How Are We to Think About God in View of His Impassibility?

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings brothers and sisters and smarter people than me,

There is a theological necessity as well as verses in the Bible that support God's impassibility. But I think the verses are few and far between. God's anthropomorphisms rule the day in the Scriptures. Given these two concepts, how are we to think about God and relate to him in reading the Scriptures, in prayer, and all of life?

This question came to me this morning as I was reading Hosea chapter 11. Part of it is quoted below. Are we to think, well, we know better, God isn't really like that at all? Or do we weep with Him and let our emotions and intellect interact with God as He is presented in the Bible?

Hosea 11:1‭-8 [ESV]

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols. Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk; I took them up by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of kindness, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them. They shall not return to the land of Egypt, but Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me. The sword shall rage against their cities, consume the bars of their gates, and devour them because of their own counsels. My people are bent on turning away from me, and though they call out to the Most High, he shall not raise them up at all. How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I treat you like Zeboiim? My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender.​

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Or do we weep with Him and let our emotions and intellect interact with God as He is presented in the Bible

I am not smarter than you but I have (what's that old commercial, slept at a Holiday Inn?) Ha! I think that we are to interact with these things presented as they are expressed by him so that we finite creatures, incapable of grasping the infinite love of God contained even in his impassibility, can know in our own terms of his love. The untaught do widely misinterpret these passages, though, seeing God as heartbroken and wringing his hands, not really sovereign over all his creatures and their actions. They need the rest of Scripture for the full story.

 

[earl40]

One thing I do know, and love, is how The Son took on flesh and now can truly empathize with us, and not in an anthropomorphic way.

 

[Solparvus]

Do I feel myself on shaky ground here, just because I question whether I've got the right vocabulary to express ideas in such a matter as this. But here I go. Call me out for any inadvertent heresies if need be.

Last night we had fellowship at our pastor's house, and among many good takeaways is the vast, vast difference between knowing Christ as a person, vs. simply knowing His attributes.

Perhaps I can spout out that God is infinite, perfectly blessed, all-wise, omnipotent, aseitic, simple, impassible, immutable, etc. But God is not a conglomeration of attributes or principles. He is three persons--Father, Son, and Spirit. Who may be known, loved, who each has a mind, will, affections distinct from the others. Each one capable of being fellowshipped with, loved distinctly, known personally.

My wife is more than a two-part of being of body and soul with feminine attributes. She is a person, of which all the attributes of a femininity are a wonderful part of who she is. Once I separate body, soul or femininity from her person, or I start describing her love, or her mind, will and affections as attributes of her soul, (understatement) I make her too abstract to understand. But once I see all those things as an inseparable part of the mix of who she is, Only then I can talk about her.

I've not dug into impassibility so I can't say much on it. However, I can see where wrong thoughts on it can bring a person to question the reality of the love of God. But why does God want to be known as Father? Why is the second person called the Son? Why is the third person called Spirit? All three indicate personality.

Persons do will things, and they love, and they desire, and they desire other people. The Three persons really do desire us, and we are made to desire them and to flourish in their society. Whatever the place of impassibility and understanding these things as anthropomorphisms, we'd be wicked to conceive that the love of the Father, Son and Spirit are anything other than absolutely real, and far exceeding the love that we as people can have for another. The Father, Son and Spirit truly love and commune with one another, delight in one another, praise one another, rejoice in one another. Tragic to make our own fellowship to be concrete and real when the source of all fellowship and personhood remains an abstraction.

In some passages, like the one you quoted Ed, and in Romans 8, I think One has utterly missed the text if reading the text they feel this compulsion to explain it as an anthropomorphism. We should not take in those passages something that God has willed to make so concrete and personal, then launch it into the atmosphere of the abstract. We are weak human beings who need to know and be persuaded against all our sinful doubts and fears that the love of the Father is real. If we know our hearts, that is the thing that is the hardest for a sinful human who knows his guilt to believe.

 

[earl40]

Do I feel myself on shaky ground here, just because I question whether I've got the right vocabulary to express ideas in such a matter as this. But here I go. Call me out for any inadvertent heresies if need be.

Last night we had fellowship at our pastor's house, and among many good takeaways is the vast, vast difference between knowing Christ as a person, vs. simply knowing His attributes.

Perhaps I can spout out that God is infinite, perfectly blessed, all-wise, omnipotent, aseitic, simple, impassible, immutable, etc. But God is not a conglomeration of attributes or principles. He is three persons--Father, Son, and Spirit. Who may be known, loved, who each has a mind, will, affections distinct from the others. Each one capable of being fellowshipped with, loved distinctly, known personally.

My wife is more than a two-part of being of body and soul with feminine attributes. She is a person, of which all the attributes of a femininity are a wonderful part of who she is. Once I separate body, soul or femininity from her person, or I start describing her love, or her mind, will and affections as attributes of her soul, (understatement) I make her too abstract to understand. But once I see all those things as an inseparable part of the mix of who she is, Only then I can talk about her.

I've not dug into impassibility so I can't say much on it. However, I can see where wrong thoughts on it can bring a person to question the reality of the love of God. But why does God want to be known as Father? Why is the second person called the Son? Why is the third person called Spirit? All three indicate personality.

Persons do will things, and they love, and they desire, and they desire other people. The Three persons really do desire us, and we are made to desire them and to flourish in their society. Whatever the place of impassibility and understanding these things as anthropomorphisms, we'd be wicked to conceive that the love of the Father, Son and Spirit are anything other than absolutely real, and far exceeding the love that we as people can have for another. The Father, Son and Spirit truly love and commune with one another, delight in one another, praise one another, rejoice in one another. Tragic to make our own fellowship to be concrete and real when the source of all fellowship and personhood remains an abstraction.

In some passages, like the one you quoted Ed, and in Romans 8, I think One has utterly missed the text if reading the text they feel this compulsion to explain it as an anthropomorphism. We should not take in those passages something that God has willed to make so concrete and personal, then launch it into the atmosphere of the abstract. We are weak human beings who need to know and be persuaded against all our sinful doubts and fears that the love of the Father is real. If we know our hearts, that is the thing that is the hardest for a sinful human who knows his guilt to believe.

Good thoughts, though in Ed's post we should not think God "recoils" in any way shape or form, unless one understand that is an anthropometric expression.

 

[Solparvus]

@earl40 Agreed. That has practical ramifications too, and serious ones. So long as no one uses the word "anthropomorphic" when I'm beaten down because of sins and trials.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

It would be interesting to ponder how the impassibility of God “results” in the highest of Loves, and comes to bear on the outpourings of his heart in passages like the Hosea one.

@Ed, KJV?... looks like a different translation quoted above. “Recoils” is “turns” in the KJV, Hebrew hä·fak'.

 

[Ed Walsh]

@Ed, KJV?... looks like a different translation quoted above.

Oops! [ESV]
thanks

 

[Ed Walsh]

It would be interesting to ponder how the impassibility of God “results” in the highest of Loves, and comes to bear on the outpourings of his heart in passages like the Hosea one.

Yesterday I had to drop off some books my wife Mary sold at the Post Office. Sitting out front were two middle-aged women. (I think they we both black, but I only noticed the one) But before I got close enough to read the title on their literature rack, I knew who they were — Jehovah's Wittnesses. O boy, I thought, I'm going to have some fun.

"Hello, ladies. What are you up to on a beautiful day like today."
"We are trying to get some people interested in our literature."

She held out a Watchtower pamphlet.​

"Well, I don't think I am interested. I have some pretty different beliefs than you, but thanks."

She returned the pamphlet to the rack.​

"But, I'll bet you one thing."
"What's that?"
"I'll bet I read the Bible more than you do."

Then I told them how early I get up.​

"Today it was 2:30 a.m., and I study till about 7:00 a.m. But I take some breaks."

Then the other lady spoke for the first time.​

"What did you learn today?"
"I am studying the book of Hosea, and I learned again how merciful, gracious, and ready to forgive God is. And how sad it makes Him have to judge the very people He loved since their youth. Do you know when the Lord finally had to judge His wayward people of the North--Isreal, he brought up sins that they committed 400 years prior. What grace and patients."
"Good day, ladies."

But they'll be back. And so will I.​

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I hope it was whisperings of good news from a far country to them.

 

[Ed Walsh]

In some passages, like the one you quoted Ed, and in Romans 8, I think One has utterly missed the text if reading the text they feel this compulsion to explain it as an anthropomorphism.

I still think they are anthropomorphisms in one sense. The real perfect, unchanging, eternal love of God is, at this time, pretty much incomprehensible to us while in this life. But someday we will know even as we are known. Such knowledge before our change would be so far above and also more in-depth than we can now understand. I often think that if I were placed in the direct presence of our Holy God, I would die. O how He loves us. Someday we will know that love of God the passeth understanding.

Thanks for your post.