53. Proper and Metaphorical Names of God

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem: Are All Divine Names Metaphorical? #

• Three objections suggest that all names of God must be metaphorical
• Objection 1: All our names come from creatures, so they apply to God only metaphorically
• Objection 2: Names like ‘good,’ ‘wise’ are more truly denied of God than affirmed (per Dionysius)
• Objection 3: Names implying bodily composition cannot be said of God except metaphorically

Thomas’s Solution: Distinguishing Proper from Metaphorical Names #

• Not all names are metaphorical—some are said properly of God
• The distinction rests on whether the name signifies a perfection in itself or with a creature’s mode of participation
• Proper names (e.g., ‘good,’ ’living,’ ‘being’): signify perfections absolutely, belonging more truly to God than to creatures
• Metaphorical names (e.g., ‘stone,’ ‘rock’): include in their signification the mode by which creatures participate in the perfection

The Mode of Signifying vs. What Is Signified #

Thomas makes a crucial distinction:

• What is signified (id quod significatur): Perfections like goodness, life, being—these belong properly to God and more properly than to creatures
• The way of signifying (modus significandi): Proper names have a composed, concrete way of signifying fitting to creatures, not properly to God
• Example: When we say “God is good,” the meaning (goodness itself) is proper to God, but our way of understanding and expressing it is limited by our creaturely mode

Ambrose’s Distinction #

Berquist highlights Ambrose’s text from On Faith II:

• Some names “evidently show the property of the divinity and express the clear truth of the divine majesty”
• Others are “translative” (translatio)—said by likeness of God
• This distinction parallels Thomas’s proper vs. metaphorical distinction

Key Arguments #

Argument 1: Etymology vs. Meaning (from Summa Contra Gentiles) #

• Divine names are imposed (taken/derived) from the processions of deity to creatures
• Just as creatures represent God (though imperfectly) through diverse perfections, our understanding names God according to each procession
• However, these names are not imposed to signify the processions but rather to signify the beginning (source/nature) of things
• Example: The name “living” comes from the fact that life proceeds from God to creatures, but signifies God’s own being (in a more excellent way than our understanding grasps)
• Parallel example: Lapis (stone) may derive from laedere pedem (hurting the foot), but signifies any hard body—not merely the mode of hurting feet

Argument 2: What vs. How We Signify #

• Names can be evaluated in two ways:
  • What they signify: the perfection itself (goodness, life, being)
  • How they signify: the mode or manner of signification (composed, concrete, material)
• Proper divine names signify what is truly in God but in a defective mode of signifying
• God is not composed or concrete, yet our composite way of understanding and speaking is the only way we can signify His simple perfections

Argument 3: Scripture Distinguishes Proper from Metaphorical #

• “God alone is good” (proper) vs. “The Lord is my rock” (metaphorical)
• This distinction in Scripture itself proves not all names are metaphorical
• Names said properly belong more truly to God than to creatures; metaphorical names belong primarily to creatures

Important Definitions #

Proper Name (of God) #

• Signifies a perfection absolutely, without the mode of participation peculiar to creatures
• Examples: being (ens), good (bonus), living (vivens), wise (sapiens)
• These can be said of God and creatures, but more truly and primarily of God
• When qualified (e.g., summum bonum, primum ens), they signify the perfection in the way unique to God alone

Metaphorical Name (of God) #

• Signifies a perfection along with the creature’s mode of participation in that perfection
• Examples: stone (lapis), rock, lion, fire
• Cannot be said of God except metaphorically because they inherently involve material or composite conditions
• The connection between the metaphorical word and its application to God is based on likeness (similitudo)

Modus Significandi (Mode of Signifying) #

• The manner in which a word expresses or represents something
• Distinguished from the thing signified itself
• Our proper divine names have a defective mode of signifying (composed, concrete) because we understand through creatures
• Despite the defective mode, what is signified (the divine perfection) belongs truly and properly to God

Etymology (ἐτυμολογία) vs. Meaning #

• Etymology (etymologia): that from which a name is taken; the origin or source from which a name is imposed
• Meaning (significatio): that to which a name is imposed; what the name signifies
• These are often connected but need not coincide
• Example: Berkeleium named after Berkeley, but the name doesn’t signify anything about Berkeley itself
• Example: Lapis may derive from laedere pedem but signifies any hard body, not just things that hurt feet

Figures of Speech (Figurae Locutionis) #

Metaphor (μεταφορά) #

• Based on likeness between what the words mean and what the speaker means
• The meaning of the words is not the meaning of the speaker, but there is a connection through similarity
• Example: “Thou art honey” — the word means a sticky sweet substance, but the speaker means something pleasant and agreeable (like what honey is)
• Carries over the word but not the same meaning
• Most important figure for understanding divine names in Scripture

Irony (εἰρωνεία) #

• Based on opposition between what the words mean and what the speaker means
• Example: Saying “what a fine example of an Assumption College student” to someone drunk under a table
• Example: Mark Antony calling the assassins “honorable men” while giving reasons they are not
• Thomas contrasts irony with metaphor: in metaphor the connection is similarity; in irony it is opposition

Synecdoche (συνεκδοχή) #

• Based on integral whole and part (composed whole and its integral parts)
• Gives the name of the part to the whole, or vice versa
• Example: “The word was made flesh” — flesh (part) for the whole person
• Example: “Here comes the nose” — nose for the person
• Example: “Let the earth bless the Lord” — those contained by/on the earth for the earth itself
• Scripture often uses synecdoche, e.g., “three days” (parts of three days, not three complete 24-hour periods)

Antonomasia (ἀντονομασία) / Denominatio #

• Based on universal whole and part; gives name of common universal to particular, or vice versa
• Example: “He’s a Romeo” — the particular literary character name for the universal class (lover)
• Example: “He’s a Hamlet” — particular character for hesitant person
• Example: “Aristotle the philosopher” — the universal name (philosopher) for the particular (Aristotle)
• Example: Kleenex for any tissue — particular brand for universal product class
• Works bidirectionally: can give the common name to the particular or the particular to the common

Metonymy (μετωνυμία) #

• Based on container and contained; also applied to cause and effect
• Gives the name of the container to what is contained, or vice versa
• Example: “I drank a cup of tea” — the name of the cup (container) for what is in it (the tea)
• Example: “This is a wicked place” — the place (container) takes the name of the wickedness (the contained bad acts/people)
• Example: “Bad times” — the time (container) takes the name from bad events (contained)
• Can also apply to cause and effect

Translatio (τρανσλατίο) #

• In Latin, means “carrying over the name” (not merely the meaning, as in modern English “translation”)
• In modern English: “translation” means carrying over meaning but not the word; “metaphor” means carrying over the word but not the meaning
• In Latin (and in Thomas’s usage): translatio nominalis = carrying over the name
• Ambrose uses this term for names said of God by likeness (metaphorically)

Examples & Illustrations #

The Stone (Lapis) Example #

• Thomas and Aquinas discuss whether lapis derives from laedere pedem (hurting the foot)
• Even if this is the correct etymology, the meaning of the name is not “that which hurts the foot”
• The name signifies any hard, solid body
• Application: Similarly, divine names derive (etymologia) from God’s processions to creatures but signify (significatio) God’s own nature and perfections

The Berkeleium Example #

• An element named after Berkeley, California (or a scientist there)
• The name does not actually signify anything about Berkeley
• Shows that etymology (origin of the name) and meaning (what it signifies) can be entirely disconnected

The Honey/Sweet Example #

• When a husband calls his wife “honey” or “sweet,” he doesn’t mean the sticky yellow substance or the taste
• The connection is through likeness: sweetness is pleasant, refreshing, and restful—qualities we attribute to the beloved
• Instead of saying “thou agreeable one” (speaking properly), he uses the metaphor “thou art honey”
• When using the proper word, the meaning of my words = the meaning of the speaker
• When using the metaphor, the meaning of my words ≠ the meaning of the speaker, but they are similar

Scripture Examples #

• “The Lord is my rock” — metaphorical; signifies God’s support and stability through likeness to a rock
• “God alone is good” — proper; goodness truly belongs to God and more truly than to creatures
• “You are honorable men” (Mark Antony) — ironic; the words mean honor, but the speaker means dishonor
• “The word was made flesh” — synecdochical; flesh (part) for the whole person of Christ
• Heresies arise from taking what is said figuratively as if said properly:
  • Arian heresy: taking “the word was made flesh” as if the Word replaced the soul in Christ
  • Treating “God was angry” as if God literally experiences emotion

Political Example #

• Nixon’s statement: “Democratic programs are retreats of the New Deal”
• “Retreats” is a good metaphor suggesting withdrawal/regression

Personal Experience #

• Berquist uses candy to quiet restless children on long drives
• Illustrates that sweetness is experienced as pleasant, refreshing, and restful
• Shows the practical, emotional ground for understanding the metaphor of sweetness applied to God’s goodness

Questions Addressed #

Q1: Are ALL names said of God metaphorical? #

• Answer: No. Some names are said properly (good, living, being, wise), while others are metaphorical (rock, stone, lion, fire)
• Reason: Names that signify perfections absolutely, without the creature’s mode of participation, are proper. Names that include the creature’s mode of participation are metaphorical.

Q2: How do etymology and meaning differ in divine names? #

• Answer: Divine names are imposed (etymologia) from the processions of God to creatures, but they are imposed to signify (significatio) God’s own nature and perfections
• Example: The name “living” comes from the fact that life proceeds from God, but it signifies God’s own being (in a more excellent way)

Q3: What is the difference between proper and metaphorical speaking about God? #

• Proper: The meaning truly belongs to God and more truly than to creatures (e.g., “God is good”)
• Metaphorical: The meaning belongs primarily to creatures, and we apply it to God by likeness (e.g., “God is a rock”)

Q4: How does the mode of signifying differ from what is signified? #

• What is signified: The perfection itself (goodness, life, being) — this truly belongs to God
• The mode of signifying: The composed, concrete way we express it — this does not belong to God but is how our limited understanding grasps and expresses divine perfections
• We can say divine names truly and properly even though our way of signifying is defective

Q5: What is the basis for distinguishing different figures of speech? #

• Metaphor and Irony: Based on likeness or opposition (connection between words and meaning)
• Synecdoche and Antonomasia: Based on whole and part (integral whole vs. universal whole)
• Metonymy: Based on container and contained (or cause and effect)

Q6: How should we interpret Scripture that uses figures of speech? #

• Distinguish between what the words mean and what the sacred author means
• Recognize that figures of speech are not falsehoods but valid modes of signifying
• Avoid heretical interpretations that treat figurative language as if it were proper (e.g., Arian heresy treating synecdoche as literal replacement)

Notable Quotes #

“When you speak figuratively, the meaning of your words is not the meaning of the speaker.” — Thomas Aquinas (cited from Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul)

“There are some names which evidently show the property of the divinity and which express the clear truth of the divine majesty. Others, which are translative, said by likeness of God.” — Ambrose, On Faith II (cited by Berquist)

“God alone is good.” — Scripture (cited as example of proper divine naming, contrasted with “The Lord is my rock”)

“In the signification of names, there is sometimes that from which the name is imposed to signify something. And that to which the name is imposed to signify. And it says we call this the etymology of the word and the meaning of the word.” — Thomas Aquinas (cited in lecture)