Is God Always Happy or Joyful?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

As believers in Christ, a primary concern is to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). Thus, a grieving of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30) must be understood in the right context of Ephesians 4.

There is a distinction between the human believer and the indwelling of the Spirit in that context. Grief is the pain made to happen to other members of the body of Christ. Moreover, grief is the pain caused to the body as a whole.

Divisions, schisms, rents in the church are akin to wounds, breaking of bones, in the natural body. These things dilute the body, deface it. They bring dishonor upon Our Lord. They bring grief to the soul and the effect is to minimize the Spirit's ability to work through the person so aggrieved. Those so grieved come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, even being subject to temporal punishment.

If we are going to apply the emotion of "grief" to the Holy Spirit we must take care to maintain the distinction between the divine and the human.

God's grief is God's volitional will to withdraw the ongoing replenishment of some measure of graces and comforts upon another.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Jesus is God. Jesus wept. Therefore God has experienced weeping.

 

[Taylor]

Jesus is God. Jesus wept. Therefore God has experienced weeping.

More accurately, Jesus is the God-Man. We cannot therefore say that everything that happened to Jesus happened to God, otherwise we have have to say that God, at least for three days, actually died.

 

[RamistThomist]

Most accurately, the Divine Person is the subject of all incarnate actions.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

More accurately, Jesus is the God-Man. We cannot therefore say that everything that happened to Jesus happened to God, otherwise we have have to say that God, at least for three days, actually died.

Brother, this is a fascinating topic. Good thought. How would your comment work with images of Jesus if the two nature's are separate?

 

[Taylor]

Brother, this is a fascinating topic. Good thought. How would your comment work with images of Jesus if the two nature's are separate?

In my opinion, this idea is enough to frighten anyone out of images of Christ, second commandment notwithstanding. If Jesus is the God-Man, and the divine nature cannot (and should not) be depicted graphically, then all images of Jesus are by definition misleading and false depictions of him, since the necessarily exclude one of his natures entirely.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Are you saying the flesh is the Divine nature? If so, wouldn't that mean God wept? If not, wouldn't it be okay to make images because they are not of God, but of flesh? Thanks!

 

[Taylor]

Are you say the flesh is the Divine nature? If so, wouldn't that mean God wept? If not, wouldn't it be okay to make images because they are not of God, but of flesh? Thanks!

I’m saying that since deity cannot be depicted graphically, then depictions of Christ, since they by their nature can only depict Christ’s human nature and not his divine, are at very best misleading, showing him to be merely human.

Again, this is all notwithstanding the second commandment.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Brother, this is a fascinating topic. Good thought. How would your comment work with images of Jesus if the two nature's are separate?

How would one depict a nature in a picture? The humanity taken up (assumed) by the second Person of the Godhead was not an individuated person.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I’m saying that since deity cannot be depicted graphically, then depictions of Christ, since they by their nature can only depict Christ’s human nature and not his divine, are at very best misleading, showing him to be merely human.

Again, this is all notwithstanding the second commandment.

Would you agree that the hypostatic union of Christ entails His human nature as being God? So, plainly, is the the body of Jesus considered God as well? If Jesus was a man of sorrows, could we say God knows what sorrow is because He has experienced it? Does this make our God the sympathetic high priest we read about?

To comment a few posts back, the hymn writer says "that thou my God should die for me." Our pastor once preached a sermon that taught God died on the cross.

I see both sides of it, and it's hard to really figure out the absolute truth in this area.

 

[Grant]

Would you agree that the hypostatic union of Christ entails His human nature as being God? So, plainly, is the the body of Jesus considered God as well? If Jesus was a man of sorrows, could we say God knows what sorrow is because He has experienced it? Does this make our God the sympathetic high priest we read about?

To comment a few posts back, the hymn writer says "that thou my God should die for me." Our pastor once preached a sermon that taught God died on the cross.

I see both sides of it, and it's hard to really figure out the absolute truth in this area.

Ryan,

You may find this short article one which will satisfy your question. Hope this helps.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/it-accurate-say-god-died-cross/

For a deeper reading see Matthew Henry Commentary on John 3:13 (I bolded the text towards the end, which I think speaks most bluntly to your question:

v. 13.First, None but Christ was able to reveal to us the will of God for our salvation. Nicodemus addressed Christ as a prophet; but he must know that he is greater than all the Old-Testament prophets, for none of them had ascended into heaven. They wrote by divine inspiration, and not of their own knowledge; see ch. 1:18 . Moses ascended into the mount, but not into heaven. No man hath attained to the certain knowledge of God and heavenly things as Christ has; see Mt. 11:27 . It is not for us to send to heaven for instructions; we must wait to receive what instructions Heaven will send to us; see Prov. 30:4 ; Deu. 30:12 .Secondly, Jesus Christ is able, and fit, and every way qualified, to reveal the will of God to us; for it is he that came down from heaven and is in heaven.He had said (v. 12), How shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? Now here, 1. He gives them an instance of those heavenly things which he could tell them of, when he tells them of one that came down from heaven, and yet is the Son of man; is the Son of man, and yet is in heaven.If the regeneration of the soul of man is such a mystery, what then is the incarnation of the Son of God? These are divine and heavenly things indeed. We have here an intimation of Christ’s two distinct natures in one person: his divine nature, in which he came down from heaven; his human nature, in which he is the Son of man; and that union of those two, in that while he is the Son of man yet he is in heaven. 2. He gives them a proof of his ability to speak to them heavenly things, and to lead them into the arcana of the kingdom of heaven, by telling them, (1.) That he came down from heaven. The intercourse settled between God and man began above; the first motion towards it did not arise from this earth, but came down from heaven. We love him, and send to him, because he first loved us, and sent to us. Now this intimates, [1.] Christ’s divine nature. He that came down from heaven is certainly more than a mere man; he is the Lord from heaven, 1 Co. 15:47 . [2.] His intimate acquaintance with the divine counsels; for, coming from the court of heaven, he had been from eternity conversant with them. [3.] The manifestation of God. Under the Old Testament God’s favours to his people are expressed by his hearing from heaven (2 Chr. 7:14 ), looking from heaven (Ps. 80:14 ), speaking from heaven(Neh. 9:13 ), sending from heaven, Ps. 57:3 . But the New Testament shows us God coming down from heaven, to teach and save us. That he thus descended is an admirable mystery, for the Godhead cannot change places, nor did he bring his body from heaven; but that he thus condescendedfor our redemption is a more admirable mercy; herein he commended his love. (2.) That he is the Son of man, thatSon of man spoken of by Daniel (ch. 7:13 ), by which the Jews always understand to be meant the Messiah. Christ, in calling himself the Son of man, shows that he is the second Adam, for the first Adam was the father of man. And of all the Old-Testament titles of the Messiah he chose to make use of this, because it was most expressive of his humility, and most agreeable to his present state of humiliation. (3.) That he is in heaven. Now at this time, when he is talking with Nicodemus on earth, yet, as God, he is in heaven. The Son of man, as such, was not in heaven till his ascension; but he that was the Son of man was now, by his divine nature, every where present, and particularly in heaven. Thus the Lord of glory, as such, could not be crucified, nor could God, as such, shed his blood; yet that person who was the Lord of glory was crucified (1 Co. 2:8 ), and God purchased the church with his own blood, Acts. 20:28 . So close is the union of the two natures in one person that there is a communication of properties. He doth not say hos esti . GOD is the ho on to ourano —he that is, and heaven is the habitation of his holiness.

There is a mystery to this, but there are some clear truths we must confess.

 

[Taylor]

Would you agree that the hypostatic union of Christ entails His human nature as being God?

Absolutely not. This is Eutychianism and is heresy. Jesus is one person in two natures, "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Second Helvetic Confession:

THE DIVINE NATURE OF Christ IS NOT PASSIBLE, AND THE HUMAN NATURE IS NOT EVERYWHERE.
Therefore, we do not in any way teach that the divine nature in Christ has suffered or that Christ according to his human nature is still in this world and thus is everywhere. For neither do we think or teach that the body of Christ ceased to be a true body after his glorification, or was deified, and deified in such a way that it laid aside its properties as regards body and soul, and changed entirely into a divine nature and began to be merely one substance.​

Belgic Confession:

Article 19: The Two Natures of Christ

We believe that by being thus conceived the person of the Son has been inseparably united and joined together with human nature, in such a way that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in a single person, with each nature retaining its own distinct properties.

Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, (Heb. 7:3) filling heaven and earth.

His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature-- it has a beginning of days; it is of a finite nature and retains all that belongs to a real body. And even though he, by his resurrection, gave it immortality, that nonetheless did not change the reality of his human nature; for our salvation and resurrection depend also on the reality of his body.

But these two natures are so united together in one person that they are not even separated by his death.

So then, what he committed to his Father when he died was a real human spirit which left his body. But meanwhile his divine nature remained united with his human nature even when he was lying in the grave; and his deity never ceased to be in him, just as it was in him when he was a little child, though for a while it did not show itself as such.

These are the reasons why we confess him to be true God and true man—true God in order to conquer death by his power, and true man that he might die for us in the weakness of his flesh.​

WCF 8.7:

Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; (Heb. 9:14, 1 Pet. 3:18) 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. (Acts 20:28, John 3:13, 1 John 3:16)​

The Second Person of the Godhead is incapable of death. Per the Reformed understanding of the communication of properties, we are able to say that the Person died; but we must not say that Jesus died according to his divinity.

Spoiler: Heresies to Avoid Related to the Incarnation

Our Lord was (is) fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this mystical union (hypostatic union, together united in one distinguishable subsistence) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The mystical union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct subsistence in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct subsistences (often called persons) (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism's genus maiestaticum, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.

 

[RamistThomist]

Absolutely not. This is Eutychianism and is heresy. Jesus is one person in [you]two[/you] natures, "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence."

Right. Jesus' human nature is anhypostatic.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

It seems that I was under the wrong understanding. I do apologize. I thought the human and divine natures of Jesus were linked and inseparable. This is one of the reasons I would have said images of Jesus are wrong - because we shouldn't make an image of God.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If an image becomes a cause for us to worship the Lord, it is a violation of the second commandment. If an image does not, it is a violation of the third commandment.

 

[RamistThomist]

I thought the human and divine natures of Jesus were linked and inseparable.

They are. They are linked but not identical.

 

[Taylor]

It seems that I was under the wrong understanding. I do apologize. I thought the human and divine natures of Jesus were linked and inseparable. This is one of the reasons I would have said images of Jesus are wrong - because we shouldn't make an image of God.

Oh, no need to apologize! I wasn’t saying anything against you. You did nothing wrong. Seriously. Christology is not an easy thing. If it is any consolation, I have learned that often Trinitarian doctrine is more about what cannot be said about God than why can be said about him. It’s a difficult thing.

And you’re right. We should not make images of God. But the reason is because we by definition cannot depict God. Therefore any attempt to do so is by definition a lie about God.

 

[earl40]

Of course, there are major theologians who, as I read them, disagree with "in any way, shape, or form." Consider Vos here:

119. Is there emotion or feeling in God?

Not [you]in the sense[/you] of an intense transitory movement of emotion, something passive, whereby the will retreats into the background (compare affectus from afficere, “to be affected”). [you]Certainly[/you], however, [you]in the sense[/you] of an inner divine satisfaction that accompanies the energetic expression of His will and His power and His understanding.

—Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1: Theology Proper (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), 35.​

For Vos, there is at least some sense in which God has feeling/emotion.

In truth, I am wondering if we are defining "impassibility" and "without passions" aright. The reason I wonder this is because of a curious piece I found in Turretin in which he describes our glorified bodies as possessing impassibility:

To this immortality belongs impassiblity, by which they will be subject to no passions at all, internal or external. Not to internal because there will no longer be in them the tinder of concupiscence, no defilement of sin, no inordinate desire (pathos)—but they will be wholly pure and uncontaminated. In this sense, Paul says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven (i.e., as to their depravity or misery). Not to external either, because there will no longer be anything which can bring suffering or grief to them, for divine irradiation will keep them safe from all danger, necessity and evil. 'They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat' (Rev. 7:16). 'There shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain' (Rev. 21:4). Thus neither from without nor from within can they suffer anything; perfect health and a good state (euexia) of body will keep them free from all disease; an entire removal of all evils and the possession of all good will deliver them from all misery and danger.

—Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992-1997), 3:619.​

Is Turretin in saying this that there will be no emotion whatsoever with our glorified bodies? I doubt it. After all, just before this paragraph he defined impassibility as the "incapability of suffering."

This is one of the reasons why I offered my caution in my first comment in this thread; these discussions often get derailed simply because nobody has or even can define these kinds of terms in a way that is agreeable to everyone, not to mention yet again that we are discussion the incomprehensible nature and being of God to begin with. So everyone ends up talking past one another, at best, and, at worst, accusing each other of heresy and worshipping false gods.

So far as what Vos is saying you will notice this..."of an inner divine satisfaction that accompanies the energetic expression of His will and His power and His understanding." I would read it as God always being blessed, and in no way shape or form of being grieved from within or without. So far as us having emotions in the afterlife, I believe we will have them, though they will not be emotions that cause any suffering, as I believe Vos is pointing out here.

 

[earl40]

And some clarification of the archetypal distinction. It doesn't mean that there is a realm of knowledge forever unknown to us which we can appeal to whenever there is an issue. Its range is quite limited.

For example, when the ancient fathers said God's essence was unknowable, they were combatting a specific heresy, Eunomianism. Eunomius said that God's essence was Unbegottenness. The Cappadocians' response was twofold:

a) God's essence isn't a term like Unbegottenness.
b) In any case, we have no idea what a spiritual begetting, generation, etc., is. We just posit it for lack of a better term.

That's all Archetypal can be milked for.

This is of course you opinion in that the WCF says God is incomprehensible, and this battle is addressed in this work which is one of the books RC Sproul recommended near his death. https://www.amazon.com/All-That-God..._rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=NFZZ4415NKY4X19RCX75

I have not read it yet and from what I heard Dolezal took to task many today who are not teaching the proper, classical, biblical view of God.

If I may add we had two major thinkers here on the PB Rev. Winzer and Professor R Scott Clarke who categorically said we can not know God (in se) and they seemed to know what that meant which I believe we all would benefit to read here with a search.

 

[RamistThomist]

This is of course you opinion in that the WCF says God is incomprehensible and this battle is addressed in this work, which interesting is one of the books RC Sproul recommended near his death. https://www.amazon.com/All-That-God..._rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=NFZZ4415NKY4X19RCX75

I have not read it yet and from what I heard Dolezal took to task many today who are not teaching the proper, classical, biblical view of God.

If I may add we had two major thinkers here on the PB Rev. Winzer and Professor R Scott Clarke who categorically said we can not know God (in se) and they seemed to know what that meant which I believe we all would benefit to read here with a search.

I am not saying I can know God in se. I am saying that the category of "in se" is a metaphysical placeholder. It doesn't do anything. God's essence is simple, so that means you can't block off a realm of his essence and say, "We don't know this about God" while we know the rest about God.

As the ancient fathers state, we don't know what spiritual begetting means. Nor can our knowledge "master" God's essence.

It doesn't mean there is a realm of essence beyond essence that is "in se." God's essence is simple and doesn't allow that.

 

[Taylor]

So far as what Vos is saying you will notice this..."of an inner divine satisfaction that accompanies the energetic expression of His will and His power and His understanding." I would read it as God always being blessed, and in no way shape or form of being grieved from within or without. So far as us having emotions in the afterlife, I believe we will have them, though they will not be emotions that cause any suffering, as I believe Vos is pointing out here.

I realize this. I’m just pointing out that, at the very least, Vos is more nuanced than you have chosen to be. When asked if God has emotion or feeling, you said “not in any way, shape, or form,” yet Vos gave two different senses of answers to the questions, as well as qualifications.

 

[earl40]

I realize this. I’m just pointing out that, at the very least, Vos is more nuanced than you have chosen to be. When asked if God has emotion or feeling, you said “not in any way, shape, or form,” yet Vos gave two different senses of answers to the questions, as well as qualifications.

Calvin cuts to the chase, and I am sure Vos would agree and say that God has no emotion, in any sense, because he (Vos) is not describing emotion in your quote but an "inner divine satisfaction" ...."For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us. Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angry toward sinners. Therefore whenever we hear that God is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion in him, but rather to consider that this expression has been taken from our own human experience; because God, whenever he is exercising judgment, exhibits the appearance of one kindled and angered. So we ought not to understand anything else under the word ‘repentance’ than change of action, because men are wont by changing their action to testify that they are displeased with themselves (emphasis added)."

 

[Taylor]

Calvin cuts to the chase, and I am sure Vos would agree and say that God has no emotion, in any sense, because he (Vos) is not describing emotion in your quote but an "inner divine satisfaction" ...."For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us. Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angry toward sinners. Therefore whenever we hear that God is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion in him, but rather to consider that this expression has been taken from our own human experience; because God, whenever he is exercising judgment, exhibits the appearance of one kindled and angered. So we ought not to understand anything else under the word ‘repentance’ than change of action, because men are wont by changing their action to testify that they are displeased with themselves (emphasis added)."

The problem, though, is Vos' question and his own answer. He asks, "Is there emotion or feeling in God?" The second half of his answer says, "Certainly...in the sense."

Again, I affirm God's impossibility, but we can’t ignore Vos' clear words here.

 

[earl40]

The problem, though, is Vos' question and his own answer. He asks, "Is there emotion or feeling in God?" The second half of his answer says, "Certainly...in the sense."

Again, I affirm God's impossibility, but we can’t ignore Vos' clear words here.

I can see how you read such, though the "inner divine satisfaction" is in no way something God stirred up in Himself, in any way shape or form. To derive any satisfaction would be a denial of immutability.

In the Turretin quote you supplied earlier he is describing the physical not spiritual, and I agree many do not understand the defining of "impassibility" and "without passions" correctly.

 

[lynnie]

I find myself wondering if God actually has the most perfected and powerful emotions of which ours are but a sinful and dim reflection. Like purest love, and compassion, and wrath and so forth, in some sinless way that transcends our understanding and does not negate the impassibility of his unchanging joy and perfection and rest.

I need to go back and reread STs. It does say in Hebrews that we can draw near to the throne of grace because our great high priest can empathize with us. And that is his risen, glorified, perfection that can empathize with us. Although the dual nature maybe plays into this.

 

[earl40]

I find myself wondering if God actually has the most perfected and powerful emotions of which ours are but a sinful and dim reflection. Like purest love, and compassion, and wrath and so forth, in some sinless way that transcends our understanding and does not negate the impassibility of his unchanging joy and perfection and rest.

I need to go back and reread STs. It does say in Hebrews that we can draw near to the throne of grace because our great high priest can empathize with us. And that is his risen, glorified, perfection that can empathize with us. Although the dual nature maybe plays into this.

You bring up the great point of the human nature of Jesus is why He can empathize with us.

 

[lynnie]

What does it mean when Paul calls the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of compassion and God of all comfort? This isnt the human nature of Jesus but the Father.

Can we say that our compassion, which feels emotional, is more than God's?. No, His is purest and fullest compassion. So how much of it is semantics? Some people talk like God is a sociopath. But his lack of fallen creation humanity is not a lack of love and compassion and wrath. Is it just will and volition, in a way devoid of "feeling"? Or is it such incomprehensible feeling of purest love and holiness that we barely taste it on our best days of loving others?

I dont really know. But I tend to think his impassibility is not zero emotion, but some kind of emotion we are too fallen to barely glimpse. I wish I could articulate it better and emotion is not the right word. But God doesnt fit the definition of a criminal psychopath.

 

[py3ak]

Lynnie, the assumption that God is better than we are is always a safe one. When we deny "passions" to God, that is not in any way similar to a criminal psychopath (who, in any case, clearly do have feelings of one kind or another). But that means that it's a strawman to deny that God is a criminal psychopath. That's not the confessional contention.

Let's make a simple analogy of sense perception. Some stock of our knowledge comes through the senses. Now, we deny that God has any of these senses, because we deny that God has a body. Does that mean we are saying God is blind, deaf, and olfactorily challenged? Not a bit of it. Our own experience with our senses tells us that they are limited; we see dogs hearing things we cannot, we can't smell a sound even a little bit, and we're often mistaken in our perceptions. God's knowledge is not like that. The denial of a nose to the Lord is not a limitation of his knowledge -- it's one of the cautious ways in which we can set out the transcendent majety of God.

Blindness is a defect in humanity; so is unfeelingness. But that doesn't mean that we attribute to God more acute physical vision, or more intensely passionate feeling. God is not humanity times 10 to the 28th power. His understanding and willing don't operate under our limitations. God's complete blessedness is something more than our happiness; God's complete knowledge is something more than our perception. But that more is not just "intensified." We deny that God sees with an eye, but we do not question his knowledge; and we deny that God has passions, without undermining the glory of his mercy or the completeness of his blessedness.