Αλλοσ-passible God
What is in a Name?[1]
The more I read about it the more I got a feeling that this topic is very wide and disconnected with its own components, if I can say so. I read 300 page book dedicated to the issue and cannot say that I know what that “passion” they think God does not have is. This discussion has many objects.
BDAG gives us two definitions of the Greek word πάθημα: suffering and passion in a bad sense. Some other lexicons add “desire” to it. «Παθος» is kind of the same: suffering (including suffering of Christ) and passion (especially of sexual passion). This second word is associated with adulterous women! It is used for a passion of anger, too. It might be helpful to know that some linguists think that it came into Greek from the root “kwenth-“ found in prehistoric language, reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European in which it seems to have referred to suffering and endurance.
It almost looks like a bad guy, this passion thing. No wonder we feel that God has nothing to do with it, but as a linguist I know that words can broaden and even change their meaning bending to ideologies, politics, people’s preferences and even fashion. Thus, the word that sound like “pathos” in Russian now means something like “much ado about nothing,” and no one probably remembers that just 100 years ago it meant highly respectable passions for liberty and progress or any other things that were considered good in that time. Any English speaker might guess that Sonata Pathétique by Ludwig van Beethoven was not inspired by the feelings that the modern English word “pathetic” means.
In the book that was the main text used for that paper, I cannot help to find the same inconsistency. That Aeon[2] that “became subject to passion” and “went astray,” what exactly went wrong with him? Did he love people like Prometheus? Or loved himself like Lucifer? It looks like it is something really bad, but when we talk about the suffering of Christ, this word pops up again. And though we see that THAT THING is attributed to the human nature of Christ only - we still know that He was without sin. Was he caught off guard as a human? Or manipulated? He carried our sins (our “passion” as we see the Origen’s word in the book[3]). His suffering was the result of our sin. Now this passion is definitely a sinful thing, isn’t it? Not so fast. We see Lactantius and many others talking about divine anger and distinguishing between just and unjust anger[4]. He did not exclude the latter from the realm of “passion.” And one can be confused even further when he might read in the R.T.Mullins essay on the first page about the focus of modern day discussion on the issue on “divine love.” It looks like the people who discuss this topic cannot agree about the definition of it. Thus, according to James Arminius (whatever one thinks of him): Impassibility is a pre-eminent mode of the Essence of God, according to which it is devoid of all suffering and feeling.”[5] But on the same page it is stated that “though Impassible God lacks passion, it is false that impassible God lacks emotions.” Rob Lister has a similar view and most theologians he looks into did not see God as void of all emotions either. Ancient philosophers seem to have seen passion as something opposite to reason. Modern psychologists like to think that cognitive emotions need to be rational to be “good.”
Whatever this discussion looked like many years ago, today it seems to be focused on several issues: God can or cannot change. God can or cannot be moved from something outside of Himself, God can or cannot suffer in any way, God’s anger is not the same as our anger, God’s love is not the same as our love. One more thing must be said. The issue is very closely connected to the idea of God’s transcendence and immanence. These two are like shelves and we need find a good reason to put all of those things we are talking about to the right shelf and voila! - the problem solved. Let’s see which shelf each thing is good for.
Immutability.
Immutability means that God is unchangeable in his character, will, and covenant promises. That is what Malachi 3:6 and many other similar scriptures mean and that is foundation of our faith. We know that God will not change His mind about His love to us and his big plan of salvation. This part can go to transcendence shelf or not? That is the way God is present here in the lives of his faithful. However, when it comes to emotions, do we need to assume that His emotions do not change? As soon as He is involved in our lives, that becomes different. God did get angry when Israel did bad things. Isaiah 54:7-8 is probably the best verse to talk about God’s emotional changes and not only the way Ermin Micka talks about Lactantius’s understanding of those changes (“God must be moved to look with favor upon the good and be filled with anger against the wicked”[6]). It is not that black and white reaction of God. He shows that he does not change about sin, but His mercy prevails and He gives hope looking into the future even before people are in a good place, prophetically influencing their choice. There are a lot of different emotional shades here within one big idea of God’s being and staying Himself.
Anger
God (especially the God of the Old Testament) has a bad reputation among many people: He has been labeled as Angry God. In fact, one might have reasons to argue that Jesus of the New Testament can be seen as more emotionally balanced. He always acts with dignity and unexpected wisdom and does not show a lot of feelings except several cases like when He cried because of Lazarus’ death or got angry in the temple. God of the Old Testament is often seen by people almost as Otello and King Lear. If the Father is transcendent and the Son of Man is immanent, it would be difficult to match it with the impression that is described above. It is supposed to be vice versa, isn’t it? When we try to vivisect His character apart to fit in the different shelves, it becomes confusing. What exactly can we make out of God’s anger? We know God is always righteous, so there is no problem with that. We know that our anger is different and that idea is supported by James’s words that “human anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness”[7] and Paul’s recommendation to watch out and not do crazy things when we get angry[8]. Scripture also says that God is slow to anger and Paul’s advice is to act like God, to get rid of anger as soon as possible. If any righteous anger can be placed into immanent rack, what part would go to the “T” rack? May be the part of anger that gives place to hope? When God says that God says: “only for a moment…”?
Sufferings
There are a lot of different kinds of sufferings. Suffering shame, physical pain, rejection, humiliation, hunger, disappointment, etc. Even before we come to empathy (that is kind of a sinless suffering) what do we do with all those? None would argue that God has no part in all those as they are caused by sin and He is sinless, but we know that Jesus did suffer all those on our behalf. Attributing it to the Son of Man seems like a good idea and looks like it will solve the problem of placement on the shelves. Jesus as a Man did suffer and His divine essence had to stay away from those in perfect blessedness. Yet, there are voices that say that God could not just look at his beloved suffering badly and stay in blessedness. There are good arguments to support both of those views and some common sense that makes both of them look strange. When Jesus as a man suffered our pains (passions), was His divine nature caught by surprise? And if he as a Human already suffered all those, did He just forget about them later when He came back to His blessedness? But He is out of time frames. And if He knew suffering as a man, doesn’t it mean that his God’s nature knew it way before His man’s nature experienced it? When Paul says that he fills that measure of suffering of Christ (or for Christ)[9] does he mean that we suffer together at least in some sense?
On the other hand, the idea that God eternally suffers does not look right, too. I do not say that God has to suffer for the sake of being a suffering God (like Moltmann says), but that He automatically has the knowledge of suffering. It does not mean that He needed or needs it though, but if he always knows everything means that He knew the suffering always because for Him there is not before and after the cross time. Is his knowledge of suffering something like “forgiven sufferings”? He (and I mean the transcendent God) knows perfectly well what we feel but do not need to be in agony with us? Maybe a better way to imagine what is going on is to recall that some sufferings can be eased by forgiveness. Like when we forgive someone who caused us suffering, we are free from pain, but still can vividly sympathize with people with similar experience more than those who never felt that.
Blessedness.
“God is always happy” is a good idea. Although we need to see what this happiness is. We tend to feel happy when something good happens. Our experience of happiness has a reason. That is why it is very difficult to imagine God eternally happy while all this mess is going on with His creation. And He certainly does not look 100 percent time happy in Scripture. What happens with that happiness when He is rejected by us? When we do wrong things? When the enemy is successful? We can always put those “breaks in blessedness” on the immanence shelf and keep transcendent part of God always happy, but maybe, just maybe, there is another way to look at it. We know that joy comes from God and Paul says “rejoice always!” He sees God as a generous source of that joy that even we can have always. Paul says that “joy comes from the Holy Spirit” even “despite great affliction.”[10] If Paul thinks that God can give us joy in the midst of affliction why cannot He have a joy amidst suffering? Paul uses that “mega” language: “But God's mercy is so abundant, and his love for us is so great”[11]… These are all the blessings that He is an author, source, giver, etc.
Anxiety, fear, worry, and peace.
Those are so important to address today that we simply can not miss them here. Scripture is very clear about all of them. They do miss the target badly. Fear (except the fear of God) is always sent away by God’s presence and Jesus very clearly states that we should not be anxious about life issues. Today, it sounds so radical that most people think it is a wrong and even ridiculous attitude. Life is full of worries. The idea is very clearly presented in the Bible: giving us good things bring glory to God.[12] Yet, this idea is foreign to us. Sure, we know that God in his transcendence does not worry. He has nothing to fear. His life is all chocolate, caviar and champagne. Yet, I suspect that like with suffering and anger His peace is not like the one of the person’s who simply has no reasons to be worried. According to Paul, “peace that transcends all understanding”[13] is not only possible, it keeps us literally in Jesus. Linguistically, isn’t here a picture of a guarded citadel that we are kept in safe and sound? Jesus talked about it, too, when he officially handed that peace to his disciples and said that His peace “is not the same that the world has.”[14] Is this peace that we are invited in the thing that characterizes God’s blessedness? He is not away from the world’s problem even in His transcendence, He just has enough of that peace that guards Him in Himself and in the peace that we do not even get?
Prayer.
What about prayer? If God can not be moved, why do we pray? I do not mean that we can manipulate Him or somehow make Him be what He is not. He is not like a pagan god who likes gold and child’s sacrifice or like Apollo who punished the girt who tricked him and did not respond to his advances.[15] Romans might have needed that kind of clarification, we do not. We do have an idea of noble God who is better than that, but if God has already made up His mind about everything, what’s the point of prayer? Certainly, prayer is our part in a long conversation with God through which He teaches us, communicates Himself to us, and gives us guidance and still we are encouraged to ask, to knock, to seek. We do it because we still do not have something and it something can come from God only. We are not to reconcile with the lack of it (whatever it might be), but to keep asking. It looks like “doing the same thing expecting the different results,” which according to conventional wisdom is not a good idea, but according to The Gospel of Mathew it is the only right thing to do. What or Who do we expect to change here? And do we expect God to change or change something but to stay faithful to Himself and unchanging?
The Book of Jonah.
Let’s take another look at this book. It is all about changes and feelings. Many feelings are expressed and many attitudes are changed in this very short story. People often say that Jonah was afraid to go to Nineveh, but it looks like he was rather annoyed than afraid. He runs from God as a protest against God’s character. He explains it in the last chapter. He says to God in effect: I knew you would show mercy, that is exactly why I did not want to come here in the first place. His attitude about God is quite strange, that is why I suspect that there is a portion of humor in that text. Interestingly, we did not see Jonah’s change of attitude in the end. It does not mean it did not happen. It is just not recorded. He is the only person who seems to have stayed unchanged in his attitudes. Sailors attitude changed, Assyrians changed, fish changed its mind about having Jonah in its belly. And what is most important, God changed his mind - Jonah did not. But here Nota Bene! We see his feelings changed. And God refers to Jonah’s feelings to explain to him His change of actions. There is a direct correlation between the pleasure that the tree gives to Jonah and God’s love to His creation. This correlation looks almost unnatural until we think of the connection between feelings and change. In other words, until we think of passion. God practically says to Jonah: you can change feelings but you think I have to be consistent with what you think of me? Jonah loved the plant; God loves his creation. Isn’t it one of “how much more?” argument? If you being evil can give good gifts to your kids, how much more God… If angry and irritated Jonah after all his adventures and labors can be moved to good state of soul by one plant, how much more God can be moved by the love to His creation?
We never see God angry at Jonah or even at anyone here from what God says. Yes, we see the storm and we see the proclamation of judgement, but we also see that none of those was deadly for anyone. Jonah sleeps like a baby during the awful storm. Let’s face it: he was not afraid. He sleeps because he is satisfied with his little protest. And when he finally has no option but to do what he was sent for, what does he do? He praised God for delivering him using the past tense. He talks about God’s rescuing him as if it has already happened. He uses so much water related language (the seaweed tangled in his hair) that it is very clear he is not talking about past experience. He knew that God would not change His mind and Jonah would end up in Nineveh.
When God changes His mind about Nineveh some translations use the word “relented”. In the Septuagint text, we see the word “μετενόησεν” that can mean “He changed His mind or action”. BDAG gives us two main meanings of that word, and “repent” (that implies the regret about something) is the second one. The first communicates a change of mind. And that change annoys Jonah so much. I can see him feeling like: You did not change about me. You said Nineveh, I went to Nineveh although I put on a big production to show You, I did not want to go there! But when it comes to them - You are “sheer grace and mercy, not easily angered, rich in love, and ready at the drop of a hat to turn your plans of punishment into a program of forgiveness!”[16]
Does Jonah demand God to stay impassible because he feels God is impassible towards him?
Conclusion.
God did not change himself when He spared Nineveh, but there were many things of God that changed. Plans of punishments into a program of forgiveness. Here He talks to Jonah like a father would talk to a little child. When he talks to Israel as s betrayed husband, He looks very different. Totally different passions, but the same love. For us, He is immanent when we can understand His actions from our own experience and relate to it and transcendent when we cannot. We need to remember that we are invited into his transcendent blessedness and we see the glimpse of it in the way joy and love and peace are introduced in the Bible. They are foreign for outsiders, but legally available for the people of the Kingdom. I do not know if the word impassible is a right way to talk about God. Rather, I would say his passions are mysteries, new, in a way transcendent even if they are here with us. He is not impassible he is allospassible[17] if I can make a new word using the Greek part. His passions are just different.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lister, R., God is Impassible and Impassioned: Toward a Theology of Divine Emotion. Wheaton Illinois: Crossway, 2013.
Crisp,O., Arcadi, J., Wessling, J., .Love Divine and Human. Contemporary Essays in Systematic and Philosophical Theology. London, New York: T&TClark, 2020.
Danker, F., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Peterson, E., The Message Bible. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 2014
NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2017 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com
Common knowledge
[1] The 1st chapter of the Lister’s book is called the same.
[2] Rob Lister, p. 68
[3] ibid, p 75
[4] ibid, 80
[5] As quoted on the page 129 of Love Divine and Human in the essay 8 (R.T. Mullins)
[6] Rob Lister, p. 80
[7] James 1:20
[8] Eph 4:26
[9] Col 1:24
[10] 1 Thess. 1:6
[11] Eph 2:4
[12] John 14,15,16
[13] Phil 4:7
[14] John 14:27
[15] A myth about Apollo and Kassandra
[16] The Message Bible. In fact, the interpretation of Eugene Peterson is looked at in this text as a way to understand the Book of Jonah.
[17] The word is made up by me using the Greek word αλλος that means “other, different”