Love is not God, but Holy is the Lord

[saintandsinner77]

The Scripture is clear: God is love (1 John 4:8), yet Scripture never says love is God.

On the flip side, we know that God is Holy, and yet Scripture says, "Holy is the Lord " (Isaiah 6). Holiness, like love, is a communicable attribute shared by mortal men and angels, yet it appears that the Lord is Holy in a unique sense which cannot be shared by men and angels:

Revelation 15:4
"Who shall not fear you, O Lord, and glorify your name? for you only are holy:"

Holiness is an attribute of God by which all other attributes are qualified (i.e. holy love, holy justice, holy sovereignty, etc). Perhaps this is why the Scripture can say Holy is the Lord, but not love is God?

What think ye?

 

[Pergamum]

I think "Holy is the Lord' is the same as saying "The Lord is holy." I don't think you can say that holiness is more central to the being of God than love is. But, then again, there are variations in the love of God..but God's holiness does not change or vary.

 

[bpkantor]

I tend to be hesitant to say that any attribute of God is the one through which we should see all the others because there is a perfect harmony in God's attributes. Some have suggested that this is the reason for God being referred to in the plural...

Elohim is the plural form of El or Eloah (El simply means "god" or "power" in some instances). So referring to God in the plural represents a harmony of powers/attributes. This is not the only way to see this but it is one way of suggesting it. Therefore, to take one attribute of God and to raise it above the rest is something we should approach with trepidation, seeing as there exists a harmony in the attributes of God.

However, I would agree with you that if we were to raise one attribute above the rest it would be God's holiness. I say this because it is, as far as I can recall, the only attribute we have in scriptures which is raised to the third degree (as R.C. Sproul says). And it is raised to this third degree a number of times.

In regards to your comment on the linguistic side...

You are of course right about the fact that the verse from 1 John 4 "God is love" does not mention anything about whether or not we can logically say "God is love."

However, you mention that the sentence in Isaiah 6: "Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of hosts" does convey a reverse idea, i.e. God being predicated of an attribute rather than an attribute being predicated of God.

I want to point out two differences in the grammar here:
(1) In 1 John 4 we have a noun being predicated of a noun "God (noun) is love (noun)."
(2) In Isaiah 6 we have an adjective being predicated of a noun "Holy (adj.), Holy (adj.), Holy (adj.) is the LORD (noun)."

This alone is a big difference. You probably notice, though, that I am reading Isaiah 6 differently. I am reading it with "the LORD" being the subject and "Holy, Holy, Holy" being the predicate. In other words, for the word order to be more like we are used to in English we could read/translate it, "The LORD is Holy, Holy, Holy." My assumption is that there are a few reasons why translators translate the "Holy, Holy, Holy" first (and I think they are right for doing this).
1) Obviously it is emphasis, so it is right to make that emphasis in English as well
2) The adjective is repeated three times (if you look in the passages in Leviticus where it says, "Be holy for I am holy" you will notice that the syntax is exactly the same in the Hebrew, yet the subject is translated exactly the same. It could also be translated "Be holy for holy am I" if there was the same emphasis that we find in Isaiah 6.
3) The basic/normal syntax in Hebrew has the predicate in a sentence come first, in other words: "Sent the king the prophet." Or "Big is the boy." So here my assumption is that they translate preserving the syntax order because the emphasis comes through better that way. As I mentioned, in Leviticus when God's holiness is not raised to the third degree, although the syntax is exactly the same, the predicate is not brought to the beginning but rather we read, "Be holy for I am holy" and not "Be holy for holy am I"

Anyways, in short, I agree with you that if we were to raise one attribute above the rest it would be God's holiness, but I would say that because of the fact that it is the only one raised to the third degree in the scriptures (on a number of occasions). I hope I was of help with understanding the grammar in that passage in Isaiah though.

I pray that as we discuss the holiness of God we would not be content to simply grow in understanding of what that means, but that the Holy Spirit of God would breath into us the truth of God's holiness, would reveal our sins to us in a greater way, and empower us to rejoice in the cross of Christ, His resurrection and the glorious gospel of the blessed God.

God bless,
--Ben

 

[Whitefield]

The Scripture is clear: God is love (1 John 4:8), yet Scripture never says love is God.

On the flip side, we know that God is Holy, and yet Scripture says, "Holy is the Lord " (Isaiah 6). Holiness, like love, is a communicable attribute shared by mortal men and angels, yet it appears that the Lord is Holy in a unique sense which cannot be shared by men and angels:

Apples and oranges. Love is a noun and holy is an adjective.

 

[saintandsinner77]

Thanks for your input Ben, I was not intending on creating controversy, but simply externalizing my thinking, which is far from perfect. I agree with you that the experiential aspect of us participating in God's holiness should be the primary focus...

 

[JBaldwin]

The Scripture is clear: God is love (1 John 4:8), yet Scripture never says love is God.

On the flip side, we know that God is Holy, and yet Scripture says, "Holy is the Lord " (Isaiah 6). Holiness, like love, is a communicable attribute shared by mortal men and angels, yet it appears that the Lord is Holy in a unique sense which cannot be shared by men and angels:

Apples and oranges. Love is a noun and holy is an adjective.

I agree. This idea that the holiness of God is elevated above the other attributes has an all too familiar ring to me. This idea that God's holiness is above all the other attiributes is the basis of the brand of holiness/Keswick teaching I sat under for a number of years before I began to understand reformed theology.

Here is how the thinking went (and I heard this many times from the pulpit and in the classroom when I was in their school):
1) God's primary attribute is His holiness (He is a thrice holy God)
2) Therefore, the primary attribute in our life should be holiness.
3) Since holiness overtakes love, then when making a decision, we should choose our personal holiness over loving another even if it means separating ourselves
4) Since we are to keep ourselves holy, we should not have anything to do with anyone who doesn't make holiness their primary goal (because that is what God demands of us)
5) God's love is important, because He gave Himself for us so that we might be holy
6) Since God gave Himself that we should be holy, we should give up everything we have to be holy. Even if it means giving up our possessions, living in poverty, etc.
7) Living in poverty is good, because it shows our love for God.

And on it went. I realize there are many holes in this thinking, but this is where it often goes (and there are many more rabbit trails). In classes and from sermons agapa love was completely redined to fit the holiness teachings, and life was reduced to worrying about sin around every corner. Trust in Christ, grace of God, love of God, etc were thrown out the window in this striving for holiness.