OT scholars and impassibility

[Timotheos]

I recently saw a RB who is not for the doctrine of divine impassibility argue that he had never heard of an OT scholar who held to the view.

I'd like to hear our resident OT scholars here weigh in on this matter. @iainduguid or others here that might consider themselves as proficient in the field of OT scholarship.

 

[greenbaggins]

I wouldn't say that I am proficient yet, since I am still working on my OT Ph.D., but I certainly hold to the doctrine of divine impassibility. The Bible speaks anthropomorphically all the time. God cannot change, which means He does not react to us. The thing that changes is our relationship to Him, and us in the process.

 

[RamistThomist]

Some do, some don't. There is no official guild of OT scholars. In the early to mid 20th century there was an overreaction to perceived Hellenisms in the early church. As a result, you couldn't predicate to God anything that smacked of Greek philosophy.

That was unfortunate for many reasons:
(1) Some Greek categories, like essence or nature, are inevitable, and God has an essence.
(2) The overreaction to the prior overreaction tended to baptize thinkers like Aristotle.
(3) God doesn't change, but what does that mean?
(3.1) Does God's essence come into contact with any mutability?
(3.2) Or does it simply mean that God doesn't change his essence?

3.2 is certainly correct.

 

[Timotheos]

I wouldn't say that I am proficient yet, since I am still working on my OT Ph.D., but I certainly hold to the doctrine of divine impassibility. The Bible speaks anthropomorphically all the time. God cannot change, which means He does not react to us. The thing that changes is our relationship to Him, and us in the process.

Lane, you are certainly one of the up and coming guys I was hoping would speak up. Thanks!

 

[Taylor]

I wouldn't say that I am proficient yet, since I am still working on my OT Ph.D., but I certainly hold to the doctrine of divine impassibility. The Bible speaks anthropomorphically all the time. God cannot change, which means He does not react to us. The thing that changes is our relationship to Him, and us in the process.

Isn't Vos a good reference for this topic, especially in this instance since he himself had a PhD in Semitic studies (if I remember correctly)? I seem to recall a Reformed Forum devoted to Vos and creation that spoke also to this issue.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I recently saw a RB who is not for the doctrine of divine impassibility argue that he had never heard of an OT scholar who held to the view.

If we only subscribe to the things coming out of OT departments Christianity would be brought to a swift end.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Isn't Vos a good reference for this topic, especially in this instance since he himself had a PhD in Semitic studies (if I remember correctly)? I seem to recall a Reformed Forum devoted to Vos and creation that spoke also to this issue.

I don't have Vos' Reformed Dogmatics, but his good friend Bavinck has a solid, confessional discussion on this in his Reformed Dogmatics volume 2, part 2.

One of the fullest confessional treatments of this subject that I am aware of is "Confessing the Impassible God: The Biblical, Classical, & Confessional Doctrine of Divine Impassibility". See https://www.rbap.net/our-books/conf...onfessional-doctrine-of-divine-impassibility/

 

[jwright82]

I wouldn't say that I am proficient yet, since I am still working on my OT Ph.D., but I certainly hold to the doctrine of divine impassibility. The Bible speaks anthropomorphically all the time. God cannot change, which means He does not react to us. The thing that changes is our relationship to Him, and us in the process.

Now your just bragging Lane . I look forward to reading it whenever it's published.

 

[iainduguid]

I recently saw a RB who is not for the doctrine of divine impassibility argue that he had never heard of an OT scholar who held to the view.

I'd like to hear our resident OT scholars here weigh in on this matter. @iainduguid or others here that might consider themselves as proficient in the field of OT scholarship.

Since you asked, I believe in the doctrine of divine simplicity, hopefully in classical form (as in the Westminster Standards). There is an unfortunate tendency among Biblical scholars to denigrate the work of systematic theologians; Vos provides a better pathway in his introductory lecture at Princeton, where he sees Systematic Theology as gathering the fruits of Exegetical Theology and organizing them into a coherent (usually topical) format. I'm not a Systematic Theologian myself (as Vos of course was), but I've learned much from my brothers who work in that field.

 

[jwright82]

Now your just bragging Lane . I look forward to reading it whenever it's published.

For the record I tried to put a smiley face in there, to indicate I'm joking but it didn't go for some reason. I loved you on Reformed Forum Lane, good stuff on FV.

 

[greenbaggins]

James, I assumed you were being facetious.

 

[Ed Walsh]

God cannot change, which means He does not react to us. The thing that changes is our relationship to Him, and us in the process.

I guess I have been too embarrassed to ask the following questions, but, here goes.

How does the glorified God/Man Jesus fit into the impassibility scheme? Isn't Jesus eternal God? Did he lose His emotions (human nature) when He ascended? Do not all three Persons share each other's attributes completely? I could go on, but you get the drift. The next sentence is for rhetorical effect so please resist calling me a heretic for I know this can't be true. It almost seems that we need to modify the definition of God. There, I said it. Did something happen during the following state changes of Christ?

Revelation 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.​

Here's what seems to be a similar passage. I decided not to comment on what I think it teaches before I hear some answers to my other thoughts.

John 12:23-24
"The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."​

These are the kind of questions I used to write to Patrick about.

 

[earl40]

I guess I have been too embarrassed to ask the following questions, but, here goes.

How does the glorified God/Man Jesus fit into the impassibility scheme? Isn't Jesus eternal God? Did he lose His emotions (human nature) when He ascended? Do not all three Persons share each other's attributes completely?

What we can say about Jesus is that He has 2 natures, and according to His divine nature He does not change, but according to the human nature he did and does. So in the incarnation He took upon a human nature, while retaining His divine nature which is now and then impassible.

PS. I believe this is a subject that most today, even in the reformed world misunderstand. Ask anybody you know at your church if God in the divine nature, has emotions or gets angry.

 

[greenbaggins]

Ed, the parameters for Reformed discussion about the person of Christ are as follows:

1. What can be said about either nature (human or divine) can be said about the person as a whole (the unity of the natures).

2. What can be said about one nature does not transfer to the other nature (the distinction of the natures).

3. The hypostatic union between human and divine natures is what makes this work.

4. God the second person added a full human nature to his divine nature.

5. What is true of one nature can be said of the person as a whole, who can then be spoken of by virtue of the other nature (as in "God purchased the church with his own blood.").

6. God himself does not change, but the God-man certainly does. He grew in wisdom and understanding and stature. He obtained the glorified state for his people. Jesus remains fully human and fully divine in the glorified state. This does not necessitate any change in our definition of God, only a recognition that the God-man can change.

 

[Timotheos]

I guess I have been too embarrassed to ask the following questions, but, here goes.

How does the glorified God/Man Jesus fit into the impassibility scheme? Isn't Jesus eternal God? Did he lose His emotions (human nature) when He ascended? Do not all three Persons share each other's attributes completely? I could go on, but you get the drift. The next sentence is for rhetorical effect so please resist calling me a heretic for I know this can't be true. It almost seems that we need to modify the definition of God. There, I said it. Did something happen during the following state changes of Christ?

Revelation 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.​

Here's what seems to be a similar passage. I decided not to comment on what I think it teaches before I hear some answers to my other thoughts.

John 12:23-24
"The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."​

These are the kind of questions I used to write to Patrick about.

I would recommend reading some church fathers on this, like Athanasius. The Arians tried to use impassibility of the Son against the Nicene view. Athanasius threw it back at them.

 

[RamistThomist]

Person and nature aren't the same thing.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Person and nature aren't the same thing.

I know. Linke in—Man's nature is sinful, but only persons sin, Right?

Like your new avatar. You captured Tucker in one of his many puzzled moments of unbelief in the left's lunacy.

 

[RamistThomist]

I know. Linke in—Man's nature is sinful, but only persons sin, Right?

Sort of. Jesus' divine person is impassible because his divine nature doesn't change. His human nature could certainly experience things.

Also, passions in the ancient world were like vices and maggots in meat. That's why all of the fathers were so anxious to deny passions to God.

Like your new avatar. You captured Tucker in one of his many puzzled moments of unbelief in the left's lunacy.

I actually think it is his default facial expression.

 

[User20004000]

Jesus' divine person is impassible because his divine nature doesn't change.

Cannot agree with that construct.

1. We may properly speak in the possessive sense of Jesus’ human nature and Jesus’ divine nature because the person Jesus possesses both. But to speak of “Jesus’ divine person” it is at best confusing. Reason being, unlike two *natures* which the person of Jesus possesses, Jesus does not possess a divine person. Rather, he is a divine person.

2. If we were to speak of “Jesus’ divine person” (albeit confusing) then we should be speaking of the divine-person of Jesus Christ, who is the God-man, who can change in his human nature. (As Lane noted above.)