God's sadness for the reprobate

[sotzo]

Perhaps the best thing for me is if I could see an example of your exegesis of one of the notable passages on this topic in Genesis 6, which was stated earlier in the thread:

"The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."

I am comfortable with Calvin's exegetical method, which can be found in his Commentary on Genesis. The translation should reflect the traditional "repented," and thereby allow the reader to compare this statement with other biblical usages of the word. "Filled with pain" certainly prejudices the reader's mind unnecessarily.

Calvin in his commentary on Gen 6:6..

"...since God, in order more effectually to pierce our hearts, clothes himself with our affections. This figure, which represents God as transferring to himself what is peculiar to human nature, is called anthropopathia."

I take Calvin here to mean by "clothes himself with our affections" and "peculair to human nature" that God merely calls out a condition unique to us so that we can understand something about Him. That is, he uses something unique to us to communicate truth about Himself, yet without taking on that "something". OK. But I see a contradiction in Calvin himself because immediately before he says this, he exhorts:

"Meanwhile, unless we wish to provoke God, and to put Him to grief, let us learn to abhor and flee from sin." But if God does not grieve (ie, if grief is peculiar to man) then what purpose is there in the exhortation?

Also, Calvin's rendering of the end of verse 6 is "it grieved him a his hteart"..I don't see how that predjudices the reader's mind less than "filled with pain".

 

[MW]

But I see a contradiction in Calvin himself because immediately before he says this, he exhorts:

"Meanwhile, unless we wish to provoke God, and to put Him to grief, let us learn to abhor and flee from sin." But if God does not grieve (ie, if grief is peculiar to man) then what purpose is there in the exhortation?

I take his words to be carrying through the accommodated language. The language is not without meaning, but should affect us in relational terms the same way as it would affect us to know that we grieve any person we love.

 

[Iconoclast]

DR.BOB G ,
I read the third part of your article and it did answer to some extent the question I raised before. You were careful to list some heretical ideas such as open view theism , that must be opposed.
I am just not comfortable with some of the ideas put forth as trying to work through the verses offered seems to rely on a subjective method of understanding the explanations offered
Maybe I just am unable to take it all in. I just think of God as so far beyond us that maybe I mentally shut down, or go into a defensive mind-set so as to not partake of some of the clear errors.
If confronted with the question of the original post- I would seek to state what I do know clearly from scripture.
1 ] the God of all the earth will do right

2] He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked

3]Jesus wept of Jerusalem/ yet it was destroyed

4] there will be judgment without mercy,to those who remain outside of Christ

5] those saints in REV.19 rejoice in the righteous judgment of God, as we will

Sorry , I cannot be of more help nevertheless I enjoyed thinking through this question once again.

 

[sotzo]

But I see a contradiction in Calvin himself because immediately before he says this, he exhorts:

"Meanwhile, unless we wish to provoke God, and to put Him to grief, let us learn to abhor and flee from sin." But if God does not grieve (ie, if grief is peculiar to man) then what purpose is there in the exhortation?

I take his words to be carrying through the accommodated language. The language is not without meaning, but should effect us in relational terms the same way as it would affect us to know that we grieve any person we love.

What that would mean is that it is the relationship with God that is in view in Gen 6:6, not the effect of our sin on Him...although it uses cause / effect language to communicate, I guess we have to essentially deny that use of such means is not indicative of a fact of God's emotivity...not being contentious, but I'll have to continue to prayerfully think through this topic in light of the Scripture in its entirety.

Thanks again and peace to you.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Perhaps the best thing for me is if I could see an example of your exegesis of one of the notable passages on this topic in Genesis 6, which was stated earlier in the thread: "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."

I am comfortable with Calvin's exegetical method, which can be found in his Commentary on Genesis. The translation should reflect the traditional "repented," and thereby allow the reader to compare this statement with other biblical usages of the word. "Filled with pain" certainly prejudices the reader's mind unnecessarily.

Here I'll have to respectfully disagree with Rev. Winzer's suggested interpretation of the first Hebrew word nhm. While the term can sometimes denote a change of mind (i.e., repentance), it's semantic range also includes the emotive ideas of "sorrow" and "grief." See the NAS, NIV, ESV, and NET. This meaning is further supported by the subsequent phrase, which literally reads, "and [God] felt grief [or pain] unto his heart." In Hebrew, it's quite common to place synonymous expressions in juxtaposition where the second statement further amplifies the first. Hence, if we want to understand the meaning of the first verb nhm, we should seek to understand the second expression. C. F. Keil confirms this syntatical approach: “The force of [nhm], “it repented the Lord,” may be grasped from the explanatory, “it grieved Him at His heart." The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament (reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 1:139.

So what does the term "grieved ['tsb]" mean? The verb ‘tsb and its cognates often refer to deep emotional pain experienced by humans. It denotes the aroused feelings of brothers whose sister has just been raped (Gen. 34:7), a loyal friend who has just learned of his father plans to murder his best friend (1 Sam. 20:34), a father who laments the untimely death of a prodigal son (2 Sam. 19:3 [Heb. 2]), and a wife whose husband has just deserted her (Isa. 54:6). Interestingly, the same terms are used to depict the “pain” Adam and Eve must suffer as a result of the curse—a pain including emotional as well as physical dimensions (3:16, 17).

In conclusion, a natural reading of the text suggests that God responded to the aggravated and widespread human sin, violence, and (resultant) misery on the earth with heartfelt sorrow and anger. The English term "grief" can carry both ideas of sorrow and anger. These emotive responses, or perhaps to avoid the term "emotion," we might call them "dispositional affections," which flow from God's unchanging moral holiness, goodness and justice, functioned as the middle link in the following chain: (1) divine assessment of the human situation (Gen. 6:5); (2) divine inward moral appraisal of the human situation (Gen. 6:6); and (3) divine outward action in response to the human situation (Gen. 6:7ff.). From one perspective, these individual links may be viewed as discreet events in terms of God's sequential and covenantal interaction within the matrix of history (aka, God's immanence). From another perspective, these individual links may be viewed as the historical outworking of God's eternal decree and sovereign purpose (aka, God's transcendence).

Your servant,

-----Added 2/19/2009 at 09:57:55 EST-----

One more thing. My difference with Rev. Winzer over the meaning of the first verb nhm (which he interprets "he repented" and I "he was grieved") in the context of Genesis 6:6, does not settle the issue of how to apply the significance of the verb(s) to God. Mr. Winzer is correct to point out that many Reformed interpreters take the expression figuratively. I'm not precisely sure what Mr. Winzer thinks is the real "referent" behind the figurative expression. But, if I'm not mistaken, theologians like Calvin, Turretin, and Owen interpret the language as referring not to a feeling but to God's volitional choice and action. I respect this view though I think it should be modified with the insights of Jonathan Edwards, who ably argues that the affections are actually part of the volitional faculty. I would even take it a step further and suggest that the affections are part of any moral rational faculty. This, of course, begs the question of whether we may apply such conclusions regarding human emotivity by way of analogy to God. At this point, I am happy to refrain from being argumentative and to agree to disagree in a friendly way with Rev. Winzer whose commitment to Christ and the Bible I respect.

Your servant,

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm going to go ahead and close this thread now but want to quote something from Calvin that I believe is apropos.

For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. It being thus manifest that God, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image imprinted on the fair form of the universe, has given the assistance of his Word to all whom he has ever been pleased to instruct effectually, we, too, must pursue this straight path, if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God; - we must go, I say, to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from his works is described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated, not by our depraved judgment, but by the standard of eternal truth. If, as I lately said, we turn aside from it, how great soever the speed with which we move, we shall never reach the goal, because we are off the course. We should consider that the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be inaccessible, (1Ti 6: 16) is a kind of labyrinth, - a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with the greatest swiftness out of it. Hence the Psalmist, after repeatedly declaring (Psa 93, 96, 97, 99, &c.) that superstition should be banished from the world in order that pure religion may flourish, introduces God as reigning; meaning by the term, not the power which he possesses and which he exerts in the government of universal nature, but the doctrine by which he maintains his due supremacy: because error never can be eradicated from the heart of man until the true knowledge of God has been implanted in it.

I fear that when we make too much of human analogy to determine the character of God we're reversing the direction that revelation is supposed to work. We cannot simply say: "Well, I imagine God must have willed Himself to react to avoid this problem...." Even if we convince ourselves we avoid making God a part of His creation, we are going further on that point than God has revealed about Himself. Calvin speaks wisely when He says that God lisps to us like babes. Our goal in revelation is not to understand the Archetype (God in Himself) but to be content with what He has revealed in the Ectype.

This topic is wearisome so I just ask that we give the issue of impassiblity a rest because, from a moderating standpoint, it's sort of like cordoning off an area where a person is juggling chainsaws. The trained pro is likely not going to drop them but you also don't want passersby to accidentally get injured as they get too close in their fascination.