Does the Father feel pain?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11), then we must at least say he takes no pleasure, in the same sense as those verses speak, at the death of the Righteous One.

Yet, at the same time, Isaiah 53:10 says He had pleasure in bruising His Son to make Him an offering.

So, yes and no. Certainly, He was pleased with Christ's obedience at the cross, but at the same time, I think, feeling very real pain also.

Much like I can imagine Abraham feeling - pleased to do what the Lord required (or in the Father's case - pleased to do what is just, merciful, holy and honoring to Himself), but at the same time weeping at the cost because of love for his son.
 
^^don't know if that was directed toward me, but I certainly don't deny Christ's pre-existence and deity, so I don't see how anyone here is even close to patripassianism.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by Ivan
God feels my pain.
Click to expand...

With his senses? :candle:
Click to expand...

Hmmm..."feel" is not quite the right word. Silly English language!

How about "He is aware of my pain and cares about what I am experiencing."

Of course, sometimes the pain is sent by Him to correct me. I rejoice in that, because than I know He loves me and that I am His child.
 
In what ways is what God the Father felt or experienced at the murder of Jesus the same or different from what a loving human father would feel if he were to witness the murder of his son?
 
God is without passions and without parts ad intra.

Now, if you mean, ad extra then you are asking how he appears to us, or what affects appear to us that render certain judgments about how we percieve Him.
 
Remember that exegetically you have to lump into one category "emotive Scriptures" "humanistic characteristics" and the like.

One can never do theology in a vacuum without treating all parts deductively.

If one takes that approach first, then you can at least be honest in dealing with everything that needs to be dealt with.

For example, if one is going to defend "God's emotions" then they better get out their slick exegetical skills to defend why "God has feathers".

One cannot pick and choose what anthropomorphisms or anthropopathisms one would "like" to deal with at the expense of all of them.

If you defend God's emotive consequences at the death of His Son in terms of change, then one must, of necessity, defend God's other characteristics as well on equal ground.

These Scriptures all remain in the same class:

Psalm 91:4 He shall cover you with His feathers, And under His wings you shall take refuge; His truth shall be your shield and buckler. (FEATHERS and WINGS?)

Psalm 89:13 You have a mighty arm; Strong is Your hand, and high is Your right hand. (ARMS and HANDS?)

1 Samuel 15:35 and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel. (SORROWFUL and REGRET?)

Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (GRIEVING?)

Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, (GRIEVING?)

Ephesians 1:9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, (PLEASURE?)

Philippians 4:18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. (SMELLING?)

Exodus 15:8 And with the blast of Your nostrils The waters were gathered together; (NOSTRILS?)

Psalm 33:18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him, On those who hope in His mercy, (EYES?)

Numbers 6:25 The LORD make His face shine upon you, And be gracious to you; (FACE?)

Ezekiel 1:24 , like the voice of the Almighty, (A VOICE?)

And if we get into Ezekiel - well, hold on tight -

Ezekiel 1:28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. (LIKE A RAINBOW?)

etc.

If one defends God's emotive characteristics, he must defend them all, not just what he would like.
 
Feathers are not an emotive characteristics. I doubt anyone who would suggest that God has emotions would have trouble distinguishing them from feathers. Emotions are better understand as part of our human spiritual faculties, which are created in the image of God. Anyway, not saying one way or the other, but to liken them to feathers does not seem to get very far to me.

So would be be accurate to say that you guys understand God to be emotionless? Is He somewhat like a computer in this respect?
 
Scott,

What I am saying is simply this - if you defend any human charactertisitc, then you have to defend them all. That would be fair in exegesis.

In terms of your question, you have two senses to deal with - if you are asking me how I view God in the compound sense, I would say he is like the Unmoved Mover who Moves by relation. If you ask me in the divided sense how I view Him, then He grieves, has feathers, a nose, arms, legs, etc., repents, is sorry, etc.
 
So in His compound sense, would it be accurate to say God is like a computer in that He has no emotions?
 
Originally posted by Scott
So in His compound sense, would it be accurate to say God is like a computer in that He has no emotions?
Click to expand...
Yes, and God is also like an apple, and the sun, and an iron bar, and air, and .... and like a computer in the sense that He has no have emotions. But that's the only sense He is like a computer or an apple, or .... :)


P.S. My theory is emotions depend on biochemicals in the body, and have no link to the spirit which is immaterial.

[Edited on 3-2-2006 by Civbert]
 
Scott,
Really, what is "like a computer"? Aren't you using an analogy right there? You are trying to describe a living being, according to some attribute, and using something from your experience to do that--a computer. Now, I don't happen to think that the chhoice is quite apt, except in a very narrow sense. I don't think God makes decisions "like a computer". GIGO, and all that.

But just reflect a moment on what you are doing, and I think you will begin to see how Scripture uses our habits, our constitution, to enable us to relate to the being of God, especially to the Person of the Father.

God's nature is habitual, but not habituated. His attitudes toward things, concepts, and people are set--fixed forever according to his decree. So in relation to the death of the Son, the Father was determined to punish sin (our sin!) in him. So it "pleased him" to do that in the crucifixion.

But also to those whose death put him there, whether actively or passively, he also directs his wrath--either toward the Christ who dies for the repentant; or themselves, the unrepentant. He is eternally and immovably habitual against sin.

At the same time the Father is eternally and immovably habitual in pleasure toward the Person of the Son. ALL the things that happened to the Son in his earthly incarnation all serve the Divinity's holy, complacent ends. The Father (with the full complacency of the Son) put the Son through every earthly humilation gladly.

Illustration: a mother may actually "automatically" pick up a rebellious child and spank them with hardly a conscious thought (thinking too much on other things the meanwhile), why? because she is habituated uncosciously to doing things in the best interest of the child. If this seems far fetched, trust me it isn't. It would happen the same way if she lanced a tender boil. And there isn't anyting wrong with it either.

Why do we think emotion is necessarily bound up in our behavior? Humans are so different from one another. Why not let God be, in the ultimate sense?

God's wrath against the unrepentant crucifiers and Christ-rejecters is explainable in terms of human emotion when we observe Jesus in Scripture "coming on the clouds" in judgment. We interpret that anthropopathically according to God's "emotive" reaction to the murder of the Son. When in actuality it is his determination to act appropriately at that time in history to vindicated his justice.
 
Jesus is an indivisible person, with two natures. And what is attributable to one nature is also attributable to the whole Person. But yes, it was according to his humanity that he felt our griefs and carried our sorrows, and not according to his divinity, which is impassible.
 
Edward Pearse wrote a great little book that Soli Deo Gloria published called "A Beam of Divine Glory." Great little book on God's immutability.

I would highly recommend it on this discussion.
 
Doesn't Islam have a doctrine along these lines (the impassibility of God)?

A student from Westminster (PA) mentioned to me once that the portion of the confession that says that God is not subject to passions (i.e. is impassible) was one of the most frequently excepted to by students and professors alike. Just a side note.
 
Chapter 2.1 of the Confession reads in part: "There is but one only living and true God, who is . . . without . . . passions. . ."

The proof text for the "without passions" clause is Acts 14:11, 15. Can you guys help me understand how Acts 14:11, 15 addresses the issue? The verses read:
11And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!"

15"Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.
Click to expand...
The "we are of like nature with you" is relevant, but it does not say that the divine nature is impassible.

Scott
 
Paul & Barnabas are appealing to the Creator/creature distinction.

The Lystrans were about to sacrifice to Paul & Barnabas as "gods". They exclaim that they aren't gods, but men--men who have the same nature/passions (homoiopatheis) as the Lystrans themselves.
 
I get that they are saying that men have the same nature and this nature differs from God. But that does not say anything about what properties that nature possesses (i.e. passions or the absence thereof).
 
Robert Shaw on the Confession

In the same manner [anthropomorphically] must we explain the several passions that are ascribed to God,"“such as anger, fury, jealousy, revenge, bowels of mercy, &c. "Passion produces a vehemence of action; so when there is, in the providences of God, such a vehemence as, according to the manner of men, would import a passion, then that passion is ascribed to God. When he punishes men for sin, he is said to be angry; when he does that by severe and redoubled strokes, he is said to be full of fury and revenge; when he punishes for idolatry, or any dishonour done to himself, he is said to be jealous; when he changes the course of his proceedings, he is said to repent; when his dispensations of providence are very gentle, and his judgments come slowly from him, he is said to have bowels. And thus all the varieties of providence come to be expressed by all that variety of passions which, among men, might give occasion to such a variety of proceeding."
Click to expand...

:scholar:
 
Originally posted by Scott
I get that they are saying that men have the same nature and this nature differs from God. But that does not say anything about what properties that nature possesses (i.e. passions or the absence thereof).
Click to expand...
I think the Greek could be read: "we are alike-impassioned as you," for homoiopatheis is one word, a substantized adjective. In other words, not simply that they have the same passions as the others, but different passions from God, but that they are impassioned like the others, and unlike God. From J.A. Alexander's commentary:
Passions ... has not its moral sense of violent affections or desires, but its physical sense of suffering ... or liability to suffering. The whole phrase means, therefore, subject to the same infirmities, partakers of the same mortal nature, with yourselves, and consequently not entitled to divine honours.
Click to expand...
From v. 15 literally: "Also we-ourselves (nom. plu., emphatic) alike-impassioned (nom. plu.) we are as you--men (nom. plu.)." A lot of nominative plurals there.

In the context, opposing their whole nature to God's, I think the passage stands as a fair proof-text.

[Edited on 3-2-2006 by Contra_Mundum]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Does God "feel" blessedness?
Replies
8
Views
3K
Afterthought
A
P
  • Locked
How does the Son "submit" to the Father?
2 3
Replies
82
Views
14K
Dachaser
D
pgwolv
  • Locked
The Father does and says all He does by His Son?
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
pgwolv
pgwolv
P
  • Locked
Does the Father grant every single petition of His son Jesus?
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
MW
M
Semper Fidelis
  • Locked
Abba! Father!
Replies
2
Views
3K
WrittenFromUtopia
W
Back
Top