# Does God Suffer?



## scottmaciver (Jan 23, 2012)

Is there any sense that it could be said that God suffers outwith Christ's sufferings? It doesn't sit right with me as it would seem to suggest that God would change.

Any thoughts?


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 23, 2012)

God is impassible. This is orthodox dogma.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 23, 2012)

http://www.puritanboard.com/google....g&sa.x=9&sa.y=5&siteurl=www.puritanboard.com/

http://www.puritanboard.com/google....sa.x=6&sa.y=6&siteurl=www.puritanboard.com%2F

http://www.puritanboard.com/google....sa.x=6&sa.y=5&siteurl=www.puritanboard.com%2F

There are various threads on this. Passibility in God is not orthodox Reformed teaching, although it's somewhat mysterious how Christ suffered in His human nature but not as a Divine Person.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 23, 2012)

Kevin DeYoung gave an excellent talk on this topic at the Together for the Gospel conference two years ago. Showed why impassability matters and makes the gospel bigger.


----------



## louis_jp (Jan 23, 2012)

scottmaciver said:


> Is there any sense that it could be said that God suffers outwith Christ's sufferings?



In the sense that what is predicated of the human nature is predicated of the person, by virtue of the hypostatic union. So it can be said that God suffered and died on the cross.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 23, 2012)

louis_jp said:


> In the sense that what is predicated of the human nature is predicated of the person, by virtue of the hypostatic union. So it can be said that God suffered and died on the cross.


One needs to tread very carefully here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/here-interesting-line-study-thought-56658/

and

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7899

AMR


----------



## louis_jp (Jan 23, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> > In the sense that what is predicated of the human nature is predicated of the person, by virtue of the hypostatic union. So it can be said that God suffered and died on the cross.
> ...



I said it was predicated of the person, not the divine nature. One needs to tread carefully in both directions.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 23, 2012)

louis_jp said:


> I said it was predicated of the person, not the divine nature. One needs to tread carefully in both directions.


No, what you said afterwards, was that is could be said that "God suffered and died on the cross". Perhaps an infelicitous use of words, no?

AMR


----------



## louis_jp (Jan 23, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> > I said it was predicated of the person, not the divine nature. One needs to tread carefully in both directions.
> ...



I don't think so. Could you clarify? This is from your link, which I assume you approve: "In short, yes, we can say that God died on the cross because the person who underwent death was a divine person."


----------



## KingofBashan (Jan 23, 2012)

> Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.



The apostles understand the union of the divine and human nature to be such that they felt free to call Christ's blood "God's own blood". I think it might be in line with their use of language to say "God died on the cross". The phrase is a bit more loose than what we find in Acts 20:28.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 23, 2012)

louis_jp said:


> So it can be said that God suffered and died on the cross.



Louis, I think that consistency would require your conclusion to read "so it can be said that Jesus Christ suffered ..." By virtue of the fact that the Person, Jesus Christ, suffered in His *human nature*, it can therefore be said that *the Person* (Jesus Christ) suffered.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 23, 2012)

louis_jp said:


> I don't think so. Could you clarify? This is from your link, which I assume you approve: "In short, yes, we can say that God died on the cross because the person who underwent death was a divine person."


Note that Craig goes on to explain, that while we "can" say this, we should not, as it is misleading, and instead speak that the person of Jesus Christ died on the Cross...as has been noted by others herein. BTW, I pointed to the Craig link as secondary to a thread already contained here at PB, simply to note that even outside of the Reformed community, the topic gets some attention. It has come in handy within some discussion venues outside of PB where anything from a Reformed source is immediately dismissed. 

AMR


----------



## louis_jp (Jan 23, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> > So it can be said that God suffered and died on the cross.
> ...



Bob,

All are agreed that He suffered in His human nature, not the divine. I said that up front. And you are correct that since He suffered in His human nature, then that statement can be attributed to His person as well. Otherwise, we would have to say that it was a generic, personless human nature that hung on the cross, and not a person at all. Which isn't correct. But the question then is, who is the person? It is in fact the Son of God. His person is not a composite of the human and the divine. It is the pre-existent Son who took on human nature. So when we say that "He" suffered on the cross, we mean that the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, suffered on the cross (in His human nature, of course). I know the language is uncomfortable, but with the necessary qualifications, I believe it is orthodox. 

Here is how one Reformed author puts it:

"This one person, the Son of God, is the agent behind all of the Lord's actions.... We can never say, 'the divine nature did this' or 'the human nature did this.' We must say, "He did this: he, the Son of God!' He was born, baptized, tempted, and transfigured. He beheld the city and wept over it. He agonized in Gethsemane. He was betrayed, arrested, and condemned. He was flogged, immolated, crucified, dead and buried. He rose from the dead. He reigns. 

"In him God acts, speaks and suffers for our redemption. In him, God provides and even becomes the atonement which he demands." (Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ, Contours of Christian Theology, pp. 189-90). 

Recall, the OP asked if there was *any sense* in which *it could be said* that God suffers. I don't think it's best to run around saying that God suffered on the cross, but it is legitimate to put it that way, in the sense that I gave, and in the sense that Macleod meant it. Certainly other traditions have no hesitation in saying it, as it isn't any different than calling Mary "God-bearer," even if the Reformed would insist that it's a rhetorical attribution only.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 23, 2012)

Thanks Louis, and I am trying to parse all that has been said. You ask



louis_jp said:


> But the question then is, who is the person?



To which I answer, in the context of this thread, that The Person in question, became in time and forever after shall be, the Theanthropos; the God-Man. And just as there were things during His earthly ministry which could be predicated of his human nature (thirst, limited knowledge, etc.) which could not be predicated of His divine nature, so too could pain and suffering be predicated of His Person (qua man) that cannot be predicated of His Person (qua deity).


----------



## Philip (Jan 23, 2012)

So was humanity's eternal debt paid by Christ _qua_ the Divine nature or _qua_ the human nature?


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 23, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> So was humanity's eternal debt paid by Christ qua the Divine nature or qua the human nature?



The debt was not paid by a *nature*. The debt was paid by a *Person.* The God-Man Jesus Christ our Lord.


----------



## Philip (Jan 23, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> The debt was not paid by a nature. The debt was paid by a Person. The God-Man Jesus Christ our Lord.



In that case, it was that same person who suffered.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 23, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> In that case, it was that same person who suffered.



Precisely.


----------



## louis_jp (Jan 24, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> The Person in question, became in time and forever after shall be, the Theanthropos; the God-Man.



As long as we acknowledge that this is "not to be so understood as to convey the impression that a new person -- a mediatorial, complex person -- began to be, who did not exist before; or that, whereas the person of the Son of God was, previous to the incarnation, simple, it is since composite." (Girardeau, "Discussions of Theological Questions, pp.394-95).

Rather, "it is the same person that now has two natures, who, previous to the incarnation, had actually, though not in the divine decree, one only. The assumption of human nature into connection with the person of the Son of God involved no intrinsic addition to his personality... We have then... the eternal, divine personality of Christ... the creation and assumption of the human nature of Christ -- the assumption not of a human personality, but of a human nature, into connection with the divine person of Christ." (id.)

More directly related to this thread: 

"From this it follows, that what is predicable of either nature is predicable of the person.... God as such cannot suffer.... it was the human nature which was the subject of suffering. In consequence also of the hypostatic union the sufferings of the human nature are predicated of the divine person, but that by no means shows that it was the divine person which actually experienced the sufferings." (pp. 396-7, 409).

Which I think is what we all mean to say, and perhaps we should just leave it at that.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 24, 2012)

Louis,

Thank you for the quotes from Giradeau. I have not read this work and now plan to do so.  I like what he has to say, especially the discussion of the pre/post Incarnate Christ simple/complex cautionaries that often get muddied up, with the small quibble being the last bit, wherein he makes it rather emphatic that what is predictable of either nature is predictable of the person, versus our confessional statement (posted by Joshua above):

VIII.VII. Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself;*[SUP]a[/SUP]* yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature *is sometimes*, *in Scripture*, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.

AMR


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 24, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> wherein he makes it rather emphatic that what is *predictable* of either nature is *predictable* of the person,



Patrick, it seems that a naughty little "t" sneaked its way in there!

*predicable*
adj
: capable of being asserted

Word Police


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2012)

I found Jack's recommendation (post #4) of Kevin DeYoung's sermon on God's impassibility to be excellent on this subject of Christ's two natures. From it I may conclude that the _person_ of Christ suffered in His _human_ nature, while His divine nature experienced no _change_ (_suffering_). Why did the Second person of the Trinity have to be incarnated? If He could have suffered in His divine nature, why the Incarnation? He was incarnated "so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). The Divine nature could not suffer nor die.


----------



## Philip (Jan 24, 2012)

Could we say that though the Divine nature did not suffer, that a Divine person suffered because that Divine Person became a human person and so became capable of suffering? That is to say, that since God-in-Himself is incapable of suffering, therefore the Son (who is fully God) became man in order to suffer. For even though God-in-Himself is incapable of suffering, God-as-true-man (Jesus Christ) could and did suffer.

What I am trying to make sure is clear here is that the one who suffered (Jesus) was fully Divine, even as He suffered. Is that a fair concern?


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 24, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Could we say that though the Divine nature did not suffer, that a Divine person suffered because that Divine Person became a human person and so became capable of suffering? That is to say, that since God-in-Himself is incapable of suffering, therefore the Son (who is fully God) became man in order to suffer. For even though God-in-Himself is incapable of suffering, God-as-true-man (Jesus Christ) could and did suffer.
> 
> What I am trying to make sure is clear here is that the one who suffered (Jesus) was fully Divine, even as He suffered. Is that a fair concern?



Yes Philip,

The Person who suffered the outpouring of the wrath of God for His elect is the God-Man, Jesus Christ. He Himself, the One who is very God and very Man, did in His Person endure the Cross. His divine nature was unaffected; His human nature suffered the hell we deserved.


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 24, 2012)

I assume of course, that we are not discussing God the Father here...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 25, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Patrick, it seems that a naughty little "t" sneaked its way in there!


Mea culpa! Thanks!

AMR


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 25, 2012)

These sorts of discussions always drive home for me the importance of mystery for our faith.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 25, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> These sorts of discussions always drive home for me the importance of mystery for our faith.



James, I agree. I found this piece by Kevin DeYoung timely

Nuance Is Necessary – Kevin DeYoung


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 25, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > These sorts of discussions always drive home for me the importance of mystery for our faith.
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 25, 2012)

James Durham:



> ...both natures are joined in one person: yet it was not as God that he died, though the person that was God died.
> (...)
> God is said to have purchased his Church with his own blood; not that the Godhead could suffer, but he that was God suffered. So of the man Christ it may be said that he is omnipotent, yet not as man, but the person that was and is man, is omnipotent. So the person that is God died, though not as God, but in respect of his human nature, and as he was man.


----------

