God's impassibility, how do you understand it and explain it?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi All,

I'm currently having a discussion with some lovely people in OBOB about God's impassibility. I think I've made a fairly compelling argument for this doctrine of the Fathers and saints, but many folks are continuing to see God as having emotions. They see Jesus cry for Lazarus and get angry at the Temple when he sees the vendors and greedy folks turn his Father's holy place into a market place, etc. etc.

Would anyone like to examine this doctrine with me here in TAW and maybe cite some good articles from the Patristics as well as how YOU understand God's impassibility?

I see it largely through God's inability to have potential and change. God is 100% action, not reaction or change. Emotions are based on externals and require change. God has total perfection.

Some are seeing the idea that God is love incongruous with the idea that God is not emotional. I tried to explain the Greek views on love: philia, eros, agape, and how God's love is so infinitely superior and the highest nth degree of agape, self-giving self-emptying concern and love that we cannot spoil such a beautiful static state of esse for God with calling that an emotion.

Any thoughts? Any good sources to share? How do you view impassibility?

I know with Catholicism there is such an emphasis on pain. Jesus has a Sacred Heart replete with daggers in it, the Theotokos is crying all the time and full of wounds and daggers. The Stations of the Cross are the focal point.

In Holy Orthodoxy, we see Triumph and Victory over victim. We focus on God's strength and awe and invincibility, not vulnerability and suffering though He was put through pure hell in the Passion.

I'd love to hear all your thoughts on the suffering of the Man Jesus and the Impassibility of the God Jesus, how that dynamic works in your mind.

Thank you all!

 

[Cappadocious]

In Holy Orthodoxy, we see Triumph and Victory over victim. We focus on God's strength and awe and invincibility, not vulnerability and suffering

Rather, we see Triumph and Victory precisely in Vulnerability and Suffering.

Honestly, Gurney, if these sorts of traits that you describe were traits that I sought, I would have become a Baha'i or a Hare Krishna. What you have to remember is that ultimately, one chooses to be a Christian. And if one destroys the very motivation that makes one want to be a Christian, what is the point?

If God is some Plotinine monad who just sits around contemplating logismi and being uber-perfect static "love" all the time, do I really want to be a part of it? Why? If I wanted that, I could zonk myself into some buddhist determinism-o-vision and have that experience here on earth.

So if what you're saying *is* true, ask yourself: do you *want* it?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Wow, interesting response. Are you saying that God has emotions, Capp? Maybe you could answer the question rather than paint me the follower of an empty drone zombie?

Rather, we see Triumph and Victory precisely in Vulnerability and Suffering.

Honestly, Gurney, if these sorts of traits that you describe were traits that I sought, I would have become a Baha'i or a Hare Krishna. What you have to remember is that ultimately, one chooses to be a Christian. And if one destroys the very motivation that makes one want to be a Christian, what is the point?

If God is some Plotinine monad who just sits around contemplating logismi and being uber-perfect static "love" all the time, do I really want to be a part of it? Why? If I wanted that, I could zonk myself into some buddhist determinism-o-vision and have that experience here on earth.

So if what you're saying *is* true, ask yourself: do you *want* it?

 

[Cappadocious]

You ask for the Fathers; here is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:

You are God ineffable, beyond comprehension, invisible, beyond understanding, existing forever and always the same;

You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You brought us into being out of nothing, and when we fell, You raised us up again. You did not cease doing everything until You led us to heaven and granted us Your kingdom to come. For all these things we thank You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit; for all things that we know and do not know, for blessings seen and unseen that have been bestowed upon us.

In the Blue, we hear that God is "ineffable, inconceivable, incomprehensible eternally the same..." In the Red, we hear the ways in which God has been effable, conceivable, comprehensible, and relational. We hear everything that God Himself has done to, for, toward, around, upon us; it is a summation of all the mighty works of God throughout all of history. So God is in some sense ineffable, sure, but the only way that you can know something is in some sense ineffable, is by being able to speak about it in another sense; otherwise you have absurdity.

God's love, anger, wrath, mercy, temperance, jealousy, they are real Divine Energies of God. Is that not the faith of the Holy Fifth Council of Constantinople?

If man is created in the image of God, are not emotions an analogy or image of something in God, or the way God acts?

So no, the Father and Holy Spirit do not have chemical emotions, because they are supraphysical. But if we call our human fathers "Father" in virtue of God, what do we call human emotions, emotions, in virtue of?

 

[Cappadocious]

an empty drone zombie?

A lot of interesting and lovely things can live in a bubble. The question is whether or not they can get out.

 

[Cappadocious]

I'd love to hear all your thoughts on the suffering of the Man Jesus and the Impassibility of the God Jesus

One could say that impassibility means that God is not acted upon or provoked against his will, from without. But we also believe that God is eternally humble, and in many times and many ways, has humbled himself to interact with us. So your question might be re-phrased, "can God react?" Well, I think the Scriptures are clear that he has at least providentially reacted, although he facilitated the ability to act on the part of creatures in the first place. And God certainly acts in authentically diverse ways, with zeal, with love, mercy, wrath, forbearance, beneficence, etc. And human emotions are analogous to these energies.

When the Logos became incarnate, he became passable through his humanity. And I would think that his Divine Zeal and Divine Mercy shone forth through his humanity and human emotional faculties, because the image and its prototype are not opposed.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, in His Humanity, Christ showed emotions, because He is fully human. His Divinity is always impassable. His humanity, since it was deified from conception, shows the passionless emotions (St Maximos the Confessor) as the Divine willed it. you can also see this kinda stuff in St John of Damascus. my Godfather and I had a talk about this not too long ago.

but it seems that all of your buddies are ONLY looking to Christ's humanity

 

[RKO]

God drives an escalade and hugs the center line.

 

[truthseeker32]

I recommend studying how "impassibility" was understood in the ancient Mediterranean. It is a mistake to see God as some unmoving, unchanging sphere; at the same time it is also a mistake to understand God's emotions as identical to ours.

We also need to be careful how we understand God's changelessness. Does this mean he doesn't change at all? How then did He create? How did He become incarnate? Does it rather mean that God's essence, that is, what God is, does not change?

Here is interesting reading on the matter:

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/09/impassibility-of-god-and-church-fathers.html

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Would you give examples of God changing?

I recommend studying how "impassibility" was understood in the ancient Mediterranean. It is a mistake to see God as some unmoving, unchanging sphere; at the same time it is also a mistake to understand God's emotions as identical to ours.

We also need to be careful how we understand God's changelessness. Does this mean he doesn't change at all? How then did He create? How did He become incarnate? Does it rather mean that God's essence, that is, what God is, does not change?

Here is interesting reading on the matter:

MYSTAGOGY: The Impassibility of God and the Church Fathers

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I recommend studying how "impassibility" was understood in the ancient Mediterranean. It is a mistake to see God as some unmoving, unchanging sphere; at the same time it is also a mistake to understand God's emotions as identical to ours.

We also need to be careful how we understand God's changelessness. Does this mean he doesn't change at all? How then did He create? How did He become incarnate? Does it rather mean that God's essence, that is, what God is, does not change?

Here is interesting reading on the matter:

MYSTAGOGY: The Impassibility of God and the Church Fathers

Very good read and thanks for sharing

Impassibility isn't something that equates to being unmoving or without ability to change - be it on his own or in response to decisions of men. God has emotions, even though they are not necessarily the exact same as ours in capacity or content - and God has always been able to show intense emotions of sadness/grief and tears. He is not like the God of Deism where he's impersonal/so far away or always stoic..

We see this with Moses in the Golden Calf incident in Exodus 32. God changed His mind, knowing full well how he would react to certain actions, acting consistent with His nature...just like with Moses in Exodus 32/Exodus 32:1 when He intercedded with the Lord. God relented, yet it did not mean that God changed His mind in the sense that a parent decides not to discipline a child.

Instead, He changed His behavior to remain consistent with His nature.

When God first wanted to destroy the people, He was acting in accordance with His justice. But when Moses interceded for the people, God relented in order to act consistently with His Mercy. God had often told the people that if they changed their ways, he would not condemn them. And many times, they changed, thus activating the other possibility of what He had planned beforehand on how He'd choose to respond based on what He had laid down before time. That's part of the issue of promises, blessings and curses.

Some other scriptures coming immediately to mind...

Amos 7:3
So the LORD relented. "This will not happen," the LORD said.
Amos 7:2-4/ Amos 7

2 Samuel 24:15-17 / 2 Samuel 24
So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. 16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite

2 Chronicles 33:7-18
He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger.
7 He took the image he had made and put it in God’s temple, of which God had said to David and to his son Solomon, ‘In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name for ever. 8 I will not again make the feet of the Israelites leave the land I assigned to your ancestors, if only they will be careful to do everything that I commanded them concerning all the laws, decrees and regulations given through Moses.’ 9 But Manasseh led Judah and the people of Jerusalem astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the Lord had destroyed before the Israelites.

10 The Lord spoke to Manasseh
and his people, but they paid no attention. 11 So the Lord brought against them the army commanders of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh prisoner, put a hook in his nose, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon. 12 In his distress he sought the favour of the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his ancestors. 13 And when he prayed to him, the Lord was moved by his entreaty and listened to his plea; so he brought him back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord is God.
​

​

Additionally, Scriptures which come to mind....

Genesis 6
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

I Samuel 15:10-11

10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 ‘I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.’29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.’

1 Samuel 13:12-14

12 I thought, 'Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the LORD's favor.' So I felt compelled to offer the burnt offering."

13 "You acted foolishly," Samuel said. "You have not kept the command the LORD your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. 14 But now your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people, because you have not kept the LORD's command."
​

II Kings 22
18 Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, 'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: 19 Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people, that they would become accursed and laid waste, and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I have heard you, declares the LORD. 20 Therefore I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.' " So they took her answer back to the king.

23 Yet they did not listen or pay attention; they were stiff-necked and would not listen or respond to discipline. 24 But if you are careful to obey me, declares the LORD, and bring no load through the gates of this city on the Sabbath, but keep the Sabbath day holy by not doing any work on it, 25 then kings who sit on David's throne will come through the gates of this city with their officials. They and their officials will come riding in chariots and on horses, accompanied by the men of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, and this city will be inhabited forever23 Yet they did not listen or pay attention; they were stiff-necked and would not listen or respond to discipline. 24 But if you are careful to obey me, declares the LORD, and bring no load through the gates of this city on the Sabbath, but keep the Sabbath day holy by not doing any work on it, 25 then kings who sit on David's throne will come through the gates of this city with their officials. They and their officials will come riding in chariots and on horses, accompanied by the men of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, and this city will be inhabited forever

​

Jeremiah 17:23-25Jeremiah 17

​

Ezekiel 20:21
" 'But the children rebelled against me: They did not follow my decrees, they were not careful to keep my laws—although the man who obeys them will live by them—and they desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my anger against them in the desert.
Ezekiel 20:20-22 __________________

​

__________________

​

There's the dynamic of what is said in many passages within the scriptures that seemed to indicate “cause and effect” with the Lord and his people.

The example of Jonah and the Lord showing grace/mercy to a people whom He originally promised destruction and made clear that HE LOVED THEM just as much as His elect people Israel ( Jonah 4:1-11 ). The entire issue was one of the reasons why the Jews got into so much trouble with the Lord when they began to pride themselves in being “elect”–as if God was only concerned about them–rather than realizing that He had a heart for others as well and wanted all to be saved….and the Word already makes clear He takes no delight in the deaths of the Wicked ( Ezekiel 33:10-12/ Ezekiel 33/1 Timothy 2:3-5 , etc )

The imagery in the Word is stunningly strong—especially in regards to how the Lord was “grieved”. One example would be with others such as King Saul, whom the Lord had changed his heart, 1 Samuel 10:8-10 1 Samuel 10 and Saul did right. But later, Saul’s rejection of the Lord made the Lord grieved in I Samuel 15. It’d be illogical to assume that the Lord never cared about Saul and that it must somehow be a failure/waste on God’s part…….

Jonah prophesied that in 40 days that Nineveh would be destroyed. But Nineveh repented and God relented. Isaiah prophesied to Hezekiah to get his house in order because he was going to die. Hezekiah prayed to the Lord and wept. The Lord heard him, and Isaiah came right back in with another word that he would live and go up to the house of the Lord. Hezekiah asked for a sign that the second word was true, and God granted it, moving the shadow of the steps in the 'wrong' direction.

There are a host of theological issues that the conditional nature of prophecy brings to mind. One of them is that is argues strongly against theistic determinism. It argues against the idea that God has already planned every detail out and that the future is already created.

It seems to me to be a case of either God pretending to change His mind, having the authors of scripture write that God 'repented' when He really didn't, or else God really does change His mind at times. The most obvious explanation to me is that the future has not been created yet.

Certain things are predestined. There are people who are foreknown and predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. The book of Jude indicates that certain people were foreordained to destruction from long ago.

But I can't see from scripture where God has set every detail of history in stone. And I think a lot of theology that tries to make God into someone putting all these stories in the Bible to anthropromorphize(sp) Himself is grasping at straws to justifyin a Neo-Platonic view of God. I've even read someone try to argue that God does not have emotions based on the idea that the etymology of the word has to do with 'changing'-- as if that had anything to do with it. God gets angry in the Bible, rejoices, and exhibits other 'emotions.' Let's just believe what the Bible says about the nature of God, instead of assuming some philosophical concept is true and try to explain away scripture that doesn't fit our model.

 

[Cappadocious]

well, in His Humanity, Christ showed emotions, because He is fully human. His Divinity is always impassable. His humanity, since it was deified from conception, shows the passionless emotions

And yet we want to avoid Aphthartodocetism. The properties of human nature are not diminished in the Incarnation.

The temptation is to read the Fathers like St. Maximus in a "Monophysite" (not the mainstream OO today, but real monophysites) manner, where the humanity is token and is functionally diminished by the divinity, "slaved", if you will. This is actually a hermeneutic that seems to be gaining in popularity in many EO circles today. It is very difficult to overcome this hermeneutic, because it is a "grand" hermeneutic; it is applied on a grand scale to many Fathers, and so it is not easily repaired through cross-reference.

Not saying you do this, Matt. I think what you are saying is that Christ did not display fallen/sinful passions, but that he did display natural passions like fear of death, zeal, love, mercy, grief, righteous anger, etc.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

One could say that impassibility means that God is not acted upon or provoked against his will, from without. But we also believe that God is eternally humble, and in many times and many ways, has humbled himself to interact with us. So your question might be re-phrased, "can God react?" Well, I think the Scriptures are clear that he has at least providentially reacted, although he facilitated the ability to act on the part of creatures in the first place. And God certainly acts in authentically diverse ways, with zeal, with love, mercy, wrath, forbearance, beneficence, etc. And human emotions are analogous to these energies.

When the Logos became incarnate, he became passable through his humanity. And I would think that his Divine Zeal and Divine Mercy shone forth through his humanity and human emotional faculties, because the image and its prototype are not opposed.

 

[Cappadocious]

I think Severus of Antioch, though I do not always agree with him, did a good job of stating the distinction we want to make here:

[Julian of Halicarnassus], who confesses the passions with his lips only, hiding his impiety, wrote thus: 'Incorruptibility was always attached to the body of our Lord, which was passible of His own will for the sake of others.'

And in brotherly love I wrote and asked him: 'What do you mean by "incorruptible," and "suffered of His own will for the sake of others," and "was attached to the body of our Lord," if without any falsehood you confess it to be by nature passible?

For, if by the incorruptibility possessed by it you mean holiness without sin, we all confess this with you, that the holy body from the womb which He united to Himself originally by the Holy Spirit of the pure Virgin, the Theotokos, was conceived and born in the flesh without sin and conversed with us men, because "He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth," according to the testimony of the Scriptures.

But, if you call impassibility and immortality incorruptibility, and say that the body which suffered in the flesh on our behalf was not one that was capable of suffering with voluntary passions and dying in the flesh, you reduce the saving passions on our behalf to a phantasy; for a thing which does not suffer also does not die, and it is a thing incapable of suffering.'

And upon receiving such remarks as these from me he openly refused to call the holy body of Emmanuel passible in respect of voluntary passions; and therefore he did not hesitate to write thus, without shame and openly: 'We do not call Him of our nature in respect of passions, but in respect of essence. Therefore, even if He is impassible, and even if He is incorruptible, yet He is of our nature in respect of nature.'"

 

[ArmyMatt]

And yet we want to avoid Aphthartodocetism. The properties of human nature are not diminished in the Incarnation.

The temptation is to read the Fathers like St. Maximus in a "Monophysite" (not the mainstream OO today, but real monophysites) manner, where the humanity is token and is functionally diminished by the divinity, "slaved", if you will. This is actually a hermeneutic that seems to be gaining in popularity in many EO circles today. It is very difficult to overcome this hermeneutic, because it is a "grand" hermeneutic; it is applied on a grand scale to many Fathers, and so it is not easily repaired through cross-reference.

Not saying you do this, Matt. I think what you are saying is that Christ did not display fallen/sinful passions, but that he did display natural passions like fear of death, zeal, love, mercy, grief, righteous anger, etc.

yeah, the sinful passions is a better way to say it. I just had a brain fart and could not remember that phrase, so I went with the other. but thanks for adding the clarity, you used the more clear term.

 

[seekingfreedom]

I have become very interested in this topic since I first saw it posted on this forum by WA, but it didn't get much traction here. I picked it up in OBOB and started to do some research.

I tend to lean toward Father Stephen's view in this article. I posted it because it is relatively short and he says things much better than I could.
Loving an Angry God[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Glory to God for All Things
Could you comment on some of the things Father touches on in this article?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have become very interested in this topic since I first saw it posted on this forum by WA, but it didn't get much traction here. I picked it up in OBOB and started to do some research.

I tend to lean toward Father Stephen's view in this article. I posted it because it is relatively short and he says things much better than I could.
Loving an Angry God[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Glory to God for All Things
Could you comment on some of the things Father touches on in this article?

pretty solid article, and that does seem to be a good showing of the Orthodox position.

 

[rusmeister]

Although we often disagree, I'd have to largely come down on Capp's side of the description, insofar as we can talk about it at all.

The emphasis I would make on what little I know is on the person of Christ "If any man has seen Me he has seen the Father." Christ is not alien to God the Father. Sure, you can talk about the two natures of Christ, but I think God actually WANTS certain things and does NOT want other things, and therefore, He has attitudes towards them, and we see them expressed in the language of Scripture, both in the OT and in the accounts of Christ's emotions.
I'm no expert, but that's my two cents.