17. Divine Simplicity and God's Non-Corporeal Nature

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Structure of Thomas’s Teaching on Divine Simplicity #

• Thomas divides the treatment of God’s substance into multiple articles eliminating different kinds of composition
• The Summa Theologiae uses an inductive approach: eliminates particular kinds of composition first (Articles 1-6), then gives a universal reason (Article 7), then addresses composition with external things (Article 8)
• The Summa Contra Gentiles uses a deductive approach: first establishes that God is pure act, then descends to particular implications
• The Summa Theologiae approach is “more proportioned to a beginner” (Question 117, Article 1 on teaching)

Article 1: Whether God is a Body #

Three Main Arguments Against God Being a Body: #

1. The Unmoved Mover Argument

   • No body moves without being moved itself (confirmed inductively through various kinds of motion)
   • God is the first immobile mover
   • Therefore, God is not a body
   • Syllogistic form: Second figure, negative conclusion

2. The Potency Argument

   • Every body is in potency (in the passive sense) because it is continuous
   • Continuous things are divisible forever (Aristotle, Physics, Book 6)
   • God is not in potency; God is pure act
   • Therefore, God is not a body
   • Berquist notes: Even if a body’s nature prevents infinite division (as with heavenly bodies), it still possesses potency through having parts outside of parts

3. The Nobility Argument

   • God is the most noble of all beings
   • A living body is more noble than a non-living body
   • But a living body lives through something other than itself (the soul)
   • What living things live through is more noble than the body itself
   • Therefore, God cannot be a body

Response to Scriptural Objections: #

When Scripture attributes bodily characteristics to God (height, depth, arms, eyes, sitting, standing), these are metaphorical. Berquist clarifies that the sense of the letter in metaphor is the meaning intended by the speaker, not the literal meaning of the words. Examples:

• “God is higher than heaven” → signifies God’s excellence (altitude)
• “God is deeper than the infernal regions” → signifies God’s knowledge of hidden things (depth)
• “God has an arm” → signifies God’s power penetrating all things
• “God has eyes” → signifies God’s power to understand (not to see sensibly)
• “God is sitting” → signifies God’s immobility and authority
• “God is standing” → signifies God’s readiness to help/defend

Dionysius in the Divine Names offers a second interpretation of the same metaphors, showing how the same Scripture passage can have multiple senses in the letter (multivalent sense).

Key Arguments #

Syllogistic Analysis #

Berquist emphasizes identifying the main syllogism (whose conclusion is the main conclusion) and any backup syllogisms (pro-syllogisms) supporting the premises.

Second Figure Syllogisms (used in all three arguments):

• The middle term is the predicate in both premises
• Must have one affirmative and one negative premise to be valid
• Conclusions are always negative
• Examples from Article 1:
  • Form 1: No A is B; Every C is B; Therefore, No C is A
  • Form 2: Every A is B; No C is B; Therefore, No C is A
• Imperfect syllogisms must be converted to the first figure to be made manifest

The Convertibility of Universal Negatives #

Berquist explains Aristotle’s proof that universal negative propositions always convert:

• “No A is B” ⟺ “No B is A”
• Proof: Assume “No A is B” is true but “No B is A” is false
• Then “Some B is A” must be true
• Call that B which is A by the name “X”
• Then X is both an A and a B
• But this contradicts “No A is B”
• Therefore, the assumption is impossible; the conversion must hold
• This proof is essential for validating second-figure syllogisms

Singular Terms and Conversion #

Berquist notes that singular propositions follow the same conversion rules as universals:

• “No woman is Socrates” ⟺ “Socrates is not a woman”
• Singular negative propositions convert like universal negative propositions

Important Definitions #

Potency (Potentia) - In this context, passive potentiality; the capacity to be acted upon or to change. Every body possesses passive potency because it is continuous and therefore divisible.

Pure Act (Actus Purus) - Being without any potentiality; the first cause must be pure act because anything in potency cannot actualize itself.

Continuous (Continuum) - That which is divisible infinitely; the defining characteristic of quantity. From Aristotle’s Physics, Book 6.

Metaphor - A figure of speech where the meaning intended by the speaker differs from the literal meaning of the words used.

Sense of the Letter (Sensus Litteralis) - In metaphorical expression, the sense of the letter is the speaker’s intended meaning, not the literal meaning of the words.

Examples & Illustrations #

Metaphorical Language in Scripture #

• Gregory the Great: “Anger disturbs the eye of the soul” = anger disturbs reason (the mind’s perceptive faculty)
• Psalmic Language: “The right hand of the Lord makes power” → God’s power, not a literal hand
• Cross Symbolism: Christ on the cross with arms raised signifies embracing the world in love; extending in four directions (length, width, height, depth)

Understanding Divisibility #

Berquist clarifies that the potency of divisibility belongs to the continuous as such, not to specific material natures. While Aristotle taught that heavenly bodies might be indivisible by nature, the continuous itself—considered abstractly—remains infinitely divisible. This distinction is crucial for the argument that God, being non-composite and non-continuous, cannot be a body.

Questions Addressed #

Q: How can Scripture speak of God having bodily dimensions (length, width, depth, height)? A: These are metaphorical expressions of God’s attributes:

• Depth = incomprehensibility of essence
• Length = procession of divine power through all things
• Height = excellence above all things
• Width = extension of being over all things (all things contained in God’s perfection)

Q: How can man be said to be made in God’s image if God has no body? A: Man is made in God’s image not by his body but by that by which man excels other animals—understanding and reason, which are incorporeal. This follows Genesis 1:26-27, where the command to rule over creatures immediately follows the statement about image and likeness.

Q: How can bodily parts be attributed to God in Scripture (arm, eye, hand)? A: Parts of the body are attributed to God by reason of their acts according to a likeness. The eye’s act is to see; therefore, God’s eye signifies his power to see intellectually (not sensibly). Similar to how reason can be called “the eye of the soul,” God’s understanding can be called metaphorically an eye.

Q: Why are there three arguments instead of one? A: Aristotle teaches that three arguments suffice to establish a point. These three represent different angles: God as unmoved mover (from natural philosophy), God as pure act (from metaphysics), and God as most noble being (from the hierarchy of being).

Pedagogical Approach #

Berquist emphasizes that Thomas follows the teaching method described in Summa Theologiae, Question 117, Article 1:

• The teacher leads the student from things already known to things unknown
• First by proposing less universal statements before universal ones (particular kinds of composition before universal principle)
• Second by using sensible examples, likenesses, and opposites to lead the mind “by the hand” to invisible truths
• This is called manuductio (Latin: leading by the hand)
• More difficult sciences (logic, wisdom) require greater manuductio than simpler sciences like geometry