THE PATHOS OF GOD
GERALD WONDRA
The modern revolution in theological thought on the doctrine of God
has been very severe on the traditional formulation of the attributes,
especially the attribute of impassibility. A proper study of this change
in thought would involve the whole history of Christian doctrine, as well
as a thorough look at the biblical sources. I shall attempt no such vast
study here. Instead, I shall attempt to grapple with one representative
from both the traditional and the modern schools, and thus deal with
the essentials within a limited scope. Then I shall examine representative
biblical sources. For this I have chosen the books of Hosea and Hebrews.
Both are brief enough to deal with adequately, and they represent respectively, the prophetic view of God's involvement in history, and the
apostolic understanding of the suffering of the Mediator.
The choice of a modern representative was not difficult since there is
virtual agreement on the inadequacy of past thought. There is, of course,
variation in what is suggested as a substitute, but even here there is general agreement on the need to return to biblical categories. Emil Brunner
was chosen for his mediating stance on most issues.
The choice of a traditional representative was more difficult, however.
For one thing, he could be chosen from almost anywhere in the history
of Christian thought; for another, ideas on impassibility are often assumed
rather than elaborated. The Protestant era is closer to our own position,
and so perhaps more valuable, yet even here a choice is involved. John
Calvin obviously assumed the impassibility of God, for he says:
"God certainly has no blood, suffers not, cannot be touched
with hands." 1
Yet he is too biblical and dynamic to elaborate a formal doctrine. In
fact, he says:
" . . . it is obvious that, in seeking God, the most direct path
and the fittest method is, not to attempt with presumptuous
curiosity to pry into his essence, which is rather to be adored
than minutely discussed, but to contemplate him in his works,
1 Calvin,
John, The Institutes of Jhe Christian Religion, translated by Henry
Beveridge (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957).
II, xiii, 2.
28
.
I
by which he draws near, becomes familiar, and in a manner
communicates himself to us." 2
We must turn, therefore, to Protestant scholasticism for an adequate
statement on impassibility. Stephen Charnock was chosen because he is
perhaps the most complete in his discussion.
Under each chapter, I shall deal basically with three ideas: (1) general approach; (2) the repentance of God; (3) the divine-human suffering of the Mediator.
STEPHEN CHARNOCK: the Protestant scholastic approach to
God's impassibility.
Not long after the dynamic period of the Reformation, Protestant
theology settled back into the same scholasticism that Calvin had attacked.
This happened because basic theological and philosophical assumptions
had remained unchallenged, despite the apparent radicality of the Reformation. In this relapse to scholasticism, the Puritans were no exception.
On the attributes of God, Stephen Charnock is an outstanding example.
In his great work, The Attributes of God, he adopted without question the Greek speculative approach which makes God the last term of
a process of rational abstraction. God is the most perfect being, which
means he is without all the limitations of the creature (via negativa),
and that he represents the perfect state of all positive qualities found in
man (via eminentiae) . In adopting this approach, he was merely being
the heir of the early Church fathers. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Augustine,
and others, had baptized a Neo-Platonic framework of thought in combatting gnostic and docetic heresies. This framework had the rational
equipment which was absent from the Hebrew character of scriptural
revelation.
I.
Having assumed a Greek definition of God, impassibility became a
rational necessity. Charnock does not disruss impassibility as such; he
does so under the heading of immutability, which is true of God by
definition:
"God is a necessary being; he is necessarily what he is, and
therefore is unchangeably what he is. Mutability belongs to
contingency. If any perfection of his nature could be separated
from him, he would cease to be God. . . . Whatsoever is immutable by nature is God ; whatsoever is God, is immutable by
nature." 3
The following is the outline of Charnock's discussion of immutability :
1. In what respects God is unchangeable.
( 1) God is unchangeable in his essence.
2
Ibid., I, v, 9.
Stephen, The Attributes of God, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board
of Publications) , 1840, Vol. I, p. 355.
8 Charnock,
29
(2) God is immutable in regard to knowledge.
(3) God is unchangeable in regard of his will and purpose.
( 4) He is unchangeable in regard to place.
2. Reasons to prove God immutable.
(1) The name of Jehovah signifies this attribute.
( 2) If God were changeable he could not be the most perfect being.
(3) If he were not immutable he would not be the most simple
being.
( 4) God were not eternal, if he were mutable.
( 5) If God were changeable, he were not infinite and almighty.
( 6) If he were mutable he could not order and govern the world.
3. Immutability is proper to God and incommunicable to any creature.
4. Propositions to clear this unchangeableness of God from anything that
seems contrary to it.
5. Uses.
It is under the fourth heading in the above outline that he discusses
God's inability to repent, suffer, or experience any emotions whatever.
Impassibility, like immutability, is a rational necessity :
"Repentance is not properly in God. He is a pure Spirit, and
is not capable of those passions which are signs of weakness
and impotence. . . . No proper grief can be imagined to be in
God: as repentance is inconsistent with infallible foresight, so
is grief no less inconsistent with undefiled blessedness ." 4
But this stance places Charnock in obvious tension with scriptural
revelation where repentance, grief, and other passions are ascribed to God.
He explains the tension and defends himself, first by saying that anthro~
pomorphisms are necessary to God's communication to man. 5 If God did
not speak human language he could not be understood. Apparent changes
in God are actually only changes in the creature-changes of relation ,
not of essence, "a change of events, not of counsels." 6
Pushing his explanation one step further, Charnock makes the strange
claim that these anthropomorphisms describe what God would be like if
he were capable of passions!
" . . . so would God have joy at the obedience of men, and
grief at the unworthy carriage of men, and repent of his kindness when men abuse it, and repent of his punishment when
men reform under his rod, were the majesty of his nature capable of such affections." 7
Charnock also feels constrained to explain how the divine nature of
Christ could have remained with him in his suffering. He does maintain,
unlike Nestorians, that the divine nature was present at the crucifixion:
Ibid., p. 381.
5fbid., p. 382.
6 Ibid.
1 I bid., p. 383.
4
30
•
" . . . therefore when he was bowing the head of his humanity
upon the cross, he had the nature and perfections of God, for
had he ceased to be God, he had been a mere creature, and his
sufferings would have been of as little value and satisfaction as
the sufferings of a creature." 8
Yet the divinity, though present, remains unaffected by the suffering:
"The glory of his divinity was not extinguished nor diminished,
though it was obscured and darkened under the veil of our
infirmities; but there was no more change in the hiding of it
than there is in the body of the sun when it is shadowed by the
interposition of a cloud." 0
His argument here rests heavily on analogy. In addition to the analogy
of the sun darkened by a cloud, he uses the soul's union with the body,
to prove that Christ's divinity could be present, yet unaffected. Such
analogy cannot overcome the impression of gross incongruity between the
scriptural account and Charnock's. To say that an impassible divine
nature was present in Christ during his suffering, would sound to the
writer of H ebrews like sheer nonsense!
II.
EMIL BRUNNER: the modern Neo-orthodox approach to God's
impassibility.
Emil Brunner, like most modern theologians, is acutely aware of the
influence of Greek speculative thought on Christian doctrine. He says
that the early Church fathers, in their effort to communicate with the
Hellenistic world, unwittingly adopted alien thought forms, which would
prove to be incalculably detrimental to Christian theology. 10 This adoption involved the combination of two radically different and irreconcilable
notions of God; one would have to give way to the other. Since the
speculative approach offered more possibilities for apologetics, it won
the battle, and bequeathed its inheritance to the entire history of Christian
thought :
"It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the theological doctrine
of the Divine Attributes, handed on from the Early Church,
has been shaped by the Platonic and neo-Platonic idea of God,
and not by the Biblical Idea." 11
Brunner feels that the distinction between the two is that in the Bible,
God is a personal subject who reveals himself, whereas the Greek approach makes him the object of thought which is attained by a process
of one's own thinking.12 In this respect, Christian thought has failed to
take revelation seriously. God has revealed his nature in the Bible by
BJbid., p. 380.
OJbid.
Emil, The Christian Doctrine of God, translated by Olive Wyon (London : Lutterworth Press, 1949), p. 15 3.
llJbid., p. 243 .
12 1bid., p. 154.
10 Brunner,
31
his acts of redemption and his covenantal love, not intending it to be
explained away in terms of a religiously inferior philosophical approach.
In place of the traditional attributes of immutability or impassibility,
Brunner discusses God's "unchangingness." But he warns that this attribute does not mean God is unconcerned with the historical process; on
the contrary, he is intimately involved and is affected by what happens
to his creatures. "He alters his behavior in accordance with the changes
in men." 1 3 The objection to the repentance of God, he says, is the same
objection that can be raised against calling God a person, or indeed,
against saying anything about him, once the Absolute Being of philosophy
is assumed to be the Christian God. But the assumption is wrong; the
God of the Bible does not ride the crest of a rational system. He "enters
into the activity of man and acts accordingly." 14 He dialogues with men,
hears their prayers, loves, and judges them.
Here Brunner adds the interesting caution that in rejecting impassibility, we must not swallow the modern and equally unchristian notion
that God is a part of the universal process- that he is "becoming" along
with all of us.
The God of the Bible, then, is unchangeable, but he is unchangeable
in the terms of "faithfulness" rather than impassibility. He steps into
the historical process as the unchanging, faithful God. This is closer to
the meaning of the name Jahweh than what Charno.ck suggested. It also
fits the prophet's picture of God's faithfulness to his covenant people
despite their disobedience. His faithfulness solves the otherwise insoluble
dialectic of holiness and love. 1 5
In The Mediator, Brunner presents a view of the divine-human suffering of Christ, which is more consistent with Hebrews than was Charnock' s. He emphasizes the paradox of the crucifixion event and the impossibility of separating the divine from the human at the cross. Christ
could only represent humanity because of his divinity:
" . . . the human element, in the deepest sense of the word,
constitutes the material for this sacrifice; therefore it must be
suffered in a truly human way. But this can only be achieved
by God himself; therefore the person who thus acts, the person
in whom human nature truly suffers, must be the divine person." 16
The answer to the question whether God can suffer or not is: HE HAS!
In Christ, God suffered as a man !
l3Jbid., p. 268.
lbid., p. 269.
15lbid., p. 273 .
16Brunner, Emil, The M ediator, translated by Olive Wyon (Philadelphia:
W estminster Press, 1947) , p. 502.
14
32
The
I
J
III.
HOSEA AND HEBREWS: God's involvement in human history.
If there is an attribute of God discussed in Hosea, it is pathos. 17 God
is not removed and detached from men; he is involved! He loves Israel,
beats his breast over its disobedience, longs for its repentance, threatens
judgment, promises mercy. So intimate is God's relation to Israel that
it is likened to a marriage covenant. God is pictured as wooing Israel:
"Therefore, behold, I will allure her
and bring her into the wilderness
and speak tenderly to her
and there I will give her vineyards,
and make the valley of Achor a door of hope.
And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth,
as at the time when she came out of Egypt" ( 2: 14-15) .
He promises an eternal covenant:
"And I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you to me
in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy,
I will betroth you to me in faithfulness, and you shall know the
Lord" (2:19-20).
God is the deserted husband who is hurt by the wife's unfaithfulness.
Later, the image changes, and God is the loving Father of Israel who
grieves for his prodigal son:
"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I
called my son.
The more I called to them, the more they went from me;
they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and burning incense to idols"
(11:1 -2 ).
This desertion by Israel causes a reaction in God both of love and v:rath.
Often the two follow each other in close proximity, which proves that
they are part of the same basic attitude- pathos. The eleventh chapter
provides the clearest example. Here an announcement of judgment,
("They shall return to the land of Egypt and Assyria shall be their king,
because they have refused to turn to ine.") 11 :5, is followed immediately
by a promise of mercy:
"How can I give you up, 0 Ephraim!
How can I hand you over, 0 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.
I will not execute my fierce anger,
I will not again destroy Ephraim,
for I am God and not man,
The Holy One in your midst,
and I will not come to destroy" ( 11 : 7-9) .
17
Heschel, Abraham, The Prophets (New York : Harper and Row, 1955), pp. 39ff.
33
Note that in this passage the essence of God is seen as his forgiveness,
his ability to alter a course of planned judgment in favor of compassion.
Moreover, the "Holy One" is not far removed from men; he is "in your
midst!" God establishes a real dialogue with human history. He can be
grieved, he can judge, he can forgive, in accordance with the response of
man. He can change his mind; he can (as explicitly stated in the book
of Jonah) "repent." This is not seen as a weakness but as his glory; nor
does it detract from his basic faithfulness.
This pathos of God comes to fullest expression in the incarnationand especially at the cross. H ebrews clearly presents the divine-human
character of Christ's suffering. Godhead is attributed to the son. He is
presented as God's final Word to men ( 1: 2), as creator and sustainer
( 1: 3), as co-ruler with the Father (1 :4). Moreover, he is explicitly
called God in 1 :8:
"But of the Son he says:
'Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever.' "
Yet the divinity of the Son does not obscure the reality of the incarnation.
Christ experienced the depths of human existence, for as our eternal High
Priest and representative before God, it was necessary for him to know
what it is to be man:
"Since, therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature . . . " ( 2 : 14) .
"For we have not a High Priest who is unable to sympathize
with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been
tempted as we are, yet without sinning" ( 4: 15) .
The suffering of our High Priest, therefore, is the suffering of man :
"Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect,
so that he might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in
the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the
people" (2: 17).
But it is also, at the same time, the suffering of God:
"For it was fitting that we should have such a High Priest,
holy, blameless, unstained; separated from sinners, exalted above
the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer
sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for the sins of
the people ; he did this once for all when he offered up himself"
(7 :26-27) .
There is no talk here of Christ suffering only in his human nature.
Moreover, there is no formulation of two natures in Christ. It belongs
to his person as the mediator, the eternal High Priest, that he is the Gedman. And this hyphenated existence does not imply a dual personality;
his manhood was God, his Godhood was man. In him, God suffered as
a man!
34
Our conclusion is that the modern neo-orthodox approach is closer
to Hebrews and Hosea than that of the Protestant scholastic. If a caution
is needed, it is that Brun.ner tends to adopt the modern existential philosophical posture, just as the early fathers adopted Greek rationalism.
This existential posture is also in tension with scripture in its extreme
subjectivism and individualism. Yet the biblical world was far more
existential than metaphysical, and we can rejoice in the demise of such
notions as the impassibility of God.
35