We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. Please consider supporting this project.

What do you think of the classical view that God is impassible?

The classical view has historically held that God is impassible, meaning he is above pathos (passion or emotions). The main reason the church came to this view was that, following the Hellenistic philosophical tradition, they associated emotions with change while believing God was above all change (immutable). Moreover, experiencing emotions implies that one is affected by something outside of oneself, and the Church, again following the Hellenistic tradition, generally came to believe God was “above” being affected by anything outside of himself.

I think this entire tradition is, frankly, seriously flawed.

If we keep our focus on Jesus Christ as we think about what God is like — and we must — how could we ever come to the conclusion that God is above having emotions? Jesus certainly had passionate emotions, ranging from joy to anger to sorrow. And remember, he said “If you see me, you see the Father” (Jn 14:9). Many try to argue that these emotions were simply part of Christ’s human nature, not his divinity. This response splits Christ’s divinity from his humanity (a heresy known as Nestorianism) and undermines the revelatory nature of Christ’s humanity. Even more fundamentally, one would only come to this conclusion if they started with the assumption that they already knew what God was like before they came to Christ to find out what God is like. If we instead started with Christ — allowing his humanity to reveal to us all we need to know about God — we’d never come to the conclusion that God is “above” experiencing passionate emotions.

The rest of the Bible confirms this point. From the portrayals of God as a compassionate mother (Isa. 49:15–16) and the ecstatic Father of a wayward son (Luke 15), to the depiction of God as a Father who is willing to painfully sacrifice his only Son (Rom. 8), the Bible gives us a beautiful portrait of a God whose experience of suffering and love can scarcely be imagined.

But the portrayal hardly stops there. Expressing profound joy, God sings and claps his hands as he delights in his children (Zeph. 3). Conversely, God experiences profound grief over the disobedience of his children—the grief of a parent losing her child, or of a husband married to an unfaithful wife (Gen. 6:7, Hosea 1:2). Moreover, the God of the Bible is a God whose experience of anger and frustration at rebellion is outrun only by God’s experience of compassion and happiness when his children return to him (Luke 15). Whereas the Greeks—and far too much of the Church’s theological tradition—considered this sort of passion and vulnerability to be a defect, in Scripture such features are clearly among those things which make God the supreme God that he is. They are foundational aspects of God’s eternal character and sovereign Lordship over the earth.

To suggest that the “higher” view of God is that God is “above” such emotions in his essence, and that such passionate depictions are simply anthropomorphic concessions to our limited ability to understand or due to Christ’s humanity, is to pull the rug out from under the most beautiful and exalted dimension of the Bible’s teaching on the nature of God. And, consequently, such approaches arrive at a view of God that is contrary to the view offered throughout Scripture, and embodied in Jesus Christ.

Even beyond the scriptural data, we have to seriously wonder why we should consider experiencing passionate emotions to be a weakness in the first place. Certainly the way humans experience emotions is often flawed. Our emotions often control us and cause us to act irrationally or immorally. But when this occurs the problem is not the emotions themselves, but the way they’re experienced and expressed. God would certainly be above experiencing and expressing emotions in these flawed ways. But there’s simply no reason to think this means God is above emotions as such.

In fact, don’t we generally consider the absence of emotions to be a character flaw? An incapacity or an unwillingness to empathize with others is usually considered at the very least rude, if not unhealthy or even malicious. Why think this insight is absolutely invalid when applied to God?

If the willingness and ability to empathize is a praiseworthy attribute for us — and it certainly is — then it seems we should come to the opposite conclusion of the classical view. God, who created us in his image and is the source of all our strengths and virtues, must be viewed as being supremely empathetic. Not only does God experience emotions, he experiences them to a degree that infinitely outruns our deepest and richest emotions. Rather than being impassible, we should see God as supremely passible.

So, for biblical as well as philosophical reasons, I consider the classical view of God as impassible to be seriously flawed.

Related Reading

The Open View and Predestination

Paul wrote in Ephesians, “For he [God] chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ …” (Eph 1:3-4). Some argue that the particular way Scripture portrays God’s providential plan is incompatible with the…

Topics:

Don’t all religions believe in the same God?

Bruxy Cavey takes a swing at this question and scores a home run.  

By Chance or By God

pure9 via Compfight Is the world here by chance? Are we a product of an impersonal force that got the ball rolling and then history came about in what could be described as an “accident”?   Greg’s father, an skeptic at the time, put it this way, “[C]ouldn’t we just have come about by accident? Isn’t…

We Won’t Treat Your Questions This Way

Tags: ,

Support for Open Theism from Science and Experience

I have discussed the scriptural support that depicts the future as partially open and that God knows it as such. I do this in God of the Possible. If a position is true, every avenue of reflection ought to point in its direction, including science. What follows are two more “pointers” to the view that the…

Open Theism and the Nature of the Future

In this philosophical essay Alan Rhoda, Tom Belt and I argue that the future cannot be exhaustively described in terms of what will and will not happen, but must also be described in terms of what may and may not happen. The future, in other words, is partly open. The thesis is defended against a…