God Is Impassible and Impassioned E-Book

Rob Lister

• Herausgeber: Crossway
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 742

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Beschreibung

Modern theologians are focused on the doctrine of divine impassibility, exploring the significance of God's emotional experience and most especially the question of divine suffering. Professor Rob Lister speaks into the issue, outlining the history of the doctrine in the views of influential figures such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther, while carefully examining modernity's growing rejection of impassibility and the subsequent evangelical response. With an eye toward holistic synthesis, this book proposes a theological model based upon fresh insights into the historical, biblical, and theological dimensions of this important doctrine.

Leseprobe

Thank you for downloading this Crossway book.

Sign-up for the Crossway Newsletter for updates on special offers, new resources, and exciting global ministry initiatives:

Crossway Newsletter

Or, if you prefer, we would love to connect with you online:

Facebook

TwitterGoogle +

“Though a young and upcoming evangelical scholar, Rob Lister has made a very significant contribution to one of the most difficult theological doctrines, the impassibility of God. By combining historical theology, interaction with contemporary nonevangelical theories, a retroductive theological method, circumspect metaphysical reflection on divine revelation, biblical theology, and systematic theology (especially theology proper and christology), Lister offers a convincing case that God is both impassible and impassioned. This book sets the standard on this topic and is a model of evangelical scholarship at its finest!”

Gregg R. Allison, Professor of Christian Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; author, Historical Theology and Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church

“Although the concept of divine passibilism, appropriate in some ways for a deeply sentimentalized culture, is all the rage in modern theology, for most of the history of the church, God was viewed as being impassible. Why was this so, and how did the Bible shape this perspective of God? And can we construct a model in this regard that does justice to what the Scriptures and church history say about God, and that also engages with modern sensibilities? This study by Rob Lister is extremely helpful in answering these questions: it is preeminently scriptural, takes the Rezeptionsgeschichte of this doctrine very seriously, and satisfactorily answers current concerns.”

Michael A. G. Haykin, Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“Rob Lister boldly goes where few evangelicals have gone before in this very helpful study of how best to make sense of what Scripture says about God’s emotions. Lister does away with caricatures of the Patristic tradition as having sold out to Greek philosophy, surveys contemporary evangelical positions on divine impassibility, and provides a constructive hermeneutical method and theological model for doing justice both to the impassibilist tradition and to biblical language about divine emotions. As G. K. Chesterton observes, ‘an inch is everything when you’re balancing,’ and to Lister’s credit he completes his routine without falling off the balance beam that is systematic theology.”

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Research Professor of Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

“Understanding how an infinite God relates to finite creatures is at the heart of most theological difficulties. How can God be holy and sovereign and personal and relational? That God is transcendent and immanent is central to understanding the God of the Bible. In this book, Rob Lister has given us tremendous help in navigating these deep theological waters. His theological method is a fantastic and much needed model of biblically grounded synthetic analysis that incorporates keen exegetical insights that are well informed by historical theology. Lister offers a biblically balanced understanding of God’s emotional life so that his sovereign majesty and covenant intimacy are preserved. The implications of this study for understanding God, humanity, Christ, relationships, and emotions in general are far-reaching and vital. I pray that the conclusions and theological method of this excellent work are deeply and widely influential for the glory of God.”

Erik Thoennes, Professor of Theology, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University; Pastor, Grace Evangelical Free Church, La Mirada, California; author, Life’s Biggest Questions

“In this well-organized and well-written volume, Rob Lister challenges the view that the church fathers’ version of divine impassibility precluded God’s showing emotion. He swims upstream against modern passibilism, and he opposes those evangelicals who reject impassibility in the name of affirming divine passion. I was impressed with Lister’s accuracy and kindness whenever he takes exception to others’ views. The work is largely positive and constructive rather than negative and reactive. Lister argues ‘passionately’ for the view that God is both impassible and impassioned, even as he is both transcendent and immanent. Lister’s work demonstrates multiple areas of competence—historical, biblical, theological, and philosophical—and is nuanced, holding that ‘God’s passion transcends human passion both ontologically and ethically.’ I am, therefore, pleased to commend it to readers for serious consideration.”

Robert A. Peterson, Professor of Systematic Theology, Covenant Theological Seminary

“Whether God is subject to suffering is hardly a recent question, but it is an issue that contemporary Christians have been constrained to ponder carefully in order to provide scripturally measured and biblically tempered answers in a generation that prefers to conceive of and worship a God forged after human likeness. Despite the profundity of this issue and the inherent difficulty of giving adequate expression to whether God is passible or impassible, Rob Lister provides accessibility and clarity to this issue in a scripturally governed, admirably balanced, and manifestly humble manner. He engages theologians ancient and modern as his theological conversation partners while he guides readers through the many pitfalls and hazards that threaten to entangle us primarily in two antithetical but equally defective views of God: either to cast him in our image and likeness or to project onto him an aloofness that renders him cold, even grotesque. Lister rightly insists that in order to provide biblically rooted answers to the questions he addresses it is crucial to acknowledge and embrace the chasm that distinguishes the Creator from his creatures. Yet, equally crucial is the fact that the Creator made humanity, the creature, in his image and after his likeness, for this is God’s revelatory nexus by which God makes himself known to us both as impassible and as impassioned.”

Ardel B. Caneday, Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Theology, Northwestern College; coauthor, The Race Set Before Us

“This is an excellent study in systematic theology that exemplifies detailed research in biblical theology and historical theology, and draws these into a coherent systematic construction with relevance for contemporary life. I found Lister’s hermeneutical and theological analyses of passibilist and impassibilist arguments to be instructive and sharp. The project is well conceived and follows an explicit methodology with systematic guardrails from Scripture to frame the difficult biblical and theological details. Lister has ably handled difficult questions that impinge on God’s impassibility and passionate involvement with his creations: God’s relation to time and eternity, incarnate suffering, biblical accounts of God’s repentance, theodicy, and God’s immanence and transcendence. Despite the difficulties, Lister provides careful definitional distinctions and clarity of communication in a surprisingly light writing style that is uncommon to academic theology.”

John E. McKinley, Associate Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University; author, Tempted for Us

G O D  I S I M P A S S I B L EA N D I M P A S S I O N E D

God Is Impassible and Impassioned: Toward a Theology of Divine Emotion

Copyright © 2013 by Rob Lister

Published by 

Crossway

1300 Crescent Street

Wheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided for by USA copyright law.

Cover design: Studio Gearbox

Interior design and typesetting: Lakeside Design Plus

First printing 2012

Printed in the United States of America

Scripture quotations are from the the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

All emphases in Scripture quotations have been added by the author.

Trade paperback ISBN:   

978-1-4335-3241-2

PDF ISBN:

978-1-4335-3242-9

Mobipocket ISBN:

978-1-4335-3243-6

ePub ISBN:

978-1-4335-3244-3

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lister, Rob, 1974–

        God is impassible and impassioned : toward a theology of divine emotion / Rob Lister.

        p. cm.

        Includes bibliographical references and index.

        ISBN 978-1-4335-3241-2

        1. Suffering of God. I. Title.

BT153.S8L57 2013

231'.4—dc232012021322

Crossway is a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

VP

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

14

13

12

11

10

 9

 8

 7

 6

 5

 4

 3

 2

 1

To Lu

Many women have done excellently,

Contents

Expanded Outline

Foreword by Bruce A. Ware

Preface

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

1

Impassibility: What’s in a Name?

Part 1: The Doctrine of Divine Impassibility in Historical Context

2

Contextualizing Patristic Thought on Divine Impassibility: The Hellenization Hypothesis

3

Patristic Models of Divine Impassibility

4

Medieval and Reformational Reflections on Divine Impassibility

5

Assessing the Widespread Rejection of Divine Impassibility in Modern Theology

6

Contemporary Impassibilist Thought and Evangelical Reflection on Divine Impassibility

Part 2: A Contemporary Case for Understanding God as Both Impassible and Impassioned

7

Impassible and Impassioned: Toward a Theological Hermeneutic

8

Impassible and Impassioned: Interpretive Prospects

9

Impassible and Impassioned: A Theological Model

  10

Impassibility and Incarnation: A Concluding Christological Reflection

Conclusion

Bibliography

Expanded Outline

1

Impassibility: What’s in a Name?

The Issue

Definitional Factors Related to Impassibility

Impassibility in Early Christian Thought

Impassibility, Patripassianism, and Theopaschitism

Passibility in Modern Christian Thought

Impassibility and the Vocabulary of “Emotion”

Impassible

and

Impassioned

Part 1: The Doctrine of Divine Impassibility in Historical Context

2

Contextualizing Patristic Thought on Divine Impassibility: The Hellenization Hypothesis

The Hellenization Hypothesis Explained

A Brief Discussion of Hellenistic Philosophy

Stoicism

Middle Platonism

Neoplatonism

A Preliminary Response to the Hellenization Hypothesis

3

Patristic Models of Divine Impassibility

The Qualified-Impassibility Model

Irenaeus

Tertullian

Origen

Gregory Thaumaturgus

Lactantius

Athanasius

Gregory of Nazianzus

Gregory of Nyssa

Augustine

Cyril of Alexandria

The Extreme-Impassibility Model

Justin Martyr

Clement of Alexandria

The Extreme-Passibility Model

Conclusion: Impassibility in Patristic Theology

4

Medieval and Reformational Reflections on Divine Impassibility

Medieval Reflections on Divine Impassibility

Anselm

Thomas Aquinas

Conclusion: Impassibility in the Thought of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas

Reflections on Divine Impassibility from the Reformation Stream

Martin Luther

John Calvin

Stephen Charnock

Conclusion: Reformational Thought on Divine Impassibility

5

Assessing the Widespread Rejection of Divine Impassibility in Modern Theology

The Modern Rejection of the Impassibility Tradition

A Passibilist View of the Incarnation and the Cross

A Passibilist Theodicy

A Passibilist Reading of Scripture

A Passibilist View of Divine Love and Responsiveness

A Passibilist Application of Rahner’s Rule

Response to the Modern Rejection of the Impassibility Tradition

On the Passibilist Handling of the Incarnation and the Cross

On the Passibilist Theodicy

On the Passibilist Reading of Scripture

On the Passibilist View of Divine Love and Responsiveness

On the Passibilist Application of Rahner’s Rule

The Outcomes of Modern Passibilism: A Definitional Shift, a New Metaphysic, and a Theological Problem

6

Contemporary Impassibilist Thought and Evangelical Reflection on Divine Impassibility

The New Minority: Contemporary Advocates of Divine Impassibility

Richard Creel

Thomas Weinandy

The Strata of Evangelical Reflection on Divine Impassibility

Evangelical Affirmations of Divine Impassibility

Gerald Bray

Paul Helm

Evangelical Rejections of Divine Impassibility

John Stott

John Feinberg

Evangelical Modifications of Divine Impassibility

John Frame

Millard Erickson

Conclusion: Impassibility in Evangelical Theology

Part 2: A Contemporary Case for Understanding God as Both Impassible and Impassioned

7

Impassible and Impassioned: Toward a Theological Hermeneutic

On Drawing Metaphysical Conclusions from Biblical Revelation

Impassibility and Redemptive History

Eternal Intra-Trinitarian Relationality

Pre-Fall Creation

The Fall

Redemption

New Creation

Interpreting the Language of Divine Passion: The Importance of Analogy

8

Impassible and Impassioned: Interpretive Prospects

A Select Consideration of Relevant Biblical Data

Divine Invulnerability

Transcendence

Self-Sufficiency

Omniscience

Sovereignty

Immutability

Divine Emotion

Immanence

Intra-Trinitarian Love

Jealousy

Provoked to Anger

Steadfast Love

Joy/Delight

Repentance/Regret/Relenting

Affliction

Desire

Interpretive Conclusions

9

Impassible and Impassioned: A Theological Model

Creator/Creature Distinction

Transcendence and Immanence Rightly Related

Self-Sufficiency and Condescension

Timeless and Temporal

Excursus: The Difference between Paul Helm’s View and Mine

God’s Two Ways of Willing (and Emoting)

Omniscience, Providence, and Impassibility

Immutability, Divine Love, and Impassibility

Trinitarian Issues: Rightly Relating the Immanent and Economic Trinities

Toward a More Biblical Theodicy

Conclusions: How Should We Understand God’s Impassibility and Impassionedness?

Ontological Transcendence

Ethical Transcendence

Should Suffering, in Particular, Be Predicated of God?

10

Impassibility and Incarnation: A Concluding Christological Reflection

Impassibility and Christology

The Emotions of Jesus

Jesus’s Suffering and Death: The Biblical Data

The Passion Narrative

Gethsemane

Cry of Dereliction

Acts 20:28

1 Peter 3:18–4:2

Hebrews 2:9–18

Incarnation, Atonement,

and

Impassibility? Toward an Incarnational Understanding

Communication of Idioms

A Spirit-Regulated, Asymmetrically Accessing, Two-Minds Model

Extra Calvinisticum

Conclusion

Conclusion

Summary

Contributions

Implication

A Final Word

Foreword

Theological balance, like physical balance, is normally a sign of health and well-being. The reason such balance is “normally” but not “exclusively” best is simply that, in some situations, imbalance is clearly required. So physically, balancing equally on both legs with sustained upright posture is normally best, yet if one wishes to dive into a swimming pool, one must embrace the imbalance of leaning altogether forward—a position that if done “normally” would result in endless bloody noses and skull fractures!

Something like this is also true theologically. The history of theology is strewn with the imbalances of misguided theological proposals and, at times, its heresies. One thinks, for example, of the imbalances both of Arius’s ontological subordinationism and of Sabellius’s monarchian modalism. In different ways, both affirmed the “oneness” of God (monotheism), and they surely were correct to do so. But they could not balance this rightly also with the “threeness” of God (Trinitarianism), because they perceived (wrongly) that an appeal to genuine divine “threeness” would inevitably serve to compromise and undermine the true “oneness” of monotheism. Athanasius and later Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine all perceived instead the importance—indeed the necessity—of balancing “oneness” with “threeness” in order to conceive rightly of the Trinitarian monotheism that alone could account for the fullness of God’s self-revelation in Scripture and in Christ.

Or consider the imbalance of Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification, where the newness of resurrection life in Christ is affirmed (rightly) but in such a way that it fails to be balanced by Scripture’s teaching on the reality of the Christian’s ongoing struggle with sin (Gal. 5:16–17), the inevitability of failure (James 3:2a), and the need for regular forgiveness (Matt. 6:12; 1 John 1:9). On the opposite side, some Reformed advocates seem at times to stress the ongoing reality of the “fight of faith” and the inevitability of ongoing sinning such that the wind is taken from the New Testament sails that would otherwise fill us with confidence that we are, most fundamentally, new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19), adopted sons of the living God (Gal. 4:6; Eph. 1:5), and united to Christ in his death and resurrection to newness of life (Rom. 6:2–7). Balancing newness of life with the ongoing “flesh” we war against is needed if we are to have a theological understanding that accounts rightly and faithfully for the whole of biblical teaching and avoids the excesses (on either side) that can do great damage to souls.

Examples of the wisdom, even crucial importance, of normative theological balance could be multiplied. Yet, theological imbalance also at times marks out the narrow pathway of truthfulness and biblical fidelity. When sixteenth-century Roman Catholic bishops and apologists called for a theological balance of faith and works for salvation, the Reformers rightly commended their own altogether imbalanced adherence to solafides. When contemporary pluralists urge upon the culture the balanced view of many saviors from many religions, heirs of this same Reformation heritage decry such balance for the exclusive declaration of solusChristus. When liberal Protestants and proponents of the evangelical left commend experience and tradition alongside Scripture as the church’s multiplexed nexus of ultimate authority, true evangelicals rightly uphold and declare solaScriptura. Yes, at times imbalance is just as important to theological fidelity as balance, yet it still stands as true that normally theological balance marks real health and faithfulness even though imbalances are at times, on certain issues, necessary. How do we know when to follow the pathway of balance or imbalance? Answer: whichever is required to be faithful to Scripture in all of its teachings, and whichever advances the truth with fullest expression and least distortion—this is the pathway that must be commended.

The book before you is a case study in how important theological balance and imbalance are in the development of doctrine. Rob Lister’s commitments squarely align him as an adherent and practitioner of solaScriptura. His every instinct is to “go with the Bible.” And where this leads him on this doctrine, through the windy roads that this journey requires, is to navigate when and where to commend balance where imbalance has previously been urged, or to commend imbalance where balance has distorted the purity of the truth revealed in Scripture. The doctrine of divine impassibility is one of the most challenging of all of the attributes of God to understand, assess, and develop. Clarity on where and when balance or imbalance shall prevail is at the heart of this challenge, and Lister exhibits masterful attention both to nuances of the historical doctrine and to aspects of biblical teaching in making a very promising proposal for how best to understand this doctrine.

I admire greatly both the depth of scholarship of this volume and its clarity of expression. Especially when dealing with a conceptually difficult topic—and the doctrine of divine impassibility certainly qualifies under such a description!—you want someone leading the discussion and unfolding facets of the doctrine’s history and biblical grounding who can lighten the conceptual load through clear description and illuminating development. Beyond this, if this theological guide can also provide insight that advances the argument and brings to light better ways of conceiving how the doctrine might be understood, you know you have a superior guide and one from whom you can benefit much. Lister demonstrates these qualities that make what might otherwise be an inaccessible book not only clear and interesting but even inspiring to faith and illuminating of the greatness and glory of God.

The evangelical world is indebted to Rob Lister for the hard work and insight reflected in the pages of this book. One can only hope that it will be read widely for the theological rigor and wisdom it displays. I commend both the erudition and elegance of the book before you and hope you will find, as I have, that this unfolding story will help you know God better. Until that day when the earth is as full of the knowledge of God as the waters that cover the sea (Isa. 11:9), may we grow toward that end, and may this book assist us in the journey.

Bruce A. Ware

Professor of Christian Theology

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Louisville, Kentucky

Preface

The study of divine impassibility transpires at the intersection of several larger theological issues, including the attributes of God and the doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation, and the atonement. More broadly still, this entire topic fits under the umbrella of the longstanding question of how best to understand and balance the transcendence and immanence of God. It is important to note, then, that while this study will seek to pay careful attention to theological reflection in these and other areas, it is not my intention to provide a full-scale doctrinal treatment of any of these larger doctrinal concerns. Nor is it my intention to provide exhaustive discussions of the interpretive proposals related to any given text. Similarly, this study is not a specialist’s piece in either historical or philosophical theology. I make no pretense of offering the definitive analysis in any of these areas. Having said that, however, the potential value of this study is found in the very fact that it makes an attempt, in faithfulness to both the narrow and broad contexts of Scripture, to draw on all of these disciplinary strands with a view to articulating a “big picture” vision of how best to formulate and understand these interrelated doctrinal themes of divine impassibility and divine passion.1

Of course, there are other limitations that bind this study as well. My engagement not only with related theological issues, but also with various theological traditions is, of necessity, noncomprehensive. I do not, for instance, trace the treatment of divine impassibility in liberation or feminist theologies.2 This is partly a product of the limitations of space and partly a reflection of the weighted value I attach to the contributions of these traditions on the doctrine of divine impassibility. This latter observation also reflects my admitted intention to write this volume as one who approaches this topic from a historic evangelical perspective—a perspective, I might add, that is vastly underrepresented in the contemporary discussion of this topic.

It is important to acknowledge that, as with any scholarly endeavor, I treat my topic within the framework of a number of important assumptions that I do not take pains here to justify. Of course, that need not mean that these assumptions are unjustifiable. Rather, it is the product of spatial limitations and the basic inability to say everything about the theology on which I build in any given context. Inasmuch as I am a confessional evangelical, my relevant doctrinal assumptions related to this project include belief in solaScriptura;3 the overarching unity of the Bible amid all its glorious diversity, and thus the possibility of doing whole-canon theology;4 the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture;5 orthodox Trinitarianism;6 Chalcedonian christology;7 and the epistemic possibility of understanding God’s revelation truly, albeit nonexhaustively.8

Finally, concerning the outline of this book, the heart of this project consists of nine major chapters that fall into two halves. Chapters 2–6 are primarily historical in nature, whereas chapters 7–10 are more prescriptive in terms of presenting my own proposal. Chapter 2 will attempt to contextualize the discussion of the Patristic views on divine impassibility by briefly analyzing the “Hellenization hypothesis.” This hypothesis is one of the key allegations made by many modern theologians about the Fathers. In general terms, the Hellenization hypothesis claims that the Fathers, even if unintentionally, allowed the dynamic revelation of God in Scripture to become overwhelmed by and subjugated to the extrabiblical influences of Hellenistic philosophy. The Patristic doctrine of divine impassibility, in particular, is often put forward as evidence of this deficiency. Given the seriousness of this allegation, it requires an analysis and response. For, if the hypothesis were true, it would drastically undermine the value of Patristic reflection on divine impassibility. In this chapter, then, I will seek to examine the key parameters of Hellenistic philosophy to determine whether or not these features invaded and dominated the Patristic doctrine of divine impassibility. In the main, the evidence will show that they did not.

Following the contextual analysis of chapter 2, we are still left asking, what, then, did key early church theologians really believe about divine impassibility? Chapter 3 will document the answer to this question by examining key primary sources themselves and not merely repeating popular allegations about Patristic thought on divine impassibility. This is critical ground to cover since the Patristic era was foundational to the formulation of the doctrine of divine impassibility. In particular, this chapter will demonstrate that a majority of the notable Fathers had a “two-pronged” balance in their doctrine of divine impassibility. That is to say that based on their own statements, most of the Fathers affirmed both the impassibility of God and God’s passionate involvement within his creation. Again, then, we will see that they did not typically mean, by impassibility, that God was devoid of emotion. We should, therefore, understand the mainstream Patristic view of impassibility—and indeed the foundational formulation of impassibility—to be a qualified version of divine impassibility, as opposed to the absolutized version that modern critics have often accused the early theologians of holding. In their own view, the Fathers used impassibility to set limits on how God’s emotions were understood and not to deny their existence altogether. This constitutes a profound and promising insight—one that I also adhere to and will seek to develop in the formative proposal in the second half of the book.

Chapter 4 will provide historical documentation of thought about divine impassibility by representative theologians in both the medieval and Reformational eras. Having extensively documented the foundational Patristic era of the church’s formulation of the doctrine of divine impassibility, we may survey this history more briefly. Nevertheless, even amid some modifications (notably from Luther) to Patristic belief about divine impassibility, this brief examination of select medieval and Reformational theologians on the matter will demonstrate substantive continuity with the tradition—a finding that will further throw the contrast with modern theological opinion on the doctrine of divine impassibility into sharp relief.

A fascinating shift occurred in the dominant opinion on divine impassibility in modern theology. Whereas the doctrine was largely affirmed previously, modern theology essentially anathematized it. Why did this stark, sweeping, and sudden shift occur? Chapter 5 will seek an answer to this question by examining passibilist sources in order to understand the most prominent arguments proffered by modern passibilists for rejecting the church’s prior consensus on divine impassibility. Following an investigation of the passibilist rationale, I will offer a critique of several key shortcomings of modern passibilism.

Despite the predominance of modern passibilism, it seems that in recent years we may have begun to see a mini-resurgence of impassibilism. My purpose in the first half of chapter 6, then, is to analyze the views of two of the earliest and most notable members of this newfound recovery in order to accurately represent contemporary impassibilism. Following that, I will examine the unique and diversified opinions of select evangelical theologians on the topic of divine impassibility. Interestingly, evangelical opinion will be seen to range from affirmation of the tradition, to modification, to rejection. Analyzing the disparate strands of evangelical reaction will help to frame the primary context in which my own proposal seeks to gain a hearing.

At this juncture in the book, the emphasis will shift from the description of passibilist and impassibilist thought to my own prescriptive proposal as to how we might better understand divine impassibility and divine affection. In chapter 7, I will begin by outlining what I believe to be the most suitable methodology for drawing theological and metaphysical conclusions about the affective experience of God from his own self-revelation in Scripture. As with the doctrine of the Trinity, this debate cannot be won by a simplistic appeal to a selection of proof-texts. Rather, the relevant biblical data needs to be interpreted with a conscious commitment to formulating doctrine in the context of a “hermeneutical spiral”—the interplay between a passage’s narrow and broad canonical contexts, framed by the major parameters of redemptive history. Chapter 7 will also observe the value of a method of analogical interpretation that is grounded in a balanced understanding of the transcendence and immanence of God as revealed in Scripture.

Chapter 8 will seek, representatively, to make interpretive application of the methodological theory advanced in the previous chapter to relevant passages of Scripture. In so doing, we will see that there are two strands of biblical data—here termed divine-invulnerability texts and divine-emotion texts—that must be united in our doctrinal formulation. My aim here will be to interpret the relevant texts with integrity in their own contexts, while also showing how we may best honor the intent of both sets of data.

Chapter 9 will culminate my contribution to the main focus of this study. At this point, I will be drawing on the methodological and interpretive insights of the previous two chapters in the endeavor to formulate a holistic theological explanation of the proper senses of impassibility and impassionedness that pertain to God. I will consider the impact of companion doctrines on divine impassibility. I will also argue that this two-pronged view lends itself to a better and more accurate theodicy than that of passibilist construction. At the end of this chapter, I will summarize the overarching conclusion that this two-pronged model results in a recognition that God’s affective experience transcends our own, as humans, both ontologically and ethically. My final observation in this chapter will be to address the question of whether we should specifically predicate suffering, in any sense, to God.

While my main agenda in this book is to wrestle with divine impassibility as an attribute of God, this issue is inevitably intertwined with the christological implications of Christ’s experience in the incarnation. Hence, an account of how this proposal juxtaposes divine impassibility with the incarnation is necessary. I will seek to provide this accounting in chapter 10, first by examining several key scriptural texts that speak prominently to this question. Then, drawing on those interpretive insights, I will attempt to delineate a model for understanding the incarnation that is both fully orthodox and fully consonant with our findings on impassibility as a divine attribute. Once again, I will be drawing on the important insights of earlier proposals while suggesting a few modest developments as well. The conclusion will offer a summary and note a key implication of the model I propose.

1That is to say that while all of the disciplinary strands are necessary components of a comprehensive doctrine of divine impassibility, none of these strands is individually sufficient as a basis for the whole of the doctrinal formulation. As a confessing evangelical, I fully intend to privilege Scripture as theology’s “norming norm.” My point here, however, is that the successful biblical resolution of this issue requires a more in-depth analysis—a theological hermeneutic, if you will—than simple proof-texting will allow.

2For an examination of the handling of divine impassibility in Latin American liberation theology and North American black theology, one may consult Amuluche Gregory Nnamani, TheParadoxofaSufferingGod (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995), 227–309.

3By appeal to solaScriptura, I simply mean that the Scriptures have primacy in theological formulation, and not that other factors such as Christian tradition are to be ignored entirely.

4See, e.g., D. A. Carson, “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology,” in ScriptureandTruth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 65–95.

5See, e.g., Norman L. Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).

6See, e.g., the helpful historical and theological discussion in Robert Letham, TheHolyTrinity: InScripture, History, Theology, andWorship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004).

7See, e.g., Craig A. Blaising, “Chalcedon and Christology: A 1530th Anniversary,” BibliothecaSacra 138 (1981): 326–37.

8See, e.g., John M. Frame, TheDoctrineofGod (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002), 199–207.

Acknowledgments

I could never have written GodIsImpassibleandImpassioned apart from the invaluable assistance and support of companions too numerous to recount. Time and again, as I worked on this project, God demonstrated his grace toward me by providing just the right support, through just the right person, at just the right time. And for that, I am deeply grateful to God and to these companions who have been his instruments of kindness to me.

This book began as a dissertation that was completed in the fall of 2007 under the supervision of Bruce Ware. Bruce, who is not only a mentor but also a cherished friend, has profoundly shaped my mind and my heart as a theologian, and the formulation that follows in these pages is a massive testimony to his fingerprints on my thinking about God and on life lived for his glory. I am also deeply grateful to my other committee members—Stephen Wellum and Michael Haykin—along with Robert Peterson, my external reader, for giving their valuable time and insightful feedback, all of which served to enhance significantly the quality of my argument.

I am also honored by the partnership that I have formed with Crossway. Allan Fisher, Justin Taylor, Jill Carter, and their team at Crossway provided great encouragement and support as they accepted this project for publication. My editor, Thom Notaro, has been a joy to work with, and his keen eye made the project immeasurably better as he helped guide me through the process of transforming a dissertation into a book. Of course, whatever errors remain in this work are properly my own. As the bulk of the research and writing for GodIsImpassibleandImpassioned was completed in 2007, I should point out that I have had only slight ability to work with and incorporate scholarly materials published since then.

Heartfelt thanks are also due to my colleagues at Biola University for making it such a gratifying place to work. Several among them merit special mention for their support of this project in particular. My deans at the Talbot School of Theology, Mike Wilkins and Dennis Dirks, certainly stand out in this regard. Mike gave wise counsel on multiple occasions on the pursuit of publication, and Dennis secured crucial funds for me that were instrumental in giving me the release time necessary to make needed editorial revisions. Darian Lockett also played a pivotal role in seeking those research-leave funds on my behalf, and my colleagues in the undergraduate division of biblical studies approved my request for another research grant that enabled my release time. My departmental colleagues Erik Thoennes and Jason Oakes read various portions of this manuscript, and John McKinley read all of it, each one making it better with his observations and feedback. Roger Overton, an MA student, also read and gave valuable feedback on the whole manuscript. At various points, teaching assistants Dane Bundy, Ellie MacDonald, Michael Towson, and Seong Hoon Kim each helped with the acquisition of research materials.

Turning now to the blessings and support of family, my brother, Ryan Lister, an Assistant Professor of Christian Studies at Louisiana College, generously proofread my whole manuscript and even more importantly prayed for me throughout this entire process. I couldn’t be more grateful to my dad and mom, Glenn and Jane Lister, who have supported me in love and prayer since before I was born. That debt can never be repaid, and this project has been no exception. I am thankful also to my wife’s parents, Vic and Joan Jones, for their love and prayers as well. It is hard for me to imagine that there could be a more supportive set of in-laws.

My wife and children have been continual sources of deep joy to me, not just in this project, but in all of life. After thirteen years of marriage, I am more amazed now at God’s grace in giving LuWinn to be my wife than I was at the beginning. During these years she, more than any other human being, has been the primary channel of God’s grace to me and evidence of his favor on me. Her capacity to love me and to love our children is simply staggering to me. I am certain that it grows out of her mature faith in and love for God. I am also fully convinced that the publication of this book is every bit as much her accomplishment as it is mine. For without her loving service and willing sacrifice, I simply could not have completed this project. It is to her then that I dedicate this work.

Our four precious children—Eli, Emma, Eliza, and Ethan—have helped me come to learn experientially, as I have encountered academically in this project, something of a father’s delight in his children. Though they would not begin to understand the discourse in the argument that follows, I do hope that the benefit that flows from this study serves them well, as I seek, by God’s grace, to approximate in my love for them something of the stability and the unyielding delight that our heavenly Father provides for his family of faith. To him be the glory!

Abbreviations

ACO

Acta

conciliorum

oecumenicorum

. Edited by E. Schwartz. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1927–

ANF

The

Ante

-

Nicene

Fathers

. Edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. 10 vols. Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885–1896.Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994

BDAG

Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich.

Greek

-

English

Lexicon

of

the

New

Testament

and

Other

Early

Christian

Literature

. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999

BDB

Brown F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs.

A

Hebrew

and

English

Lexicon

of

the

Old

Testament

. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1906. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999

CCSL

Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953–

CO

Ioannis

Calvini

opera

quae

supersunt

omnia

. Edited by G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss. Brunsvigae: Schwetschke et Filium, 1834–1900

CSEL

Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum. Vindobonae: Tempsky, 1866–

GCS

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahr­hunderte. Berlin: Akademie, 1897–

LCL

Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1912–

LW

Luther’s

Works

:

American

Edition

. Edited by J. Pelikan. 55 vols. Saint Louis: Concordia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955–1986

NICNT

The New International Commentary on the New Testament

NICOT

The New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDOTTE

New

International

Dictionary

of

Old

Testament

Theology

and

Exegesis

. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997

NIGTC

The New International Greek Testament Commentary

NPNF

1

A

Select

Library

of

the

Nicene

and

Post

-

Nicene

Fathers

of

the

Christian

Church

, First Series. Edited by P. Schaff. New York: Christian Literature, 1887. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999

NPNF

2

A

Select

Library

of

the

Nicene

and

Post

-

Nicene

Fathers

of

the

Christian

Church

, Second Series. Edited by P. Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Literature, 1887–1994. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999

OS

Johannis

Calvini

opera

selecta

. Edited by P. Barth and G. Niesel. Munich: Kaiser, 1926–1959

PG

Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1866

PL

Patrologia Latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864

PNTC

The Pillar New Testament Commentary

SCG

Summa

contra

Gentiles

STASCG

Saint

Thomas

Aquinas

Summa

Contra

Gentiles

. Garden City, NY: Hanover, 1955. Reprint, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975

ST

Summa

theologiae

STAST

St

Thomas

Aquinas

Summa

Theologiae

. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965–1974

WA

D

.

Martin

Luthers

Werke

:

Kritische

Gesamtausgabe

. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–

1

Impassibility

What’s in a Name?

The SS hanged two Jewish men and a youth in front of the whole camp. The men died quickly, but the death throes of the youth lasted for half an hour. “Where is God? Where is he?” someone asked behind me. As the youth still hung in torment in the noose after a long time, I heard the man call again, “Where is God now?” And I heard a voice in myself answer: “Where is he? He is here. He is hanging there on the gallows.”1

So began a powerful plea for belief in a suffering God in the wake of the twentieth century’s icon of injustice and wickedness. The prose is riveting. The historical referent of the Holocaust is haunting. And insofar as it bears on the specific concerns of this study, the theology informing this famous quotation represents a seismic shift in the modern theological appraisal of the doctrine of divine impassibility.

The Issue

Interestingly, in this quotation of Jürgen Moltmann, in which he is adapting an account from Elie Wiesel’s Night, it appears that Moltmann may well have departed from Wiesel’s original sentiments.2 What is quite clear, though, is that Moltmann himself commends to his readers the theology of a suffering God. Though we will parse out the details more precisely as we progress, it suffices for now to say that in the world of academic theology, an affirmation of divine suffering is typically known as a belief in divine passibility. Divine passibility in turn is, quite obviously, the antithesis of divine impassibility, the view that, insomeimportantsensesatleast, God transcends (i.e., cannot be afflicted with) suffering. The shift in thinking on this matter in modern theology truly has been seismic. Whereas up to the modern era the church could be widely characterized as affirming some notion of divine impassibility, modern theology has broadly rejected the former consensus and championed divine passibility in its place. As a consequence, we have, in the words of Ronald Goetz, witnessed “the rise of a new orthodoxy.”3

Part of the reason for this dramatic doctrinal overhaul in modern theology is that many contemporary passibilists have (mistakenly, I will argue) taken divine impassibility to mean that God has no emotional capacity and no interest in his creation.4 Hastings Rashdall, for example, criticizes the Patristic and scholastic affirmations of impassibility as being endorsements of a God who is “cold, passionless, and loveless.”5 Perhaps even more starkly, Vincent Tymms claims that the God of impassibilism is nothing more than an “infinite iceberg of metaphysics.”6

As it is fleshed out in theological argument, contemporary passibilists have advanced a number of reasons for abandoning the impassibilism of earlier centuries. As they see it, impassibilism is to be chided for (1) dismissing the straightforward readings of numerous biblical texts that powerfully display divine passion, (2) failing to take the love of God and, thus we are told, the possibility of meaningful relationship with God seriously, (3) failing to take the incarnation and cross seriously, and (4) failing to take the problem of evil and suffering seriously. Broadly speaking, then, passibilism is inclined to see impassibilism as failing to uphold the proper balance of divine transcendence and immanence, in that it overemphasizes the former to the neglect of the latter.7

Though impassibilists may find themselves in a minority position in more recent history, they nevertheless have attempted to defend their own views and the views of their tradition with what they believe to be suitable responses. Thus, impassibilists have countered the passibilist charges with claims that (1) the theological method undergirding much passibilist exegesis is simplistic and (2) in their attempt to take the love of God, relationship with God, the incarnation and cross of Christ, and the problem of evil seriously, passibilists are often either reductionistic or extrabiblical themselves. In a broad sense, then, impassibilism is inclined to see passibilism as failing to uphold the proper balance of divine transcendence and immanence, in that it overemphasizes the latter to the neglect of the former.8

My purpose in this book is to address this seeming theological impasse. Upon concluding the historical and biblical investigations, I will offer my own explanation as to how both divine impassibility and divine impassionedness, when rightly understood, can and must go together. As we will see, this conclusion aligns, in principle, with the best of the impassibility tradition in terms of this juxtaposition of themes, even as I attempt to develop and expand a bit upon this foundation.9 Before proceeding any further, however, we should give some attention to the important matter of the terminology involved in this debate.

Definitional Factors Related to Impassibility

While the basis for the definition of impassibility will have to be demonstrated in the chapters providing historical analysis, it bears frontloading this project with some preliminary definitional comments in order to provide the basic framework necessary to enter the discussion.

Impassibility in Early Christian Thought

We may begin our remarks by expanding a bit on the observation that when compared with the early church, many modern theologians reflect a deep divergence with the tradition, not only in their evaluation of divine impassibility, but also in their basic understanding of what divine impassibility is thought to mean in the first place. Marc Steen has captured the force of this point nicely.

“Apathy” as it used to be understood, is not necessarily identical to what is understood by it now. In the first systematic text treating our topic, namely, in the Gregory Thaumaturgus’ third-century treatise addressed to Theopompus, we are informed that a loving God must be “impassible.” Nowadays the reverse reasoning is in vogue: if God is love, then He must be “passible.” A misunderstanding of this conceptual difference leads to a veritable tower of Babel. Fighting traditional theism at the present time as if it introduced the notion of an “apathic,” that is a cool and indifferent God, often seems to be a battle like Don Quixote’s. It is, in any case, necessary to recognize that the term “(im)passibility” does not always and everywhere have one and the same connotation.10

It is hard to overstate the importance of this point. To put it bluntly, both ancient advocates and contemporary critics of divine impassibility use the same terminology, but they often mean quite different things when they explain what it means for God to be impassible.11

Whereas we have already seen that contemporary passibilists have frequently asserted that the doctrine of divine impassibility conveys God’s absence of emotion, the most representative statements of the classical tradition do not, in fact, assert God’s indifference to and aloofness from creation, nor do they claim that God was devoid of vibrant affection. Rather, in the main, the classical tradition simply sought to preserve the notion that, as the self-determined sovereign, God is not subject to emotional affects that are involuntarily or unexpectedly wrung from him by his creatures.12 As we will see further on, this dimension of God’s self-determination was nearly always held in tandem with an affirmation of God’s meaningful emotional experience by the major proponents of the classical impassibility model.

J. I. Packer clearly expresses this classical sentiment about God when he asserts that impassibility is

not impassivity, unconcern, and impersonal detachment in the face of creation; not insensitivity and indifference to the distresses of a fallen world; not inability or unwillingness to empathize with human pain and grief; but simply that God’s experiences do not come upon him as ours come upon us, for his are foreknown, willed and chosen by himself, and are not involuntary surprises forced on him from outside, apart from his own decision, in the way that ours regularly are.13

As we look toward the fuller historical investigation, these statements can count as something of a provisional definition of the classical view of divine impassibility.

Impassibility, Patripassianism, and Theopaschitism

Having said all that, it is also necessary to distinguish impassibility from two related theological terms that were part of the landscape in the doctrine of the early church: patripassianism and theopaschitism. Patripassianism is another name for the Trinitarian heresy of modalistic monarchianism or Sabellianism.14 In the contemporary discussion, passibilist theologians are sometimes charged with advocating patripassianism.15 In actual fact, though, this is an imprecise charge, because it misses a nuanced distinction between passibility and patripassianism. We might put it this way: it is possible—as with most of the leading contemporary passibilists—to deny patripassianism and still affirm passibility. That is, both concepts get at the suffering of God, but they do so in different ways. Patripassianism affirms that the Father suffers on the cross because of a modalistic understanding. Most contemporary passibilists, on the other hand, allow the Trinitarian distinction of persons and yet maintain that the Father also suffered at the cross, albeit distinctively.16 In seeking maximum precision, then, we should acknowledge this important distinction between passibility and patripassianism and not strictly equate the two.

Theopaschitism focuses more properly on the christological issue. In its early history, the theopaschite formula was sometimes defended by monophysites, and as such was condemned on several occasions. In 553, at the Second Council of Constantinople, however, the formula was approved. Presumably no longer linked with monophysitism, the tenth anathema of the council reads, “If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucifiedintheflesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity; let him be anathema.”17 In this mature formulation, then, all that was explicitly affirmed was the fact that the incarnate Christ suffered in the flesh. The formula did not offer a specific claim about how or whether Christ’s divine nature was implicated in the experience of Jesus’s incarnate sufferings.18 Once again, it appears that theopaschitism—as with patripassianism—is sufficiently distinct from passibility that, for the sake of clarity, we should try to avoid overlapping usage.

Passibility in Modern Christian Thought

In contrast with their ancient counterparts, when contemporary theologians affirm that God is passible, it seems that they most often intend to assert that God suffers, and they usually understand this suffering in a predominantly psychological sense, insofar as they retain a belief in God’s incorporeality.19 As Thomas Weinandy has observed, with respect to the contemporary milieu, “the question of God’s passibility focused primarily and, at times almost exclusively, upon the issue of whether God could suffer. The catalyst for affirming the passibility of God, one that is still intensely operative, is human suffering.. . . Succinctly,” the passibilists have concluded, “God is passible because God must suffer.”20 Thus, we are again reminded that not only do passibilists and impassibilists draw different conclusions about the nature of divine emotion, but they also often operate with different definitions from the outset.

Impassibility and the Vocabulary of “Emotion”

Adding yet another layer of complexity to this challenging topic is the fact that while, popularly speaking, there is a great deal of conceptual overlap in the contemporary vocabulary of “emotion,” there is, nevertheless, a place for technical precision and nuance when one uses such vocabulary in certain fields of specialization. Hence, I acknowledge at the outset that while I am interested, for instance, in what modern psychology and philosophy have to say about the definition of various terms in the vocabulary of emotion, I do not write on this topic as a specialist in the psychology or philosophy of emotion. In the main, then, throughout this study, I intend to make use of the major terms of the vocabulary of emotion (e.g., emotion, passion, affection, feelings) with a degree of layman-like interchangeability.21 There will be exceptions, however, where for some particular historical or theological purposes I discriminate among these terms with more specificity and precision. Those exceptions to my more normal practice will be clear from the context.

Impassible and Impassioned

In terms of my own formulation, my central focus is in the domain of theology proper, though I do not neglect to pair this formulation with the vitally intertwined incarnational component of the debate over divine impassibility. Respecting theology proper, my primary thesis is that, when appropriately understood, a holistic reading of Scripture itself compels the conclusion that proper senses of both impassibility and impassionedness are true of God.22 To expand a bit, I take it that God is impassible in the sense that he cannot be manipulated, overwhelmed, or surprised into an emotional interaction that he does not desire to have or allow to happen. But this is not at all the same thing as saying that God is devoid of emotion, nor is it the equivalent of saying that he is not affected by his creatures. To the contrary, God is impassioned (i.e., perfectly vibrant in his affections), and he may be affected by his creatures, but as God, he is so in ways that accord rather than conflict with his will to be so affected by those whom, in love, he has made. The development of this thesis will require an integrated examination of the overlapping methodological, hermeneutical, and theological dimensions invoked by the endeavor to provide a holistic reading of Scripture as it pertains to this topic.

Of course, we should not be surprised at the biblically required duality here, for many participants in this discussion immediately recognize that in view of both the Creator/creature distinction and the human status as imagoDei, there must be both similarity and dissimilarity in how the same emotional terminology applies to God and men. Consequently, one of the undergirding methodological components of this proposal is the interpretive guidance of what is sometimes known as Reformed theological method.23 This method of interpretation, which I argue comes to us ultimately from the framework of Scripture, helps us to navigate the analogical balance between divine and human passion as we examine relevant biblical texts. Additionally, expounding this duality theologically will require that we develop this model of impassibility in the light of insights that come to us from other larger theological structures in the doctrine of God (e.g., transcendence and immanence), as well as companion attributes (e.g., omniscience, immutability, and divine love).

With respect to the christological implications of my thesis, I contend—against passibilist intuitions—that the incarnation and the atonement do not dash the key commitments of divine impassibility. Rather, the incarnation furnishes us with the supreme example of the dual biblical affirmation of divine self-sufficiency and gracious condescension (e.g., Phil. 2:5–8). Accordingly, we see that the second person of the Trinity had to become incarnate in order to overcome natural divine impassibility (i.e., the impassibility of the divine nature), and thereby accomplish the redemptively necessary goal of humanly experiencing suffering and death on behalf of sinners. This account of the incarnation and atonement is important, because it reminds us that the purpose of the Son’s incarnational mission was to save sinners and not to manifest God’s eternal suffering, as some have argued.

1Jürgen Moltmann, TheCrucifiedGod, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (New York: Harper & Row, 1974; repr., Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 273–74. Moltmann follows the quote with this commentary: “Any other answer would be blasphemy. There cannot be any other Christian answer to the question of this torment. To speak here of a God who could not suffer would make God a demon. To speak here of an absolute God would make God an annihilating nothingness. To speak here of an indifferent God would condemn men to indifference.” Ibid., 274.

2A few interesting factual inconsistencies about Moltmann’s use of this citation should be observed. First, according to Marcel Sarot: “While suggesting that he quotes Wiesel, Moltmann gives a summary in his own words of Wiesel’s story. Besides, Moltmann suggests that the event that is related happened at Auschwitz, whereas in fact it happened at Buna. Far worse, however, is the fact that Moltmann suggests that Wiesel in the story of the youth on the gallows relates a religious experience of the suffering God.. . . Moltmann presents Wiesel as a victim of Auschwitz who was comforted by the consciousness that God was sufferingly present in Auschwitz.. . . This is a gross caricature of Wiesel’s account in Night, which loses all probability as an interpretation of what Wiesel meant as soon as one reads not only Moltmann’s summary of this one story, but the entire book.” Following several lengthy quotations of Wiesel clearly indicating his own rebellion against—not comfort in—God, Sarot concludes: “In Buna Wiesel was not comforted by the presence of a suffering God; in Buna Wiesel rebelled against God because he could no longer believe in His justice. For Wiesel, it was not God who died on the gallows . . . but his faith in God.” Marcel Sarot, “Auschwitz, Morality and the Suffering of God,” ModernTheology 7 (1991): 137, 138. These findings, of course, lead us to question the validity of Moltmann’s use of the story, and yet it is precisely his use of the story that is of interest to this study. In note 5 of the same article, for instance, Sarot points out that—at the time of his article—well over thirty volumes referenced the Wiesel story, many of which merely quote the Moltmann summary (misplaced locations and all).

3Ronald Goetz, “The Suffering of God: The Rise of a New Orthodoxy,” TheChristianCentury 103 (1986): 385–89.

4With minor exceptions, the historical study to follow will demonstrate the general falsity of the allegation equating the classical view of divine impassibility with divine indifference.

5Hastings Rashdall, TheIdeaofAtonementinChristianTheology (London: Macmillan, 1925), 452.

6T. Vincent Tymms, TheChristianIdeaofAtonement (New York: Macmillan, 1904), 312. See also Clark H. Pinnock, “Systematic Theology,” in TheOpennessofGod: ABiblicalChallengetotheTraditionalUnderstandingofGod (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 103.

7To be sure, not every passibilist subscribes to all of these arguments, and some passibilists invoke other arguments. The attempt to provide a more detailed explanation of passibilist argumentation will occur in chap. 5.

8Of course, impassibilists have also offered positive arguments, for example, the argument from aseity and the argument from immutability. A more detailed investigation into the history of impassibilist thought will occur in chaps. 3 and 4.

9I must confess that this finding was initially a little surprising to me. As with many others, my initial exposure to the debates over divine impassibility came from the perspective of the numerous modern critics of the doctrine. Naturally, therefore, I was initially suspicious about the Patristic doctrine of divine impassibility. It was not until I read the Fathers themselves that I came to realize how markedly different their views seemed to be in comparison to the interpretations of their views by their modern critics.

10Marc Steen, “The Theme of the ‘Suffering’ God: An Exploration,” in GodandHumanSuffering, ed. Jan Lambrecht and Raymond F. Collins (Louvain, Belgium: Peeters, 1990), 86–87.

11Given this situation, then, it must be judged an unacceptable procedure to try to establish, for instance, the Patristic view of divine impassibility simply on the basis of appeal to etymological arguments pertaining to the Hellenistic thought-world. Paul L. Gavrilyuk, TheSufferingoftheImpassibleGod: TheDialecticsofPatristicThought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 2.

12See, e.g., G. L. Prestige, GodinPatristicThought (London: SPCK, 1952), 6–7. Furthermore, the classical adherence to divine impassibility was not discarded in the case of the incarnation. Neither, however, did the classical theologians dismiss lightly the sufferings of the incarnate Christ. How and why these thinkers deemed it important to affirm both divine impassibility and the full reality of the incarnate Christ’s sufferings will receive consideration in chaps. 3 and 4.

13J. I. Packer, “Theism for Our Time,” in GodWhoIsRichinMercy, ed. Peter T. O’Brien and David G. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 17. See also his statement that impassibility “means, not that God is impassive and unfeeling (a frequent misunderstanding), but that no created beings can inflict pain, suffering and distress on him at their own will. In so far as God enters into suffering and grief (which Scripture’s many anthropopathisms, plus the fact of the cross, show that he does), it is by his own deliberate decision; he is never his creatures’ hapless victim. The Christian mainstream has construed impassibility as meaning not that God is a stranger to joy and delight, but rather that his joy is permanent, clouded by no involuntary pain.” J. I. Packer, “God,” in NewDictionaryofTheology, ed. Sinclair Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J. I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 277. For yet another valuable statement by Packer see KnowingGod, 20th anniversary ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 121.

14J. N. D. Kelly, EarlyChristianDoctrines, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978), 119–23.

15