence towards Being in general. Though, from such a disposition may arise exercises of love to particular Beings, as objects are presented and occasions arise. No wonder, that he who is of a generally benevolent disposition, should be more disposed than another to have his heart moved with benevolent affection to particular persons, whom he is acquainted and conversant with, and from whom arise the greatest and most frequent occasions for exciting his benevolent temper. But my meaning is, that no affections towards particular persons, or Beings, are of the nature of true virtue, but such as arise from a generally benevolent temper, or from that habit or frame of mind, wherein consists a disposition to love Being in general.

(Johnathan Edwards, “The Nature of True Virtue,” Ch. 1; In: The Works of President Edwards: In Eight Volumes: Volume II, [Worcester: Isaiah Thomas, 1808], p. 398.)

Robert L. Dabney:

The great advantage of this view is, that it enables us to receive, in their obvious sense, those precious declarations of Scripture, which declare the pity of God towards even lost sinners. The glory of these representations is, that they show us God’s benevolence as an infinite attribute, like all His other perfections. Even where it is rationally restrained, it exists. The fact that there is a lost order of angels, and that there are persons in our guilty race, who are objects of God’s decree of preterition, does not arise from any stint or failure of this infinite benevolence. It is as infinite, viewed as it qualifies God’s nature only, as though He had given expression to it in the salvation of all the devils and lost men. We can now receive, without any abatement, such blessed declarations as Ps. lxxxi: 13; Ezek. xviii: 32; Luke xix: 41, 42.

(R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology: Second Edition, [St Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878], p. 532.)

2.1. Genesis 1. Return to Outline.

Richard A. Muller:

The second kind of divine love that Musculus identifies is the love of the creator for all his creatures, resting on his creation of all things as good in the beginning. It would be impossible, Musculus notes, given the nature of God, for God to “make evil things and love them after they were made” or to “make good things and not love them when they were made.” Nor could it be that God loved his creation in the beginning and subsequently ceased to love it—for God’s love is immutable. Nor, again, is God’s love hindered by the subjection of the created order to corruption after the fall, for the creation not only remains God’s work despite this corruption, but also it was God’s own “most wise and unsearchable purpose” that has subjected the entire creation to this bondage and vanity, as the apostle Paul teaches in Romans 8, or indeed as is written in the Wisdom of Solomon, “thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made.”[fn. 475: Musculus, Loci communes, XLVIII (Commonplaces, pp. 960-961), citing Wisdom, 11:25.]

Cf. Wolfgang Musculus:

This is the love wherin God as creator loveth al his creatures, in as much he created them all very good at the beginnyng, accordyng unto that: And God sawe all thyng that he had made, and they were very good. Bothe these shoulde be farre from the nature of God, if he should eyther make evill things, and love them after they were made: eyther make good things, and not love them when they were made: Neyther is it to bee imagined, that he loved hys workes at that tyme when he firste made them, and that afterwardes this love decayed by the processe of so many hundred yeares, and fell to be a lothsomenesse. God forbid. For the love of God is as immutable, as his very nature and goodesse is immutable. Neither doth it hinder this love at all, that the creature is subject unto vanitie and bodage of corruption. For whatsoever it is, it is his worke, for he made it subject unto vanitie, by his moste wise and unsearchable purpose unto us. For the Apostle dothe not say simply, Eache creature is vayne, but each creature is subjecte unto vanitie: And he addeth not willingly, bycause of him who made it subjecte in hope. Of whiche wordes wee have noted in our Commentaries upon the Epistle unto the Romaines. Therefore it is not without reason, that the author of the booke of Sapience sayth in this wise: Thou lovest all things that be, & hatest none of those things which thou hast made.

(Wolfgangus Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion, trans. John Man, [London: Imprinted by Henry Bynneman, 1578], pp. 960-961.)

R. L. Dabney:

A stage has now been reached in this discussion, at which it is necessary to introduce a few plain distinctions. One is the well-known distinction of divines between the love of complacency and the love of benevolence. The former is founded on moral approbation for the character of its object, and implies moral excellence in it. The other does not, and may exist notwithstanding moral disapprobation of its object. Of the former kind is the love of God the Father for God the Son. Of the latter kind is the love of the Trinity for sinners. Obviously the love of complacency is directed towards its object’s character, while the love of benevolence is directed to the person of its object, and exists in spite of his obnoxious character. And it is thus possible that love may hate the character and compassionate the person of the same man. Such, in fact, was Christ’s love to us “while we were yet sinners.” The adjustment between the New Testament and the Old is partly to be found in this distinction. When Jesus Christ commands us to love our enemies, it is with the love of benevolence and compassion. When David declared that he hated God’s enemies with a perfect hatred, he meant that he did not entertain for them the love of moral complacency, but, as was proper, the reverse. This love of benevolence for the person of a bad man ought to be, in the Christian, the finite reflexion of what it is in God, limited only by the higher attribute of righteousness.

(Robert L. Dabney, Discussions: Vol I. Theological and Evangelical, ed. C. R. Vaughan, [Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1890], “The Christian’s Duty Towards His Enemies,” pp. 716-717.)

Cf. Thomas Ridgley:

Persons are denominated good, as having all those perfections that belong to their nature. This is the most extensive sense of goodness. It is taken also in a moral sense, and so consists in the rectitude of their nature.

(Thomas Ridgeley (Ridgley), A Body of Divinity: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855], p. 108.)

Stephen Charnock:

There is a goodness of being, which is the natural perfection of a thing: there is the goodness of will, which is the holiness and righteousness of a person: there is the goodness of the hand, which we call liberality, or beneficence, a doing good to others.

(1.) We mean not by this the goodness of his essence, or the perfection of his nature. God is thus good, because his nature is infinitely perfect, he has all things requisite to the completing of a most perfect and sovereign Being. All good meets in his essence, as all water meets in the ocean. Under this notion all the attributes of God, which are requisite to so illustrious a Being, are comprehended. All things that are, have a goodness of being in them, derived to them by the power of God, as they are creatures; so the devil is good, as he is a creature of God’s making; he has a natural goodness, but not a moral goodness; when he fell from God, he retained his natural goodness as a creature; because he did not cease to be, he was not reduced to that nothing from whence he was drawn, but he ceased to be morally good, being stripped of his righteousness by his apostasy: as a creature, he was God’s work, as a creature he remains still God’s work, and therefore as a creature remains still good, in regard of his created being. The more of being any thing has, the more of this sort of natural goodness it has: and so the devil has more of this natural goodness than men have; because he has more marks of the excellency of God upon him, in regard of the greatness of his knowledge, and the extent of his power, the largeness of his capacity, and the acuteness of his understanding, which are natural perfections belonging to the nature of an angel, though he has lost his moral perfections. God is sovereignly and infinitely good in this sort of goodness. He is unsearchably perfect, Job xi. 7; nothing is wanting to his essence that is necessary to the perfection of it; yet this is not that which the Scripture expresses under the term of goodness, but a perfection of God’s nature as related to us, and which he pours forth upon all his creatures, as goodness which flows from this natural perfection of the Deity.

Cf. Stephen Charnock:

He is good by his own essence. God is not only good in his essence, but good by his essence; the essence of every created thing is good, so the unerring God pronounced every thing which he had made, Gen. i. 31. The essence of the worst creatures, yea, of the impure and savage devils, is good, but they are not good per essentiam, for then they could not be bad, malicious, and oppressive.

John Gill:

All that God has made is the object of his love; all the works of creation, when he had made them, he looked over them, and saw that they were good, very good, Gen. i. 31; he was well pleased, and delighted with them; yea, he is said to rejoice in his works; Psalm civ. 81; he upholds all creatures in their beings, and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, Psalm xxxvi. 6, and cxlv. 9; and particularly, rational creatures are the objects of his care, love, and delight: he loves the holy angels, and has shown his love to them in choosing them to happiness; hence they are called elect angels, 1 Tim. v. 21; by making Christ the head of them, by whom they are confirmed in the estate in which they were created, Col. ii. 10; and by admitting them into his presence, allowing them to stand before him, and behold his face, Matt. xviii. 10; yea, even the devils, as they are the creatures of God, are not hated by him, but as they are apostate spirits from him: and so he bears a general love to all men, as they are his creatures, his offspring, and the work of his hands; he supports them, preserves them, and bestows the bounties of his providence in common upon them, Acts xvii. 28, and xiv. 17, Matt. v. 45; but he bears a special love to elect men in Christ; which is called his great love, Eph. 11. 4; whom he has chosen and blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, Eph. i. 3, 4; and which love is distinguished and discriminating, Mal. i, 1, 2. Rom. ix, 11, 12.

(John Gill, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: Or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures: A New Edition: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978], pp. 113-114.)

James Rawson:

…And thus God loves the reprobates less than he doth the elect; but it cannot hence be concluded, that the Lord doth absolutely hate any creature of his own making, for they were all good, yea very good:[Gen. 1.31.] and Wisd. 11.24. thou lovest all things that are, and abhorrest nothing that thou hast made. Tis true God hates sin, because he made it not, and this hatred hath an influx upon the sinner, as he is a sinner, because God made him not so…

(James Rawson, Gerizim, Election, and Ebal, Reprobation. Or, The Absolute Good Pleasure of Gods Most Holy Will to All the Sons of Adam Specificated, [London: Printed by John Owsley, for Henry Shephard, 1658], p. 170.)

Arthur W. Pink:

The original Saxon meaning of our English word God is “The Good.” God is not only the greatest of all beings, but the best. All the goodness there is in any creature has been imparted from the Creator, but God’s goodness is underived, for it is the essence of His eternal nature. …All that emanates from God—His decrees, His creation, His laws, His providences—cannot be otherwise than good: as it is written. “And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). Thus, the goodness of God is seen, first, in creation.

(Arthur W. Pink, The Attributes of God, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001], pp. 57-58.)

William Cooper:

2. The love of God is voluntary: thus he loves his creatures with a general love.

(1.) Because he made them, and made them good, (Gen. i. 31,) therefore he preserves them for though sin be really evil, and none of God’s making, but contrary to God, and hated of God; yet God loves the creatures as his creatures, although sinful, with a general love. (Matt. v. 44, 45.)

(William Cooper, “Sermon VI: How a Child of God is to Keep Himself in the Love of God;” In: The Morning Exercises at Cripplegate, St. Giles in the Fields, and in Southwark: In Six Volumes: Vol. III, [London: Printed for Thomas Tegg, 1844], p. 131.)

2.2. Psalm 145:9. Return to Outline.

Psalm 145:9:

The Lord is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Cf. Psalm 145:15-16:

The eyes of all look to You, And You give them their food in due time. You open Your hand And satisfy the desire of every living thing.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Andrew Fuller:

…Psal. cxlv. 9, “His tender mercies are over all his works.” …fallen angels were a part of God’s works as well as fallen men. . . . Is it not evident from the context that it denotes God’s providential goodness towards the whole animate creation? Is it not said of them, in verse 16, that “their eyes wait on him; he openeth his hand and satisfieth the desire of every living thing?”

(Andrew Fuller, “The Reality and Efficacy of Divine Grace, With the Certain Success of Christ’s Kingdom,” Letter XII; In: The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller: In Three Volumes: Vol. II, [Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1848], p. 551.)

Cf. Psalm 76:10:

For the wrath of mankind shall praise You; You will encircle Yourself with a remnant of wrath.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Thomas Watson:

Even the worst taste God’s mercy; such as fight against God’s mercy, taste of it; the wicked have some crumbs from mercy’s table. ‘The Lord is good to all.’ Psa cxlv 9. Sweet dewdrops are on the thistle, as well as on the rose. The diocese where mercy visits is very large. Pharaoh’s head was crowned though his heart was hardened.

(Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity: Contained in Sermons Upon the Westminster Assembly’s Catechism, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003], p. 94.)

Stephen Charnock:

The holiness of God is the rectitude of his nature, whereby he is pure, and without spot in himself. The goodness of God is the efflux of his will, whereby he is beneficial to his creatures. The holiness of God is manifest in his rational creatures; but the goodness of God extends to all the worksof his hands. His holiness beams most in his law, his goodness reaches to every thing that had a being from him. “The Lord is good to all,” Psal. cxlv. 9.

Louis Berkhof:

The goodness of God towards His creatures in general . . . may be defined as that perfection of God which prompts Him to deal bountifully and kindly with all His creatures. It is the affection which the Creator feels towards His sentient creatures as such. The Psalmist sings of it in the well known words: “Jehovah is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works. . . . The eyes of all wait for thee; and thou givest them their food in due season. Thou openest thy hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing,” Ps. 145:9,15,16.

(L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology: Fourth Revised and Enlarged Edition, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976], pp. 70-71.)

John Calvin:

Moreover, if it be asked what cause induced him to create all things at first, and now inclines him to preserve them, we shall find that there could be no other cause than his own goodness. …every creature, as the Psalmist reminds us, participating in his mercy. “His tender mercies are over all his works” (Ps. cxlv. 9).(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.5.6; trans. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume First, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], p. 72.)

2.3. 1 Timothy 4:4a. Return to Outline.

1 Timothy 4:4a:

For everything created by God is good…

(New American Standard Bible.)

Stephen Charnock:

The goodness of God is his inclination to deal well and bountifully with his creatures. It is that whereby he wills there should be something besides himself for his own glory. God is good in himself, and to himself, that is, highly amiable to himself; and therefore some define it a perfection of God, whereby he loves himself and his own excellency; but as it stands in relation to his creatures, it is that perfection of God whereby he delights in his works, and is beneficial to them. God is the highest goodness, because he does not act for his own profit, but for his creatures’ welfare, and the manifestation of his own goodness; he sends out his beams, without receiving any addition to himself, or substantial advantage from his creatures. It is from this perfection that he loves whatsoever is good, and that is, whatsoever he has made, “For every creature of God is good,” 1 Tim. iv. 4; every creature has some communications from him, which cannot be without some affection to them; every creature has a footstep of Divine goodness upon it; God therefore loves that goodness in the creature, else he would not love himself. God hates no creature, no not the devils, and damned, as creatures; he is not an enemy to them, as they are the works of his hands: he is properly an enemy that does simply and absolutely wish evil to another; but God does not absolutely wish evil to the damned; that justice that he inflicts upon them, the deserved punishment of their sin, is part of his goodness (as shall afterwards be shown.)

3. Common Grace: God’s Preservation of All His Creatures. Return to Outline.

Thomas Ridgley:

The mercy of God is either common or special. Common mercy gives all the outward conveniences of this life; which are bestowed without distinction. ‘He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’[fn. n: Matt. v. 45.] ‘His tender mercies are over all his works.’[fn. o: Psal. cxlv. 9.] But his special mercy is that which he bestows on, or has reserved for, the heirs of salvation…

(Thomas Ridgeley (Ridgley), A Body of Divinity: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855], p. 109.)

John Norton:

The Effects of Mercy, are either special: proper to the Elect, as flowing from special grace, Rom. 9.23. The Elect are called (and by effectual calling so made) vessels of mercy. Or common, extended to those who are not elected, Luke 6.35, 36. Unto the beasts of the field, Psal. 104.27. Yea, over all his works, Psal. 145.9.

(John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter I, p. 14.)

Amandus Polanus:

That general love is the one by which he fully embraces all things created by him, blesses them, and preserves and sustains them. In this way there is no one, no man, and no devil either, who can say that he is not loved by God.

(Amando Polano à Polansdorf, Analysis Libelli Prophetae Malachiae, Aliquot Praelectionibus Genevæ Proposita, [Basileae: Per Conradum Waldkirch, 1597], p. 10; trans. Damianus Cathedralulus.)

Cf. Amandus Polanus:

The generall love of God, is that with which hee embraceth altogether all things which hee hath made, and doth good unto them, and preserveth and sustaineth them.

For though he hate sinne, yet he loveth the nature which he hath created.

(Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Wilcocks, [London: Printed by Arn. Hatfield for William Aspley, 1608], p. 18.)

Cf. Amandus Polanus:

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 2.21, p. 297.)

English:

Cf. Amandus Polanus:

Generalis seu communis amor Dei, est quo omnes prorsus res abs se conditas, quatenus creaturæ sunt, complectitur; ijsq́ue benefacit, easq́; conservat & sustenta. Sap.11.v.24.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 2.22, p. 313.)

English:

Henry Ainsworth:

(Henry Ainsworth, The Old Orthodox Foundation of Religion, [London: Printed by E. Cotes, 1653], Part 2, p. 16.)

Cf. Petrus Van Mastricht:

X. Moreover, the goodness of God is transferred to the creatures in different ways: (1) in a universal way, to all creatures, by creating, bearing, governing, and equipping them (Ps. 36:6; 147:9).

Cf. Petrus Van Mastricht:

…love, which is nothing except goodness as it is communicative of itself…

Cf. John Murray:

In other words, the goodness bestowed is surely goodness expressed.

(John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” p. 105.)

John Calvin:

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.5.6; trans. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume First, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], p. 72.)

William Cooper:

2. The love of God is voluntary: thus he loves his creatures with a general love.

Thomas Larkham:

(Thomas Larkham, The Attributes of God Unfolded, and Applied: The Second Part, [London: Printed for Francis Eglesfield, 1656], p. 158.)

Wisdom of Solomon 11:23-26:

(New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition.)

John Robinson:

For first, it is true, that God hateth nothing that he hath made, so far as it is his work but as sin, coming in, hath destroyed the work of God, though not in respect of the nature, or being, yet of the integrity, and holy being of the creature; so God, through his unchangeable holiness, hating sin, doth, also, most fervently hate and abhor from the sinful creature, in whom it reigneth, in respect of it, . . . yet, even in the very execution of his most fearful vengeance upon the reprobate, men and angels, he retaineth the general love of a Creator; and out of it, preserveth the being of the creature, which in itself, and in respect of the universal is better than not to be, though not so in the sense of the person and also moderateth the extremity of that torment, which he both could, and might in justice, inflict.

(John Robinson, “Of Religious Communion, Private and Public,” Ch. 6, Sect. 2; In: The Works of John Robinson: Volume III, [London: John Snow, 1851], pp. 253-254.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 110.6; trans. FC, 90:296-297.)

3.1. Matthew 5:43-45; Luke 6:35-36. Return to Outline.

Matthew 5:43-45:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love [ἀγαπᾶτε] your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove yourselves to be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Luke 6:35-36:

But love your enemies and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil people. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

(New American Standard Bible.)

W. G. T. Shedd:

God’s benevolent love towards his creatures, considered as creatures merely, is infinitely greater than any love of a creature towards a creature. No earthly father loves his child with a benevolence equal to that which the Heavenly Father feels towards his created offspring. Luke 6:35, “The Highest is kind (χρηστός) unto the unthankful and to the evil.” Matt. 5:45, “Your Father which is in heaven maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Disobedience and ingratitude deaden and destroy the benevolent feeling of man towards man, but not that of God towards his creatures. Sinful men are the objects of God’s providential care, as well as renewed men. Even Satan and the fallen angels are treated with all the benevolence which their enmity to God will admit of. God feels no malevolence towards them.

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume I: Second Edition, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889], pp. 385-386.)

Samuel Rutherford:

…he loves all that he has made; so farre as to give them a being, to conserve them in being as long as he pleaseth…

2. There is a second love and mercy in God, by which he loves all Men and Angels; yea, even his enemies, makes the Sun to shine on the unjust man, as well as the just, and causeth dew and raine to fall on the orchard and fields of the bloody and deceitfull man, whom the Lord abbors; as Chrift teacheth us, Matth. 5.43,44,45,46,47,48, nor doth God miscarry in this love, he desires the eternall being of damned Angels and Men; he sends the Gospel to many Reprobates, and invites them to repentance and with longanimity and forebearance, suffereth pieces of froward dust to fill the measure of their iniquity, yet does not the Lords generall love fall short of what he willeth to them.

(Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himselfe, [London: Printed by J. D. for Andrew Crooke, 1647], p. 441.)

John Owen:

…the example of his own love and goodness, which are extended unto all, for our imitation, Matt. v. 44, 45. His philanthropy and communicative love, from his own infinite self-fulness, wherewith all creatures, in all places, times, and seasons, are filled and satisfied, as from an immeasurable ocean of goodness, are proposed unto us to direct the exercise of that drop from the divine nature wherewith we are intrusted. “Love your enemies,” saith our Saviour, “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

(John Owen, “A Discourse Concerning Christian Love and Peace,” Chapter 2; In: The Works of John Owen: Vol. XV, ed. William H. Goold, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851], pp. 71-72.)

John Murray:

The testimony of our Lord himself, as recorded in Matthew 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35, 36, establishes the same truth as that discussed in the foregoing passage. ‘But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.’ ‘But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful.’ Here the disciples are called upon to emulate in their own sphere and relations the character of God, their Father, in his own sphere and relations. God is kind and merciful to the unthankful and to the evil; he makes his sun to rise upon evil and good, and sends rain upon just and unjust. Both on the ground of express statement and on the ground of what is obviously implied in the phrases, ‘sons of your Father’ and ‘sons of the Most High’, there can be no escape from the conclusion that goodness and beneficence, kindness and mercy are here attributed to God in his relations even to the ungodly. And this simply means that the ungodly are the recipients of blessings that flow from the love, goodness, kindness and mercy of God. Again it would be desperate exegetical violence that would attempt to separate the good gifts bestowed from the disposition of kindness and mercy in the mind of God.

(John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” pp. 105-106.)

Note: The immediate context of the Murray quotation deals with Humankind. However, I see no basis for excluding the Angels (a fortiori). For surely the Angels (both the reprobate and the elect) do not have their existence in and of themselves but rather continue to exist because God sustains them out of His loving goodness (see §. 3. “God’s Preservation of All His Creatures”, above). God is love (1 John 4:8, 16), and there is no malice in Him. All that He does—including His hatred of sin and judgment of sinners—flows out of His goodness and love (see further: The Opposite of Love Is Not Hate, It Is Indifference).

Note: See further: Love of God (Extends Over All Creation, Including the Reprobate).

3.2. Excursus: Common Grace — Judgment and Condemnation. Return to Outline.

Heinrich Heppe:

25.—But while by praeteritio God refuses His redeeming grace to the rejected He does not deprive them of His common grace, which latter would have sufficed man in his original state to attain to eternal blessedness, and of which man continues to receive so much that he has no ground for excuse left at the judgment seat of God.—LEIDEN SYNOPSIS (XXIV, 54-55): “For this to be understood correctly, careful note must be taken that this praeterition does not remove or deny all grace in those passed over, but that only which is peculiar to the elect. But that which through the dispensation of common providence, whether under the law of nature or under gospel grace, is dispensed to men in varying amount, is not by this act of praeterition removed but is rather presupposed; the non-elect are left under the common government of divine providence and the exercise of their own arbitrium.—55: Moreover this dispensation of common providence always involves the communication of outward and inward benefits; which indeed sufficed for salvation in the unimpaired nature, as is clear in the rejected angels and the whole human race considered in the first parent before the fall, But in the corrupt nature so much has survived or been superadded to nature under the gospel, that they have been stripped and deprived of every pretext of excuse before the divine judgment, as the apostle testifies Ac. 14. 27 (they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how they had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles), Rom. 1.20 (the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse) 2.1 (Wherefore thou art without excuse, whosoever thou art that judgest: wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself: for thou that judgest practisest the same things); also Jn. 15. 22 (If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin) 1 Cor. 4. 3 (with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea I judge not mine own self) and elsewhere.”—WALAUS 490-491: “But reprobation does not deny in the reprobate all grace or every gift saving in itself: for we see that even to the reprobate many even supernatural things are communicated above the gifts of nature, as the propounding of the gospel, many other charisms, and illumination of the mind, and some improvement of the affections or joy, and a taste of future benefits (Heb. 6; Mt. 13); by these gifts they are set in order for salvation, did they not suppress them themselves and render God’s counsel towards themselves of no effect, as saith Scripture in Lk. 7, and Rom. 1, also Ac. 7, resist the H. Spirit. For it must assuredly be held that they first desert God before they are deserted by God, as Augustine often says. For God endures with much longsuffering vessels of wrath, etc. Rom. 9. 22. In fact we say more with the same Augustine, that it does not conflict with reprobation that even grace sufficient for salvation is given them, as is clear from the example of the reprobate angels, as well as of all men created in Adam in the image of God. Only they are denied grace infallibly effectual for salvation. In Adam all had strength to keep the law, even also to believe in Christ, had it been revealed to them (as even theologians themselves confess who ascend above the fall in this article), and they lost it in him (sc. Adam). Therefore grace sufficient for salvation is consistent with the decree of reprobation.”

(Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], pp. 185-186.)

Note: In the concept of praeterition (God passing over the non-elect), God withholds His special redeeming grace but does not deprive the non-elect of His common grace. This common grace, which includes the benefits of God’s providence and the law of nature, is sufficient to leave the non-elect without excuse before God’s judgment. Despite not receiving the grace that guarantees salvation, the non-elect receive enough grace to recognize God’s power and divinity and are thus accountable for their rejection of God. This common grace ensures they cannot claim ignorance or lack of opportunity when judged. The non-elect’s resistance to this grace and their desertion of God precede God’s definitive abandonment of them. Thus, while they lack the infallible, effectual grace for salvation, they still receive sufficient grace to be held responsible for their actions—and, as Antonius Walaeus correctly observed, this is true “of the reprobate angels, as well as of all men created in Adam”. Cf. Petrus Van Mastricht: …love, which is nothing except goodness as it is communicative of itself… (Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 2: Faith in the Triune God, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019], Book 2, Chapter 17, §. 1.) Cf. John Murray: In other words, the goodness bestowed is surely goodness expressed. (John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” p. 105.)

Cf. James Usher:

His goodness too is extended unto all creatures; and as this is known by daily experience, so it is witnessed by the Scriptures following. (Psalm cxix. 64 : cxlv. 15. Matt. V. 45.) Yet he hath not shewed his goodness to all alike, for the things created are of two sorts; either invisible or visible; invisible, as angels; unto whom the Lord hath given more excellent gifts than to the other. But neither was his goodness parted equally among them; for some he suffered to fall into sin, for which they were thrust down from heaven to hell; (2 Peter ii. 4,) others he hath preserved by his grace, that they should not fall away from him. Neither also is his goodness alike to his visible creatures, for of them some are endued with reason, as mankind; some are void of reason; and therefore is man called a Lord over the rest of the creatures. Nor, lastly, is the goodness of God alike to reasonable creatures? for of them God in his mercy hath chosen some to eternal life, whom he hath purposed to call effectually in his time, that they may be justified and glorified by Christ; others he hath in his justice left in their sins without any effectual calling, to perish for ever. And we have the testimony of Scripture, that God’s goodness is far greater to the elect than to the reprobate, for it appeareth by the words of our Saviour Christ, (Matt. xiii. 11,) and of the prophet Asaph, (Psalm Ixxiii. 1,) who saith that God is good, that is, singularly good to Israel, even to the pure in heart; but God makes his elect only to be pure in heart. (Psalm li. 10.) Further, the goodness of God towards all men turneth not to the good of all men; for in the reprobate, God’s goodness is turned into evil, and serveth to their destruction. (2 Cor. ii. 15.) And that is through their own fault; for they do contemn and altogether abuse the goodness of God; and for all his goodness bestowed upon them continually, they never trust him, nor trust in him. (Rom. ii. 4. Psalm cvi. 13.).

(James Usher, A Body of Divinity: A New Edition, ed. Hastings Robinson, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1841], p. 76.)

Cf. Stephen Charnock:

God hates no creature, no not the devils, and damned, as creatures; he is not an enemy to them, as they are the works of his hands: he is properly an enemy that does simply and absolutely wish evil to another; but God does not absolutely wish evil to the damned; that justice that he inflicts upon them, the deserved punishment of their sin, is part of his goodness (as shall afterwards be shown.)

Cf. John Norton:

Lastly: God delighteth not in the death of a sinner.

So he testifieth of himself once and again, and to this testimony subscribeth his Name. For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God, Ezek. 18.23.32. yea to put it out of all controversy, and to clear himself fully in the hearts of all Elect and Reprobate, both men and Angels; he confirmeth this testimony with an Oath, and giveth charge that it be made known to the House of Israel: Say unto them, As I live saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way, and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die O House of Israel? Ezek. 33.11.

(John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter IV, p. 73.)

4. The Image of God. Return to Outline.

Note: Click here for a comprehensive summary of the argumentation.

Sons of God.

The old testament speaks repeatedly of Angels as bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm—sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Daniel 3:25)—which would be a wholly inappropriate epithet to ascribe to beings who were not image bearers. To be a “son” is, by definition, to bear the image of your father (cf. Genesis 5:3—“When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.” NASB). How can the Angels be described as sons of God if they are not also image bearers?

Excursus: Sonship and the Imago Dei.

John Calvin:

When we hear the angels called “children of God” [Ps. 82:6] it would be inappropriate to deny that they were endowed with some quality resembling their Father. …For they could not continually enjoy the direct vision of God unless they were like him.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.6; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XX: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XX: Books I.i To III.xix), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], p. 471.)

Gulielmus [William] Bucanus:

The Angels also are made after the image of God, because they also are called the sons of God [Job 1.6. & 2.1.]…

(William [Gulielmus] Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, trans. Robert Hill, [London: George Snowdon and Leonell Snowdon, 1606], The Ninth Common Place: Of the Image of God in Man, p. 100.) See also: archive.org.

Amandus Polanus:

His ita præmissis, probandum nobis est, Angelos ad imaginem Dei creatos esse: id autem sequentia argumenta evincunt.

I. Quia creati sunt filii Dei, Job.1.v.6.&38.7.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.10, p. 509.)

English:

With these premises, we must prove that Angels were created in the image of God: this is demonstrated by the following arguments.

1. Because they were created as sons of God (Job 1:6; 38:7).

Johann Heinrich Heidegger:

Creati autem sunt recti ad imaginem Dei, quippe Filii Dei…

(Joh. Henrici Heideggeri, Medulla Theologiæ Christianæ: Corporis Theologia: Prævia Epitome, [Tiguri: Typis Henrici Bodmeri 1713], Locus VIII: De Angelis, p. 173.)

English:

They [i.e. the Angels] were created righteous in the image of God, indeed as the sons of God…

Antonius Walaeus:

(Antonio Walæo, Loci Communes S. Theologiæ, De Providentia Dei, De Angelis; In: Antonii Walæi, Opera Omnia: Tomus Primus, [Lugduni Batavorum: Ex officina Francisci Hackii, 1643], p. 192.) See also: books.google.com.

English:

These principles of action, however, are evidently suitable to them all, because they [i.e. the Angels] were created in the image of God. Hence, they are also called the Sons of God in Job 38:7 and elsewhere frequently. Similarly, they are called gods, Elohim, as in Psalm 8:5, explained by the Apostle in Hebrews 2:6.

Synopsis of a Purer Theology (Synopsis Purioris Theologiae):

…contrary to the Manichaeans and the followers of Priscillian we assert that they were created . . . in God’s image. …in Holy Scripture they are called sons of God, servants of God, angels of God, powers and principalities, indeed, even ‘gods.’

(Antonius Walaeus, “Disputation 12: Concerning the Good and Bad Angels,” §. 7; trans. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae: Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation: Volume 1: Disputations 1-23, ed. Dolf te Velde, trans. Riemer A. Faber, [Leiden: Brill, 2014], pp. 287, 289.) Preview.

Note: “Composed by four professors of Leiden University, it gives an exhaustive yet concise presentation of Reformed theology as it was conceived in the first decades of the 17th century, and held a prominent place as a theological handbook for use in training Reformed ministers in the Netherlands throughout the century.”(Idem, p. 1.)

Meredith G. Kline: (Luke 3:38; Genesis 1:26)

Since the Spirit’s act of creating man is thus presented as the fathering of a son and that man-son is identified as the image-likeness of God, it is evident that image of God and son of God are mutually explanatory concepts. Clearly man’s likeness to the Creator-Spirit is to be understood as the likeness which a son bears to his father. And that understanding of the image concept, according to which the fundamental idea is one of representational similarity, not representative agency, is further and unmistakably corroborated by Genesis 5:1-3 as it brings together God’s creation of Adam and Adam’s begetting of Seth, expressing the relation of the human father and son in terms of the image-likeness that defines man’s relation to the Creator. To be the image of God is to be the son of God.

(Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006], pp. 45-46.)

Cf. Meredith G. Kline:

As Genesis 2:7 pictures it, the Spirit-Archetype actively fathered his human ectype. Image of God and son of God are thus twin concepts. This reading of that event in terms of a father-son model and the conceptual bond of the image and son ideas are put beyond doubt by the record of the birth of Seth in Genesis 5:1-3. There, a restatement of Adam’s creation in the likeness of God is juxtaposed to a statement that Adam begat a son in his own likeness. Unmistakably, the father-son relationship of Adam and Seth is presented as a proper analogue for understanding the Creator-man relationship[fn. 33: Cf. Luke 3:38.] and clearly man’s likeness to the Creator-Spirit is thus identified as the likeness of a son derived from his father.[fn. 34: For the connection between the divine image and fatherhood-sonship see Romans 8:29; Hebrews 1:2f.; James 3:9; 1 John 3:2; cf. Luke 20:36. By setting the image-likeness formula in the context of sonship, Genesis 5:1-3 contradicts the suggestion that the image idea is a matter of representative status rather than of representational likeness or resemblance. For Seth was not Adam’s representative, but as Adam’s son he did resemble his father. The terminology “in his likeness” serves as the equivalent in human procreation of the phrase “after its kind” which is used for plant and animal reproduction and of course refers to resemblance.]

(Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999], p. 23.) Preview.

Reformed Theologians: Direct Testimony.

Gulielmus [William] Bucanus:

The Angels also are made after the image of God, because they also are called the sons of God,[Job 1.6. & 2.1.] and they were created spirituall, immortall, and just. And Christ teacheth plainely, that we shall be truly blessed, and therefore like to God, when we shall in heaven be made even as the Angels of God, Mat. 22.30.

Amandus Polanus:

The image of God is that dignitie and excellencie in which the reasonable creatures being created like unto God, doe excell other creatures. Or else it is the agreement of the reasonable creatures with the most high and blessed God.

…The creatures made according to the image of God are Angels and men. Mat. 22. 30. and 6.10. Job 1.6.

(Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Wilcocks, [London: Printed by Arn. Hatfield for William Aspley, 1608], pp. 55, 57.)

Petrus Van Mastricht:

That man was created particularly in the image of God

XXVI. Moreover, the chief excellence and prerogative of created man is in the image of his Creator (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9). For while God has impressed as it were a vestige of himself upon all the rest of the creatures—if you exclude only the angels, as God made man a little lower than them (Ps. 8:5), and they seem to be called sons of God (Job 38:7), and are instructed with wisdom in the intellect and holiness and righteousness in the will, the chief points of the divine image, as much or even more so than men, and thus bear the image of God at least no less than man—so that from all the creatures you can gather the presence and efficiency of the Creator, or as the apostle says, you can clearly see his eternal power and divinity (Rom. 1:20), yet only man did he bless with his own image, that from it you may recognize not only what the Creator is, but also who he is, or what his qualities are.

(Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 3: The Works of God and the Fall of Man, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2021], Part 1, Book 3, Chapter 9, §. 26.) Preview.

A. A. Hodge:

The second fact is, the Bible says God made Adam in his own image. Now the word “image” here means two things, which you can easily see. There is a good deal taught in that saying, “Let us make man in our own image.” There is a constitutional image of God, and there is a moral or accidental image. Now, when God made man in his own image, he made the spirit rational and moral, and he made it capable of free will; in doing so God made man in his own image. That image of God was not lost. Why, the sinner is in the image of God. The devil is in the image of God, because he is an intelligent spirit. Sometimes there are certain sinners who are in this respect more in the image of God than certain saints; that is, there is more of them—more will, more strength, and in that respect they are more like God. This constitutional image of God never was lost and never will be lost. But besides this, God created Adam in the moral image of God; that is, “in knowledge, righteousness and true holiness;” so that the new-created man was in the image of God. And when we take on the new man in Christ Jesus we take on his image, as in the creation; that is, by regeneration. It was the moral image of God which was implanted in the will which made Adam holy and good. The last point is his “dominion over all creatures.” Now, this dominion over God’s creatures is founded on two grounds: First, because of the constitutionality of it; even bad men can govern on the earth. But it is founded on the higher spiritual likeness to God, of which we have spoken, real although differentiated from the Creator, and which will never be completely developed until man adds to his constitutional likeness the original spiritual moral image of God which he has lost; not until man becomes not only rational, but holy, can he regain this image.

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1887], pp. 182-183.)

Johannes Wollebius:

I. Although the entire universe is a mirror of the divine power, wisdom, and goodness, yet the image of God, properly speaking, is a quality only of angels and men.

II. The image of God consists partly of natural gifts—the simple, invisible substance of angels and of human souls, life, intellect, will, and immortality; and partly of supernatural ones original blessedness, rectitude and majesty of intellect and will, and majesty and dominion over other creatures.

(Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae, Bk. 1, Ch. 5, §. 2.1-2; trans. A Library of Protestant Thought: Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius, F. Turretin, ed. & trans. John W. Beardslee III, [New York: Oxford University Press, 1965], p. 56.)

Note: Regarding Angelic “majesty and dominion over other creatures,” see: Deuteronomy 32:7-9[LXX cf. New English Translation]; Daniel 4:13-17 [cf. 4:24-26]; 10:10-14, 20-21; Job 1:12; 2:6; 1 Kings 22:19-22 [cf. 2 Chronicles 18:18-22]. Ephesians 3:10; 6:12 [cf. Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16; Luke 4:6; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Colossians 1:13. Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2. All passages relating to the Divine Council (e.g. Psalm 89:5-7; Daniel 7:9-10, etc.).

Cf. Michael S. Heiser: (Daniel 4:25-26; cf. 4:13-17)

Verse 25 says very plainly that the Most High is sovereign. It is clearly singular. The phrase “heaven is sovereign” is interesting because the Aramaic word translated heaven (shemayin) is plural and is accompanied by a plural verb. The plurality of shemayin can point to either the members of the council or the council as a collective. In any event, the wording is suggestive of the interchange between council and Most High earlier in Daniel 4.

(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], p. 54.)

Thomas Ridgley:

From the general account we have given of the divine perfections, we may infer, 1. That there is nothing common between God and the creature; that is, there is nothing which belongs to the divine nature which can be attributed to the creature, and nothing proper to the creature is to be applied to God. There are, however, some rays of the divine glory, which may be beheld as shining forth or displayed in the creature, especially in the intelligent part of the creation, angels and men; who are for that reason, represented as made after the divine image. 2. Let us never think or speak of the perfections of God, but with the highest reverence, lest we take his name in vain, or debase him in our thoughts. ‘Shall not his excellency make you afraid, and his dread fall upon you?’ And whenever we compare God with the creatures, namely, angels and men, that bear somewhat of his image, let us abstract in our thoughts all their imperfections, whether natural or moral, from him, and consider the infinite disproportion that there is between him and them.

(Thomas Ridgeley (Ridgley), A Body of Divinity: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855], p. 80.)

John Gill:

The image of God, in which man was created; God, said, Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness — so God created man in his own image, Gen. i. 26, 27. Whether image and likeness are to be distinguished, as by Maimonides, the one respecting the substantial form of man, his soul; the other certain accidents and qualities belonging to him; or whether they signify the same, is not very material; the latter seems probable; since in Gen. i. 27. where image is mentioned, likeness is omitted; and, on the contrary, in Gen. v. 1. the word likeness is used, and image omitted. Now though this is only said of man, that he is made after the image and likeness of God, yet he is not the only creature so made; angels are like to God, and bear a resemblance to him, being spirits, immaterial, immortal, and invisible, and are also righteous and holy in their nature, and are sometimes called Elohim; yet the image of God in man, differs in some things from theirs: as that part of it especially, which lies in his body, and in his connection with and dominion over the creatures; and yet he is not in such sense the image of God, as Jesus Christ the Son of God is, who is the image of the invisible God, yes, the express image of his Father’s Person, having the same divine nature and perfections he has; but man, though there was in him some likeness and resemblance of some of the perfections of God; which are called his imitable ones, and by some communicable; as holiness, righteousness, wisdom, &c. yet these perfections are not really in him, only some faint shadows of them, at least not in the manner and proportion they are in God, in whom they are infinite, in man finite; and though the renewed and spiritual image of God in regenerate persons; which is of an higher and more excellent kind than the natural image of God in Adam, is called a partaking of the divine nature, 2 Pet. i. 4. yet not to be understood as if any partook of the nature and essence of God, and the perfections of it; only that that is wrought in them, and impressed on them, which bears some resemblance to the divine nature.

The seat of the image of God in man, is the whole man, both body and soul; wherefore God is said to create man in his image; not the soul only, nor the body only; but the whole man, Gen. i. 27. and v. 1. Even as the whole man, soul and body, are the seat of the new and spiritual image of God in regeneration and sanctification; The very God of peace sanctify you wholly; which the apostle immediately explains of their whole spirit, and soul and body, being preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; when and at the resurrection of the dead, the saints will most fully appear to bear the image of the heavenly One, 1 Thess. v. 23. 1 Cor. xv. 49.

(John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, [Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971], Book 3, Chapter 3, §. 4, pp. 274-275.)

John Calvin:

I admit that Adam bore God’s image, in so far as he was joined to God (which is the true and highest perfection of dignity). Nevertheless, I maintain that this likeness ought to be sought only in those marks of excellence with which God had distinguished Adam over all other living creatures. All men unanimously admit that Christ was even then the image of God. Hence, whatever excellence was engraved upon Adam, derived from the fact that he approached the glory of his Creator through the only-begotten Son. “So man was created in the image of God” [Gen. 1:27 p.]; in him the Creator himself willed that his own glory be seen as in a mirror. Adam was advanced to this degree of honor, thanks to the only-begotten Son. But I add: the Son himself was the common Head over angels and men. Thus the dignity that had been conferred upon man belonged also to the angels. When we hear the angels called “children of God” [Ps. 82:6] it would be inappropriate to deny that they were endowed with some quality resembling their Father. But if he willed that his glory be represented both in angels and in men and manifested in both natures, Osiander is ignorantly babbling when he says that angels were set beneath men because they did not bear the figure of Christ. For they could not continually enjoy the direct vision of God unless they were like him. And Paul similarly teaches that “men are renewed . . . after the image of God” [Col. 3:10 p.] only if they consort with the angels so as to cleave together under one head. To sum up: if we believe in Christ, we shall take on the form of angels [Matt. 22:30] when we are received into heaven, and this will be our final happiness. But if Osiander is allowed to infer that the first pattern of God’s image was in the man Christ, with the same justification anyone can contend that Christ had to partake of the angelic nature because the image of God belongs to them also.

W. G. T. Shedd: (Quoting John Calvin)

…Adam bore the divine image because he was united to God; yet I contend that the similitude of God is to be sought only in those characteristics of excellence with which God distinguished Adam above the other creatures. And that Christ was even then the image of God is universally allowed; and therefore whatever excellence was impressed on Adam proceeded from the circumstance that he approached to the glory of his maker by means of his only begotten Son. But this Son was a common head to angels as well as men; so that the same dignity which was conferred on man belonged to angels also.

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1894], p. 90. Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.6.)

Cf. W. G. T. Shedd:

…the “image of God,” namely, a rational soul…

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume I, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888], p. 514.)

Heinrich Heppe:

10.—These gifts are the special advantages with which the image of God in angels is adorned. God created the angels personal spiritual beings in His image in truth, i.e. in holiness and righteousness.—POLAN (V, 11): “The image of God in angels is the likeness of the divine nature impressed on angels by God at their first creation, that as sons of God they may call Him their Father. The parts of the image of God in angels are two: the first is the actual incorporeal substance of the angels, by which they suggest the incorporeal God; the second consists in the excellent attributes assigned to the angelic substance by God.” LEIDEN SYNOPSIS (XII, 7): “We assert, then, that in the beginning all the angels were created good—and in the image of God, against the Manichees and the Priscillianists”.

(Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], p. 207.)

Amandus Polanus:

His ita præmissis, probandum nobis est, Angelos ad imaginem Dei creatos esse: id autem sequentia argumenta evincunt.

I. Quia creati sunt filii Dei, Job.1.v.6.&38.7.

II. Quia creati sunt substantiæ spirituales & rationales.

III. Quia creati sunt justi, sancti, puri.

IV. Quia Angelorum bonorum sanctitatem & justitiam imitari debemus, ut tales in terris sumus, quales sunt Angeli in cœlo, Matth. 6.v.10.

V. Quia Angelis bonis similes erimus post universalem resurrectionem, Matt. 22.v.30.

Imago Dei in Angelis, est similitudo divinæ naturæ, Angelis à Deo impressa in prima creatione, ut ipsum tanquam filii Dei suum patrem referrent.

Partes imaginis Dei in Angelis sunt duæ: prima est ipsa substantia Angelorum incorporea, quâ Deum referunt incorporeum: secunda sunt excellentes proprietates, Angelicæ substantiæ tributæ à Deo.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.10, p. 509.)

English:

With these premises, we must prove that Angels were created in the image of God: this is demonstrated by the following arguments.

1. Because they were created as sons of God (Job 1:6; 38:7).

2. Because they were created as spiritual and rational substances.

3. Because they were created just, holy, and pure.

4. Because we must imitate the holiness and righteousness of the good angels, so that we are on earth as they are in heaven (Matthew 6:10).

5. Because we will be like the good Angels after the universal resurrection (Matthew 22:30).

The image of God in the Angels is the likeness of the divine nature, impressed upon the angels by God at the first creation, so that they might reflect Him as the sons of God reflect their Father.

The parts of the image of God in the Angels are twofold: the first is the incorporeal substance of the angels, by which they reflect the incorporeal God; the second are the excellent properties attributed to the angelic substance by God.

Synopsis of a Purer Theology (Synopsis Purioris Theologiae):

Therefore contrary to the Manichaeans and the followers of Priscillian we assert that they were created out of nothing at the beginning of time, and also that they all were good and in God’s image. “For God saw everything that He had made, and behold it was very good” (Genesis 1:31), and therefore in Holy Scripture they are called sons of God, servants of God, angels of God, powers and principalities, indeed, even ‘gods.’ And it is said of those who have fallen away from them that they did “not stand firm in the truth” (John 8:44) and “did not keep their original state” (Jude 6)—from where it necessarily follows that they had been in the truth and that they had a holy beginning.

Gisbertus Voetius:

De imagine Dei in Angelis.

An in angelis fit imago Dei? Affirmatur.

An homo magis ad imaginem Dei creatus fit, quam angeli? Negatur. & Quæstio Absurda.

An angeli imperium habeant in creaturas inferiores? Distinguitur.

An inter angelorum prærogativas fit aliarum creaturarum opera non egere? Affirmatur.

(Gisberto Voetio, Syllabus Problematum Theologicorum, [Ultrajecti: Ex Officina Ægidii Roman, Academiæ Typographi, 1643], Prioris Partis Theologiæ, Sectio Prior, Tractatus III, Titulus IV, Subtitulus III: De Imagine Dei in Angelis, p. Z3a)

English:

On the Image of God in Angels.

Is the image of God found in angels? It is affirmed.

Is man created more in the image of God than angels? It is denied and the question is deemed absurd.

Do angels have dominion over lower creatures? It is distinguished.

Is it among the prerogatives of angels that they do not require the works of other creatures? It is affirmed.

Johann Heinrich Heidegger:

Creati autem sunt recti ad imaginem Dei, quippe Filii Dei…

(Joh. Henrici Heideggeri, Medulla Theologiæ Christianæ: Corporis Theologia: Prævia Epitome, [Tiguri: Typis Henrici Bodmeri 1713], Locus VIII: De Angelis, p. 173.)

English:

They [i.e. the Angels] were created righteous in the image of God, indeed as the sons of God…

Antonius Walaeus:

Hæc vero agendi principia ipsis omnibus competere, patet ex eo, quia ad imaginem Dei creati sunt. Unde & Filii Dei vocantur Hiob 38.v.7. & alibi passim. Item dii, Elohim, ut Psal.8.v.5. explicante Apostolo ad Hebr.2.v.6. quod etiam ex colloquiis, revelationibus eorum, doxologiis, gratulationibus, &c. satis liquet. Diserte illis scientia tribuitur 2.Sam.14.21. Dominus meus Rex sapiens est, tanquam sapientia angeli Dei, ad cognoscendum quicquid sit in hac terra. Voluntas illis adscribitur Dan.4.17, cum dicitur, Ex decreto vigilum verbum hoc, & ex sermone sanctorum hoc postulatum est. Sic enim vocantur ibi Angeli. Potentia ipsorum ex ipsorum actionibus passim liquet.

English:

These principles of action, however, are evidently suitable to them all, because they were created in the image of God. Hence, they are also called the Sons of God in Job 38:7 and elsewhere frequently. Similarly, they are called gods, Elohim, as in Psalm 8:5, explained by the Apostle in Hebrews 2:6. This is also clear from their conversations, revelations, doxologies, gratulations, etc. Knowledge is explicitly attributed to them in 2 Samuel 14:20: “My lord the king is wise, like the wisdom of the angel of God, to know all that is on the earth.” Will is ascribed to them in Daniel 4:17, where it is said, “This sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones.” For thus the Angels are called there. Their power is clearly evident from their actions everywhere.

Johannes Maccovius:

Incommunicable attributes refer to those attributes, which do not have any likeness in creatures, such as being infinite, eternal and immeasurable. Communicable attributes are those attributes, which have some analogy in creatures, such as wisdom, will, righteousness, mercy and essence. But this analogous thing in creatures is either a vestige or an image of God. Being and essence are called vestiges of God; likewise life, which is also present in living things created next to human beings and angels. The image of God refers to a likeness shared with God regarding intellect, will, integrity, righteousness, dominion over creatures, which occurs in human beings and angels alone.

(Johannes Maccovius, Distinction et Regulæ Theologicæ ac Philofophicæ, [Franequeræ: Sumptibus Joannis Archerii, 1653], 4.13, p. 43; trans. Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, trans. & ed. Willem J. van Asselt, Michael D. Bell, Gert van den Brink, Rein Ferwerda, [Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009], 4.13, p. 113.)

Edward Leigh:

(Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, [London: Printed by A. M. for William Lee, 1654], 3.2, p. 228.) See also: books.google.com.

English:

William Ames:

66. Three things are required for an image: one, that it be like something; two, that it be formed and fashioned to imitate something as a facsimile; three, that the likeness be either in its specific nature or in its highest perfection.

67. In the inferior creatures the image of God is not properly to be found, but only a shadow and vestige of it.

(William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden, ed. John D. Eusden, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997], 1.8.66-67, p. 105.)

Cf. William Ames:

1. Special government is God’s government of rational creatures in a moral way.

2. The unique character of these creatures makes the difference. Since they are created after the image of God, are in some way immortal, and decide their actions in accord with their own counsel, they are to be directed towards an eternal state of happiness or unhappiness in accordance with their own counsel and freedom.

…14. The special government of rational creatures applies to angels and men.

(William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden, ed. John D. Eusden, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997], 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 110-111.)

William Ames: (1642)

66. Three things are required to make an Image. 1. That it be like. 2. That it be expresse, and framed to imitate another thing as an exemplar, or copy. 3. That that likenesse be either in its specifiall nature, or most noble perfection.

67. Hence it is, that in the inferior Creatures the Image of God is not properly found; but only a shadow, and footstep of it.

(William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, [London: Printed by Edward Griffin, 1642], 1.8.66-67, p. 43.)

Cf. William Ames: (1642)

1. Speciall Gubernation is that where that whereby God doth governe reasonable Creatures in a speciall manner.

2. The speciall condition of those Creatures doth cause the difference. For seeing they are in some sort immortall, and created after the Image of God, and have an inward principle of their own actions proceeding from counsell, therefore they are to be governed to an eternall state of happinesse or unhappinesse, and that agreeably to counsell, and freedome.

…14. Speciall government of the reasonable Creature is of Angels and men.

(William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, [London: Printed by Edward Griffin, 1642], 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 50-51, 52.)

John Ball:

Q. What are the Angels?

A. Angels are finite. Heb. 1.13.14. Col. 1.16. Mat. 4.11. and 26, 53. Psal. 68.17. compleat and immortal Spirits, Matth. 22.30. Luke. 20.36. Heb. 1.7. Psalm 104.4. made after the image of God, Job 2.1. Psal. 8.5. Luke 9.26. Matth. 25.31. Heb. 2.7.

(John Ball, A Short Treatise Containing all the Principal Grounds of Christian Religion, [London: For John Wright, 1656], pp. 87-88.)

John Norton:

(John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter I, p. 13.)

William Perkins:

First, Man was created and framed by the hand of God, and made after the image of God: for Moses brings in the Lord speaking thus, Let us make man in our image, &c. in the image of God created hee them, which also must bee understood of Angels.

(William Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole or Creed of the Apostles, [London: Printed by John Legatt, 1616], pp. 70-71.)

Note: Page 70 is mistakenly labeled “42”.

Zacharias Ursinus:

Angels and holy men are tearmed the image of God, as well in respect of the Son & the holy Ghost, as of the eternall Father…

(Zacharias Ursinus, The Summe of Christian Religion, trans. Henry Parry, [Oxford: Printed by Joseph Barnes, 1595], Part I, “Of the Image of God in Man,” p. 128.)

Note: Like many Reformed divines, Ursinus believed that the one of the constituent components of the Imago Dei was moral rectitude, which was subsequently lost in the fall of the Angels and humankind. Consequently, Ursinus asserted that the elect more fully bear the Imago Dei relative to the reprobate. However, like most Reformed theologians, Ursinus concedes that the Imago Dei “was not wholly lost” in the fall and that aspects of it remain in the fallen.(Idem, p. 126.)

Note: I personally find the distinction between the “broad” and “narrow” conceptualization of the Imago Dei—though very common among Reformed divines, e.g. Louis Berkhof, Manual of Reformed Doctrine, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1933], pp. 129-130.—to be highly dubious for several reasons. The most poignant of these being enumerated by Berkouwer and Smith respectively. G. C. Berkouwer: Do we not, then, in dealing with an image which is both kept and lost, have to do with a strange paradox, or a dialectic, or a mysterious antinomy, which invites confusion? …And then is it possible to talk meaningfully of a loss of the image in the narrower sense, and the retention of the image in a broader sense? Doesn’t the concept of two aspects of the image of God actually involve the postulating of two very different things, two separate images? …Despite all attempts to overcome the ‘antinomy’ involved and to develop a unified view of the image, the ‘twofold image’ remains stubbornly dualistic, because the image understood in the wider sense has a very different content than the image understood in the narrower sense. …A synthesis is not possible because the two aspects of the image are tied in with two very different concepts.(Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Man: The image of God, trans. Dirk W. Jellema, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962], pp. 53, 57, 61, 62.) Morton H. Smith: Various passages in the Scripture refer to man, even in his fallen state as the image of God (Genesis 5:3; 9:6; James 3:9; 1 Corinthians 11:7; compare Psalm 8). As we study these passages, we see that the usage of the term “image” does not distinguish between man as unfallen and fallen, but between man and other creatures. The Scriptures do not hesitate to speak of the terrible effects of sin on man, and yet they do not apply this language to the image. The implication is that the fact that man is the image is not directly affected by sin. The image though not lost has been terribly marred, and thus man suffers the loss of some of the consequences of being the image of God, such as the loss of moral excellence, and the darkening of his reason, and the corruption of all his members. He still remains, however, the image of God.(Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology Volume One, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019], pp. 239-240.) Cf. G. C. Berkouwer: If the image could be thought of as man’s essence, as will and intellect, then indeed it was not lost; but, he argues, if we think of it supernaturally, as righteousness and holiness, then the image is radically and totally lost: The restoration of the image in Christ presupposes that it has been lost. But Gerhard then unexpectedly adds that there are indeed “remnants” (reliquiae) of the image even in fallen man, which leads Schumann to ask the pointed question: “Gerhard speaks here of remnants of the image; can he also speak of remnants of original righteousness?” If this is not the case — because of man’s total corruption and his complete loss of conformitas — then it would appear that the image of God and justitia originalis can not be simply identified.(Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Man: The image of God, trans. Dirk W. Jellema, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962], p. 47.) Cf. Gerald Bray: Most seriously of all, the idea that the image of God in man conferred moral awareness is directly contradicted by the narrative in Genesis itself. …Adam, though he was created in the image of God, was not allowed to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When he did so, God said ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us,’ implying that in this particular at least, there had been an important dissimilarity between Himself and His human creature.(Gerald Bray, “The Significance of God’s Image in Man,” pp. 207-208; In: Tyndale Bulletin, 42.2, [1991]:195-225.)

Wilhelmus à Brakel:

The basis—or canvas—for this image is the spirituality, rationality, and immortality of the essence of man’s soul, and more particularly the faculties of the soul such as intellect, will, and affections. The soul had to be of such a nature in order for the image of God to be impressed upon it. This does not constitute the form of the image of God, however, for man possessed these before as well as after the fall. Even the devils possess these at the present time. When God forbids man to murder, man having been created in God’s image (Gen 9:6), this refers to both what he did possess as well as the background which he still possesses, upon which the image of God at one time was impressed. God did not wish this background to be destroyed. The spirituality and the faculties of the soul belong to the image of God as a background belongs to a painting. The latter can still exist and remain, even though the image upon it has been so erased that any resemblance of the same can no longer be detected; nevertheless it can still be seen that something had been impressed upon it.

The essential form, the true essence of the image of God, consists in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, they being the qualities that regulate the faculties of the soul: intellect, will, and affections.

(Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service: Volume 1: God, Man and Christ, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992], pp. 323-324.)

Note: À Brakel defines the “canvas” of the Imago Dei as “spirituality, rationality, and immortality of the essence of man’s soul” and attributes this to Humankind after the fall and to the reprobate Angels. He then defines “the true essence of the image” as consisting of “knowledge, righteousness, and holiness” which he attributes to the Saints in heaven and presumably the elect Angels (for they also possess these characteristics). I do not personally agree with his understanding of the constituent components of the Imago Dei. “Since God is without sin and called his image good, the image does not pertain to humankind’s spiritual status as innocent or sinful. The continued use of the expression in Genesis even after the Fall confirms this interpretation.”(Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], p. 217.) However, his testimony is useful nonetheless.

Matthew 22:30: For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (New American Standard Bible.)

John Calvin:

But it cannot be denied that the angels also were created in the likeness of God, since, as Christ declares (Matth. xxii. 30), our highest perfection will consist in being like them.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume First, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], 1.15.3, p. 221.)

Note: Calvin’s point is this: since we find that Human relationships will one day resemble Angelic relationships—“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30 NASB)—such that “our highest perfection will consist in being like them” in this respect (Institutes, 1.15.3; cf. Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:35-36), it seems reasonable to infer that Angels are bearers of the Imago Dei.

Luke 20:35-36: Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and the women are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (New American Standard Bible.)

Matthew Henry:

[3.] They are equal unto the angels. In the other evangelists it was said, They are as the angels—ὡς ἄγγελοι, but here they are said to be equal to the angels, ἰσάγγελοι—angels’ peers; they have a glory and bliss no way inferior to that of the holy angels. They shall see the same sight, be employed in the same work, and share in the same joys, with the holy angels. Saints, when they come to heaven, shall be naturalized, and, though by nature strangers, yet, having obtained this freedom with a great sum, which Christ paid for them, they have in all respects equal privileges with them that were freeborn, the angels that are the natives and aborigines of that country. They shall be companions with the angels, and converse with those blessed spirits that love them dearly, and with an innumerable company, to whom they are now come in faith, hope, and love.

[4.] They are the children of God, and so they are as the angels, who are called the sons of God. In the inheritance of sons, the adoption of sons will be completed. Hence believers are said to wait for the adoption, even the redemption of the body, Rom. 8. 23. For till the body is redeemed from the grave the adoption is not completed. Now are we the sons of God, 1 John 3. 2. We have the nature and disposition of sons, but that will not be perfected till we come to heaven.

(Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament: In Five Volumes: Vol. IV, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1860], on Luke 20:36, pp. 529-530.)

Genesis 1:26: Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” (New American Standard Bible.)

Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu:

Most scholars rightly interpret the “us” as a reference to the heavenly court that surrounds God’s throne. This view has linguistic, contextual, and theological support.

(Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], p. 213.) Preview. Cf. Idem, pp. 213ff. for explanation.

Cf. Gordon J. Wenham:

The NT affirms that Christ is ‘the image of the invisible God’ (Col. 1:15), ‘the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being’ (Heb. 1:3). Such an understanding of the divine image was beyond the reach of the human author of Genesis, but he alludes to another dimension of it by the comment ‘Let us make man in our image’ (26). Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels. (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude to the other persons of the Trinity. While this is a quite legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning.)

(Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis;” In: New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition: Fourth Edition, eds. D. A. Carson, et al., [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994], p. 61.)

Cf. Kenneth A. Mathews:

The interpretation proposed by the Church Fathers and perpetuated by the Reformers was an intra-Trinity dialogue. However, this position can only be entertained as a possible “canonical” reading of the text since the first audience could not have understood it in the sense of a trinitarian reference.

(Kenneth A. Mathews, The New American Commentary: Vol. 1A: Genesis 1-11:26, [Nashville: B & H, 1996], pp. 162-163.) Preview.

Tremper Longman III:

God announces his intention to create humans by stating, “Let us make man in our image.” Some Christian readers suggest that “our image” is a reference to the different persons of the Trinity—Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Yet since God chose to wait until the NT time period to reveal his trinitarian nature, that would make little sense to the original author or reader. Reading this passage in its ancient Near Eastern context leads us to conclude that the reference here is to the divine council. In ancient Israel God was the divine king, and he was attended by other heavenly beings who elsewhere are called angels. Thus God here announces to his angelic servants his intention to create human beings.

(Tremper Longman III, “Genesis;” In: The Baker Illustrated Bible Background Commentary, eds. J. Scott Duvall, J. Daniel Hays, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2020], on Genesis 1:26.) Preview.

Meredith G. Kline:

In the creative fiat addressed to the heavenly council, “Let us make man in our image,” angels are identified as sharing in the image-likeness to God.[fn. 43: Hence, too, a designation of angels found in council contexts is “sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:1; Pss. 29:1; 89:6).] The lines of likeness connect not only God and man but God and angels, and man and angels. Agreeably, in the reflection of Genesis 1:26ff. in Psalm 8:5ff., man’s likeness to God is expounded in a comparison of man and angels.[fn. 44: Cf. Hebrews 2:1.] That man in his likeness to God is like members of the divine council suggests that to bear the image of God is to participate in the judicial function of the divine Glory. And it is this judicial role that is prominent when the image idea next appears in Genesis 3:22. There, man’s likeness to God is expressed in terms of his knowing good and evil, which has to do with the royal function of judicial discernment and decision rendering. The latter is elsewhere noted as a mark of likeness to both God and angels.[fn. 45: I Kings 3:28, cf. 9; II Samuel 14:11.]

(Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999], p. 27.) Preview.

Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu:

Most scholars rightly interpret the “us” as a reference to the heavenly court that surrounds God’s throne. This view has linguistic, contextual, and theological support. As for its linguistic support, ʾelōhîm means “divine beings” in 1 Samuel 28:13, though the TNIV renders it “a ghostly figure.” The point, however, is not whether it means “divine beings” or “a ghostly figure”; rather, that it does not refer to God, or “gods” in a polytheistic sense.

As for the contextual support of the primary interpretation of “us,” a reference to the angelic realm is the most likely meaning of “us” in connection with God in Genesis 3:22 and 11:7. Before looking at Genesis 3:22, however, one must take Genesis 3:5 into consideration. The Serpent, who becomes identified as Satan in later revelation, tempts the man and woman to eat forbidden fruit to gratify their pride: “You [plural] will be like divine beings (ʾelōhîm), knowing good and evil” (translation mine). Conceivably, ʾelōhîm here is another honorific plural for God, but its attributive modifier, “knowing” (yōḏēaʿ, literally “knowers of”), is plural. Normally translators decide whether ʾelōhîm is a grammatical plural (“divine beings”) or an honorific plural (“God”) by its accompanying modifiers. For example, at the beginning of verse 5, ʾelōhîm takes a singular attributive, the participle yōḏēaʿ (“knows”). In this case, the plural is honorific. But at the end of the verse, by contrast, the construction ʾelōhîm yōḏēaʿ involves a plural participle of the same word, showing that ʾelōhîm should now be rendered by “divine beings” and yōḏēaʿ by “knowers of.” In Genesis 3:22 I AM confirms the Serpent’s statement, saying, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil,” which is a reference to the Serpent’s temptation in 3:5. Accordingly, the “us” in 3:22 refers to divine beings, and since the Serpent knows of the divine counsel, he belongs to that realm and in this case knows what he is talking about.

In Genesis 11:7 God speaks in response to the rebellion at the Tower of Babel when a crowd of people developed a scheme to escape their earthbound status and ascend into the realm of divine beings. The heavenly rallying cry, “Come, let us go down and confuse their language,” matches the mortals’ cry, “let us make bricks.” The heavenly “us” most probably refers to the angels who superintend the nations (cf. Deut. 32:8; Dan. 10:13) and accompany the Lord in judgment (Gen. 19:1-29: Matt. 25:31: 2 Thess. 1:7).

The contextual argument finds support also in its only other use with reference to God in Isaiah 6:8. In his temple vision, Isaiah is caught up into the heavenly court to join the seraphim that surround God’s throne, and he hears God asking them: “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” (6:8). Other passages also envision God as surrounded by a heavenly host (see 1 Kings 22:19: Job 1:6: 2:1: 38:7: Jer. 23:18; cf. Ps. 82). In God’s second call to Isaiah (40:1-11)—this time to announce Israel’s salvation rather than judgment, unlike Isaiah’s first call (6:12-13)—Isaiah again finds himself in the heavenly court. We know that “Comfort, comfort my people” is God’s addressing the heavenly court, not just Isaiah, because “comfort” is a numerical plural. In sum, all four uses of “us” with reference to ʾelōhîm support only the interpretation that “us” refers to heavenly divine beings.

As to the theological argument, significantly all four uses of “us” involve the impingement of mortals into the realm of divine beings. Though God involves the divine court in these four passages, he is the Commander, as can be seen in his two questions, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” In embarking upon the grand adventure of making creatures, who like divine beings can and do cast off their role as God’s servants to vie with God himself for dominion, the narrator represents God as the sole actor: “So God created (singular verb ʾāḏām.” He involves his council in his undertaking but does not need their advice (see lsa. 40:14). The Genesis cosmology portrays God as supreme. He is totally in charge and is so secure in his authority that he involves the heavenly council in his plans and projects and even bestows part of his authority to mortals. In the broader context of Genesis and the Bible, this interpretation lays down the theological basis for the social inter course between the divine beings and earthbound mortals (cf. Gen. 19:1; 28:12; 32:1; Matt. 4:11 et al.). The “us” foreshadows the introduction of the Serpent, who is, of course, a spiritual being with the knowledge of the divine realm.

Keil and Delitzsch justly urge that in the report humanity is represented as in God’s image, not in the image of divine beings. However, although the command assumes humanity’s correspondence to divine beings, the report emphasizes its correspondence to God, the greater entailing the latter. Also in Isaiah 6:8, “Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?” God is represented as primus inter pares; God sends Isaiah on behalf of the heavenly court. Similarly, God makes humanity in his image to establish its connection with the divine realm. In his commentary on the Psalms, Franz Delitzsch rightly says, “But when God says: ‘Let us make man in our image after our likeness,’ He then connects Himself with the angels.”

(Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], pp. 213-215.) Preview.

Psalm 8:5: You have made them a little lower than the angels [מֵאֱלֹהִים, ἀγγέλους in LXX; cf. Heb. 2:7] and crowned them with glory and honor. (New International Version.)

Cf. Hebrews 2:7: You made them a little lower than the angels [ἀγγέλους]; you crowned them with glory and honor (New International Version.)

Meredith G. Kline:

The very form of the creative fiat of Genesis 1:26 calling for the making of man in God’s image tells us that we have to do here with the Glory-theophany, and thus with the heavenly assembly or council. For the Creator speaks in the deliberative plural idiomatic of the council: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” …Coupled with the image-of-God concept in both the fiat and fulfillment sections of the record of the creation of man in Genesis 1:26-28 is the idea of man’s dominion over the world, the dominion that images the dominion of the God-King enthroned in the divine council of the Glory temple. Commenting on this Genesis 1 passage, Psalm 8 expresses the imago Dei idea as a likeness of man to the members of that divine council — “Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels” (v. 5a[6]) — and then expounds this status as a royal crowning with glory and a dominion over all the earth (vv. 5b-8[6-9]).

(Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006], pp. 42-43, 44.)

Note: The divine, or heavenly, council of Angelic beings is a concept which is widely attested to in the Scriptures (Job 1:6, 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 82:1; 89:5-7; Isaiah 6:1-3, 8; Daniel 4:13-17, 24-26; 7:9-10; 1 Kings 22:19-22; 2 Chronicles 18:18-22; Nehemiah 9:6; etc.).

Other.

Gregory the Great:

The angel which was first created was told by the prophet, You were the seal of likeness, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty; you were among the delights of God’s garden.[Ezk 28:12-13] We should notice that it is not said to have been made in the likeness of God, but as the seal of likeness, since as its essential nature is finer, it is suggested that God’s image is expressed with greater likeness in it.

(Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, 34.7; PL, 76:1250; trans. Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, trans. Dom David Hurst, [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990], Homily 34, p. 286.) Preview.

Note: See similar statements from: Tertullian (The Five Books Against Marcion, 2.10; ANF, 3:305-306.), Origen (De Principiis (On First Principles), 1.5.4; ANF, 4:259.), John Cassian (Conferences, 8.8; NPNF2, 11:378.), Cyril of Jerusalem (The Catechetical Lectures, 2.4; NPNF2, 7:9.) and Jerome (Commentariorum In Ezechielem Prophetam Libri Quatuordecim, Lib. IX. Cap. XXVIII, Vers. 11-19; PL, 25:272-273.).

John of Damascus:

He is Himself the Maker and Creator of the angels: for He brought them out of nothing into being and created them after His own image, an incorporeal race, a sort of spirit or immaterial fire: in the words of the divine David, He maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire[Ps. civ. 4] and He has described their lightness and the ardour, and heat, and keenness and sharpness with which they hunger for God and serve Him, and how they are borne to the regions above and are quite delivered from all material thought.

An angel, then, is an intelligent essence, in perpetual motion, with free-will, incorporeal, ministering to God, having obtained by grace an immortal nature: and the Creator alone knows the form and limitation of its essence.

(John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2.3; trans. NPNF2, 9:18-19.) See also: ccel.org.

Thomas Aquinas:

On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxxiv): The angel is called a “seal of resemblance” (Ezech. xxviii. 12) because in him the resemblance of the Divine image is wrought with greater expression.

I answer that, We may speak of God’s image in two ways. First, we may consider in it that in which the image chiefly consists, that is, the intellectual nature. Thus the image of God is more perfect in the angels than in man, because their intellectual nature is more perfect, as is clear from what has been said (Q. LVIII., A. 3; Q. LXXIX., A. 8). Secondly, we may consider the image of God in man as regards its accidental qualities, so far as to observe in man a certain imitation of God, consisting in the fact that man proceeds from man, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, and again, in every part, as God is in regard to the whole world. In these and the like things the image of God is more perfect in man than it is in the angels. But these do not of themselves belong to the nature of the Divine image in man, unless we presuppose the first likeness, which is in the intellectual nature; otherwise even brute animals would be to God’s image. Therefore, as in their intellectual nature, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, we must grant that, absolutely speaking, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, but that in some respects man is more like to God.

(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.93.3; trans. The “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas: Part I: QQ. LXXV.—CII.: Second and Revised Edition, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1922], P. I, Q. 93, A. 3, p. 287.)

Note: See further: Angels and the Image of God (Imago Dei).

5. Appendix: Wrath and Love: Ephesians 2:3 and Romans 5:8. Return to Outline.

Ephesians 2:3:

Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Romans 5:8:

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Stephen Charnock:

God doth hate his elect in some sense before their actual reconciliation. God was placable before Christ, appeased by Christ. But till there be such conditions which God hath appointed in the creature, he hath no interest in this reconciliation of God; and whatsoever person he be in whom the condition is not found, he remains under the wrath of God, and therefore is in some sense under God’s hatred.

(Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of God’s Being the Author of Reconciliation,” In: The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock: Vol. III, [Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865], p. 345.)

R. C. Sproul:

…God may love a person in one sense or in one way, while at the same time hating him in another sense or another way. In essence, not all kinds of divine love are absolutely antithetical to all kinds of divine hatred.

(R. C. Sproul, Loved by God, [Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001], p. 106.)

W. G. T. Shedd:

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume I: Second Edition, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889], pp. 385-386.)

Petrus Van Mastricht:

If you should say, How could he love the workers of iniquity? (Hab. 1:13; Ps. 5:4-5), then I will say, He loved the workers while he hated their works; he loved them by his love of benevolence, not by his love of complacency (Ezek. 16:5).

Note: See further: The Opposite of Love Is Not Hate, It Is Indifference.

James Usher:

…in every wicked man we must consider two things: First, his nature; Secondly, his sin. His nature is the work of God, and that he loveth; but his iniquity is not of God, and that he hateth.

(James Usher, A Body of Divinity: A New Edition, ed. Hastings Robinson, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1841], p. 80.)

Amandus Polanus:

The generall love of God, is that with which hee embraceth altogether all things which hee hath made, and doth good unto them, and preserveth and sustaineth them.

For though he hate sinne, yet he loveth the nature which he hath created.

(Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Wilcocks, [London: Printed by Arn. Hatfield for William Aspley, 1608], p. 18.)

Cf. Amandus Polanus:

Generalis seu communis amor Dei, est quo omnes prorsus res abs se conditas, quatenus creaturæ sunt, complectitur; ijsq́ue benefacit, easq́; conservat & sustenta. Sap.11.v.24.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 2.22, p. 313.)

English:

John Frame:

God loves all his creatures, even his enemies. He makes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:43-48)... We should recognize, however, that God is also a wrathful God, a God of judgment. The Bible even says he hates some people—he hates the wicked every day (Lev. 20:23; Deut. 25:16). Sometimes his hatred ends in eternal punishment. We must remember that once he hated us as well (Eph. 2:3), yet reached out in love to save us in Christ. Even while he was hating us, he loved us in Christ before the foundation of the world. See the paradox? It is possible to love and hate the same person at the same time: to hate him for his wickedness and, yet, in the long run to love him so that you want to rescue him from wickedness.

How can God hate people if he is love? First, God’s love is a jealous love (Ex. 34:14). As in a human marriage, God has the right to expect us to be faithful to him. When we are not, we incur his wrath. Second, although God is love, he is not obligated to distribute his love equally to all. As we have seen, he loves everybody in the sense that everybody receives some blessings from his hand (Matt. 5:43-48). Indeed, he treats all of us far better than we deserve. However, he reserves his best blessings only for his Son and for the people the Son has purchased by his blood.

(John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2006], pp. 23-24.)

Cf. John M. Frame:

What, then, should we conclude about God’s love? His hate and his love do not exclude each other in every respect, so the attribute of hatred does not in itself compromise Scripture’s teaching that “God is love.” God does love and hate some people at the same time, in different respects.

There are some, of course, who eventually receive no love from God: the devil and his angels, and the lost in hell.

(John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2013], Chapter 13: God’s Attributes: Righteousness and Holiness.) [bold added]

Cf. A. A. Hodge:

Benevolence is the goodness of God viewed generically. It embraces all his creatures, except the judicially condemned on account of sin, and provides for their welfare.

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1878], p. 252.)

Edward Leigh:

Object. How could God love them when they were workers of inequity, Hab. 1.13. Psal. 5.3,4. He loved their persons, but hated their works and wayes. God loved Christ’s person, yet was angry with him when the guilt of our sins was upon him.

(Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, [London: Printed by A. M. for William Lee, 1654], 2.8, p. 167.)

James Rawson:

William Cooper:

2. The love of God is voluntary: thus he loves his creatures with a general love.

St. Augustine of Hippo:

2,18. But at this point we must strive to see, with the Lord’s assistance, how both these statements are true: You hate nothing that you have made and I loved Jacob but I hated Esau. For if he hated Esau because he was a vessel made for reproach, and it was the same potter who made one vessel for honor and another for reproach, how is it that you hate nothing that you have made? For obviously he hates Esau, because he made him a vessel for reproach. This problem is solved if we understand that God is the maker of all creatures. But every creature of God is good,[fn. 50: See 1 Tm 4:4.] and every human being, insofar as he is a human being and not insofar as he is a sinner, is a creature. God, therefore, is the creator of the human body and soul. Neither of these is evil and neither is hated by God, for he hates nothing that he has made. The soul, however, is more excellent than the body, but God, the author and creator of each, is more excellent than both soul and body, and he hates nothing in the human being other than sin. Sin, however, is a disorder and a perversion in the human being—that is, a turning away from the creator, who is more excellent, and a turning to created things, which are inferior. God, therefore, does not hate Esau the human being, but God does hate Esau the sinner…

(Augustine of Hippo, Miscellany of Questions in Response to Simplician (Ad Simplicianum de Diversis Quaestionibus), 1.2.18; trans. WSA, I/12:199-200.)

John Calvin:

I will quote a passage of Augustine… “Incomprehensible and immutable is the love of God. For it was not after we were reconciled to him by the blood of his Son that he began to love us, but he loved us before the foundation of the world, that with his only begotten Son we too might be sons of God before we were any thing at all. Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us, but that we were reconciled to him already, loving, though at enmity with us because of sin. To the truth of both propositions we have the attestation of the Apostle, ‘God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,’ (Rom. v. 8.) Therefore he had this love towards us even when, exercising enmity towards him, we were the workers of iniquity. Accordingly, in a manner wondrous and divine, he loved even when he hated us. For he hated us when we were such as he had not made us, and yet because our iniquity had not destroyed his work in every respect, he knew in regard to each one of us, both to hate what we had made, and love what he had made.” Such are the words of Augustine, (Tract in Jo. 110.)

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume Second, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], 2.16.4, p. 51.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

6. Therefore, the love by which God loves is incomprehensible and unchangeable. For he did not begin to love us from the time when we were reconciled to him through the blood of his Son; but before the foundation of the world he loved us, that we, too, might be his sons together with his Only-Begotten, before we were anything at all. Let the fact, therefore, that we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son not be so heard of, not be so taken, as if the Son reconciled us to him for the very purpose that he might now begin to love those whom he hated, as an enemy is reconciled to an enemy, in order that from then on they may be friends and they who hated one another may love one another. But we were reconciled to him already loving us, with whom we carried on enmities because of sin. But whether I say this truly, let the Apostle attest: “God commends,” he says, “his love in us, because when we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”[fn. 27: Rom 5.8-9 (NAB 5.8).] Therefore, he had love toward us even when we, exercising enmities against him, worked iniquity; and nevertheless it was most truly said to him, “You hate, Lord, all who work iniquity.”[fn. 28: Ps 5.7 (NAB 5.6).]

Accordingly, in a wondrous and divine manner he loved us even when he hated us; for he hated us when we were in such a state as he had not made. And because our iniquity had not devoured his work in every part, he knew how simultaneously in each one of us both to hate what we had made and to love what he had made. And this indeed can be understood in all things about him to whom it was truly said, “You hate none of the things that you have made.”[fn. 29. Wis 11.25 (NAB 11.24).] For he would not have wanted whatever he hated to exist, nor would what the Omnipotent did not want to exist at all exist unless there were also in that which he hates [something] that he might love. For indeed, he rightly hates and repudiates vice as incompatible, as it were, with the rule of his creative knowledge; nevertheless even in the doers of vice he loves either his own benefaction by healing or judgment by damnation. Thus, God both hates none of the things that he made (for, the Creator of natures, not of vices, he did not make the evils that he hates); and concerning the same evils, either by his healing them through mercy or by his setting them in order through judgment, the things that he makes are good.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 110.6; trans. FC, 90:296-297. Cf. NPNF1, 7:411.) See also: ccel.org.

Thomas Aquinas:

For it is our duty to hate, in the sinner, his being a sinner, and to love in him, his being a man capable of bliss; and this is to love him truly, out of charity, for God’s sake.

(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II.25.6; trans. The “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas: Part II (Second Part): QQ. I.—XLVI., trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, [New York: Benziger Brothers, 1917], P. II-II, Q. 25, A. 6, p. 317.)

Full. Thomas Aquinas:

Two things may be considered in the sinner, his nature and his guilt. According to his nature, which he has from God, he has a capacity for happiness, on the fellowship of which charity is based, as stated above (A. 3: Q. XXIII., AA. 1, 5), wherefore we ought to love sinners, out of charity, in respect of their nature. On the other hand their guilt is opposed to God, and is an obstacle to happiness. Wherefore, in respect of their guilt whereby they are opposed to God, all sinners are to be hated… For it is our duty to hate, in the sinner, his being a sinner, and to love in him, his being a man capable of bliss; and this is to love him truly, out of charity, for God’s sake.

Stephen Charnock:

…God only hates the sin, not the sinner; he desires only the destruction of the one, not the misery of the other. The nature of a man does not displease him, because it is a work of his own goodness; but the nature of the sinner displeases him, because it is a work of the sinner’s own extravagance. Divine goodness pitches not its hatred primarily upon the sinner, but upon the sin; but since he cannot punish the sin, without punishing the subject to which it cleaves, the sinner falls under his lash. Who ever regards a good judge as an enemy to the malefactor, but as an enemy to his crime, when he does sentence and execute him?

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Evangelical Answers

Tuesday, June 8, 2021

Does God’s Love Extend to Fallen Angels in Any Sense? (The Satan and the Devils?)

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Patristic Understanding of the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel According to John as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal

Transubstantiation Refuted From Church History (By Individual, In Chronological Order)