249. The Word 'To Have' and Divine Simplicity

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Multiple Senses of ‘To Have’ #

The word “to have” (habere) is exceptionally important for understanding Aristotle’s Categories. Berquist identifies at least eight (possibly ten) distinct senses:

1. A genus has species (and vice versa)
2. A species has a genus
3. A species has differences
4. A genus has differences
5. A genus has a name (as does a species)
6. A substance has accidents
7. A substance has a definition (though not as a genus per se)
8. Unclear/additional senses still being explored

Each sense reveals different relationships of composition, relation, and predication. Understanding these distinctions is essential for grasping the ten highest genera (summa genera) that are the subject of the Categories.

The Fundamental Difference Between God and Creatures #

The critical insight is the contrast between creature and Creator:

• Creatures: Never are what they have. A person has wisdom but is not wisdom; has love but is not love; has health but is not health
• God: Is identical with whatever he has. If God has wisdom, he IS wisdom itself; if he has love, he IS love itself

This difference flows from God’s absolute simplicity (simplicitas) versus the composition inherent in all creatures.

Why We Speak of God in Two Ways #

We must use two apparently contradictory formulations about God:

• “God is wise” (emphasizing perfection—that God is perfected by wisdom)
• “God is wisdom itself” (emphasizing divine simplicity—that no distinction exists between God and his attributes)

Neither formulation alone suffices because:

• If we say only “God is wisdom,” we seem to deny that he is wise (detracting from his perfection)
• If we say only “God is wisdom itself” without calling him wise, we fail to attribute a perfection to God
• Our human language, shaped by experience of creatures, cannot perfectly express the divine reality

This reflects the Dionysian principle (cited by Thomas) that affirmative statements about God do not fully fit our ordinary mode of speaking.

The Problem of Predication and Eternity #

When we make statements about God using verbs (which necessarily signify time—past, present, or future), we face a fundamental problem: God is not in time but in eternity. Yet we must use temporal language to make any statement at all. Berquist illustrates this through:

• Christ’s statement “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58)—using the present tense to touch upon eternity
• Thomas’s explanation of eternity as the “now of eternity,” which is like the center of a circle, with all moments of time like points on the circumference, all directly present to that eternal center
• The distinction between “he who is” (God’s self-designation) and “she who is not” (creation’s dependence)

The Old Law as Given by God #

The lecture takes up the question: Was the Old Law given by God?

Objections presented:

1. The Old Law is imperfect; God’s works are perfect; therefore, it cannot be from God
2. God’s works endure forever; the Old Law does not; therefore, it is not from God
3. A wise legislator removes not only bad things but also the occasions of sin; the Old Law provided occasions for sin; therefore, God did not give it
4. God desires all men to be saved; the Old Law does not suffice for salvation; therefore, God did not give it

Thomas’s Answer: The Old Law was indeed given by God (appropriated to God the Father), but understood as a pedagogical instrument:

• It ordered men to Christ in two ways:
  1. By foreshadowing and pointing to Christ (the law, psalms, and prophets testify to him)
  2. By withdrawing men from idolatry and preparing them through the commandments (which approximate natural law)
• The Old Law’s imperfection was appropriate to its time, like precepts given to a boy that are perfect for his condition even if not perfect simply
• As St. Paul says, the law was a “pedagogue” (paidagogos) to lead toward Christ

The Three Offices of Christ and Gospel Emphasis #

Berquist develops an Exegorian reading of the Gospels:

• Matthew emphasizes Christ’s kingship (descent from David, the Magi, etc.)
• Mark emphasizes Christ’s prophetic role
• Luke emphasizes Christ’s priesthood (narrative set in temples, liturgical emphasis)

This is explained through an “Exegorian way of naming,” where something is named from what it has most of, either absolutely or in comparison to other things. The baptismal formula (“priest, prophet, and king”) reflects this threefold office and connects to the structure of sacred doctrine.

Key Arguments #

On the Multiple Senses of ‘To Have’ #

• Premise 1: The Categories of Aristotle concerns the ten highest genera
• Premise 2: These genera can be almost entirely explained through the proper understanding of the word “to have”
• Premise 3: Each of the categories embodies different senses of this fundamental relation
• Conclusion: One cannot understand the Categories without understanding the multiple senses of habere

On Divine Simplicity and Predication #

• Premise 1: Creatures are always distinct from what they have (essence from existence, substance from accidents)
• Premise 2: God is pure act (actus purus) with no potentiality or composition
• Premise 3: Therefore, in God, all distinctions collapse; God IS his being, his wisdom, his goodness
• Conclusion 1: We must speak of God as “wisdom itself” to preserve his simplicity
• Conclusion 2: We must also call God “wise” to preserve the attribution of perfection
• Conclusion 3: Both formulations are necessary, though neither alone captures the full reality

On Why the Old Law Was Given by God Despite Its Imperfection #

• Premise 1: Imperfect things can be appropriate to those being disposed toward perfection (e.g., a boy’s education)
• Premise 2: The Old Law disposed humanity toward Christ by foreshadowing him and withdrawing from idolatry
• Premise 3: Therefore, the imperfection of the Old Law does not disqualify it as God’s gift
• Conclusion: The Old Law was fittingly given by God as a pedagogue suited to its time

On the Devil’s Interest in the Old Law #

• Premise 1: The devil seeks to destroy humanity and estrange it from God
• Premise 2: The Old Law directed men to Christ, through whom the devil’s kingdom is cast out
• Premise 3: Therefore, it would be contrary to Satan’s interest to give the Old Law
• Conclusion: Only God, not the devil, could be the source of the Old Law

Important Definitions #

Habere (To Have) #

The fundamental relation in Aristotelian metaphysics, which admits of multiple senses: possession of external things, composition of genus with species, composition of substance with accidents, and various other relations of determination and specification. Essential for understanding both logic and metaphysics.

Simplicitas (Simplicity) #

God’s absolute freedom from composition of any kind. Unlike creatures, whose essence is distinct from existence and whose substance is distinct from accidents, God is pure being (ipsum esse) with no internal distinctions. This is why God IS his attributes rather than HAVING them.

Exegorian Naming #

A method of naming something from what it has most of, either absolutely (from its supreme characteristic) or in comparison to other things (from what distinguishes it most). Allows multiple true descriptions of the same reality without contradiction.

Paidagogos (Pedagogue, παιδαγωγός) #

A slave or educated servant who supervised a child’s moral and practical conduct. St. Paul applies this term to the Old Law: it guided humanity like a pedagogue guides a child, temporarily but appropriately preparing it for maturity in Christ. The term implies something temporary, preparatory, and suited to immaturity rather than perfection.

Examples & Illustrations #

The Hand-Washing Example #

Berquist recounts counting collection money for the church while sitting near the coffee and donuts area. Some colleagues ate donuts without washing their hands after handling many parishioners’ money. The Pharisees criticized Christ’s disciples for eating without washing their hands, though they were following oral tradition rather than the law itself. This illustrates how legalism can obscure the true purpose of precepts.

The Names of Things #

Berquist playfully explains his naming of his granddaughter “Sophia” (wisdom) as a philosopher who loves wisdom. He extends this to show that if God is wisdom itself, then to love wisdom is, in a way, to love God—since God is what wisdom is.

The Definition of Noun and Verb #

In logic, both nouns and verbs are vocal sounds signifying by human agreement or custom, with no part signifying by itself. The crucial difference: verbs signify with time (present, past, or future), while nouns signify without time. This distinction creates a problem for theological statements about God, who is outside time.

The Tying and Untying of Knots #

Aristotle compares the plot structure of tragedy to a knot that must be tied and then untied. The knot represents a paradox or complication, and its untying represents the discovery of something previously hidden. This is compared to the mind being tied up by a problem (like the objections to the Old Law being from God) and then untied through philosophical resolution.

Notable Quotes #

“Everything is instead of everything.” — Exegorius, cited by Berquist to explain the Exegorian method

“We call it what it has most of.” — Exegorius’s response to objections about the Exegorian naming method

“I am who am, and you are she who is not.” — Christ to St. Catherine of Siena, illustrating the fundamental distinction between God’s necessary being and creatures’ contingent being

“The law was a pedagogue to lead us to Christ.” — St. Paul (Galatians 3:24), foundational to understanding the Old Law’s purpose

“Before Abraham was, I am.” — Christ (John 8:58), illustrating the problem of speaking of God in time while God is eternal

“What sense of ‘had’ is ‘I’ve had it’?” — Berquist’s humorous probe into the flexibility and contextuality of the word “to have”

Questions Addressed #

How can we speak of God as both ‘wise’ and ‘wisdom itself’? #

We are forced by the imperfection of human language to use both formulations. Saying God is “wisdom itself” preserves divine simplicity (no distinction between God and his wisdom). Saying God is “wise” preserves the attribution of perfection (wisdom is an actual perfection in God, not merely a abstract noun). Neither alone suffices; both are necessary because our creaturely mode of understanding cannot perfectly grasp the divine reality where simplicity and perfection coincide.

Why is understanding ’to have’ crucial for the Categories? #

The Categories concerns the ten highest genera. These genera and their relationships can be almost entirely explained through understanding the different senses of “to have.” A genus has species; a species has a genus; both have definitions (in some sense); a substance has accidents. Without grasping these distinct but related senses of habere, one cannot properly understand Aristotle’s fundamental work on being and predication.

Was the Old Law given by God? #

Yes. Although it was imperfect, imperfection is not disqualifying for God’s action. The Old Law was a pedagogical instrument appropriate to its time, disposing humanity toward Christ in two ways: (1) by foreshadowing Christ and (2) by withdrawing from idolatry. The law’s temporality and limitations were features, not flaws, suited to preparing a people for the fullness of grace to come.

How did God give the Old Law, and why is it attributed to the Father? #

Thomas distinguishes between institution and promulgation: God instituted the law by his authority, but promulgated it through angels as intermediaries. In terms of appropriation, the law is attributed to God the Father as king (parallel to how the Son is attributed the prophetic role and the Holy Spirit the priestly/sanctifying role). This follows the principle that higher powers work through subordinate ministers.

Why doesn’t God possess perfections, but rather is identical with them? #

Because God is pure being (actus purus) with no composition, potentiality, or distinction between essence and existence. Creatures are composed of essence and existence; God is his own existence. Therefore, in God, all perfections collapse into one simple reality. There is no distinction between God’s being and his wisdom, his being and his goodness. He does not “have” these attributes externally, as creatures have knowledge or virtue externally. Rather, he IS them.