The Anthropopathic God
“My heart is turned over within Me, all My compassions are kindled.” Hosea 11:8 NASB
Within – How much does God care about His children? If you struggle to find words big enough, deep enough, significant enough, you’re not alone. The message of the Bible is that God cares beyond anything that we can imagine. In fact, God’s claim that He is not like a man specifically illustrates that He loves far more than any human being can conceive. It should come as an unbelievable shock to discover that Christian theology contains a doctrine called impassibility – a doctrine that specifically claims that God not only does not feel but that He cannot feel. Why? Because feelings are transitory and God is beyond those fickle emotions associated with these temporal expressions. Then how does theology deal with passages like this one (and literally hundreds of others)? Theology has a very clever way of asserting that God logically cannot feel emotions, yet at the same time, the Bible clearly expresses God’s emotions. That trick is called anthropopathic language. Quite simply, anthropopathic language says that emotions attributed to God are only for our benefit, they don’t really describe the truth about God at all. The truth about God is found in the logic of theology, not in the rather human expressions of the Scripture. Good theology, so it’s claimed, recognizes that these emotional expressions are really smoke and mirrors, but since they serve the purpose of making us feel better, we’ll keep them around. (If you don’t believe that theologians think like this, just go ask your pastor to show you his systematic theology textbooks and look up “impassibility” or “anthropomorphic”).
Perhaps there is no more striking example of the difference between the Greek view and the Hebrew view than this. Greek philosophy’s commitment to the idea of perfection (that which logically cannot change) stands behind a great number of Christian concepts about the nature of God. But these are miles away from the Hebrew view. They are also, by nearly every believer’s actual experience, miles away from the God we know. That does seem to make a lot of difference once the Greek paradigm is firmly in place, but it is interesting to note that even the early theologians cautioned pastors not to preach about impassibility since it would be too upsetting to the congregations.
Hosea 11:8 nearly repeats the text of Lamentations 1:20. There is only one small change, but it makes a very big difference. In Lamentations, the phrase is “Zion’s heart is overthrown within (qereb) her.” Here the phrase is “My heart is overthrown against Me (‘al). The NASB translation treats qereb and ‘al alike, but this is not correct. Qereb means “in the midst, in the middle, the inner part” while ‘al means “upon, over, against, by, to, for.” Zion experiences internal alteration of heart. God experiences internal struggle of heart. You can get a real sense of the theological paradigm of your translated text by noticing how the translators handle this verse. To suggest that God struggles with His decision to continue to love in spite of all Israel’s disobedience is such a repulsive idea to the Greek mind that the translation is amended to remove this affront to the character of God. But it isn’t removed in the Hebrew text.
I am confident that believers really think God feels deeply about His children. I am confident that if we really thought impassibility were true, most of us would give up following such a god. Fortunately, most of us are not theologians. We are not lost in intractable problems inside Greek paradigms. We know God cares. He says so – and we take Him at His word. We leave the logical problems to those who struggle with meaning, for we would rather have a God who struggles with love.
Topical Index: impassibility, anthropopathic, qereb, ‘al, within, against, Hosea 11:8, Lamentations 1:20
If you are one of those who has to know how all of this happened in Christianity, I highly recommend God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience. Immutability and impassibility are only two of the many theological puzzles created by the invasion of Greek philosophy into biblical themes.
First, those theologians are nuts! The thought of an unemotional God never even crossed my mind! How bizarre! Over and over in the Bible God shows His emotions – grief, anger, joy, laughter, love. I have felt God’s hand in some incredibly difficult times, and the compassion is overwhelming. I remember one of your earlier posts where you talked about the Christian idea that God is unchanging (which, I agree, also doesn’t make sense, if you look at God’s negotiation with Abraham, and the Hebrew concept of what it means to exist). This reminds me of that.
But let me ask a question. I always just assumed that God loves us no matter what. But this seems to imply that we can mess up enough for God to decide not to love us anymore. Have I misunderstood?
-we can mess up enough for God to decide not to love us anymore. Have I misunderstood?-
Shalom Amanda..- Do you have children? Do you love your children? Have your children ever “messed up?” (have you ever “messed up?”) – I know I have. Does G-d (my Father) love me when I “mess up?” (the Bible calls this “sin.”) Yes, He does. “Everlasting Love” is not conditional. Forever Love does not last for the ten minutes or so I might “behave” myself. No. No. and no. The love of G-d is “unconditional” because G-d is love. Does G-d love sinners? Absolutely. Does G-d love saints? Positively.
Shall we then continue in sin that grace may abound? (-and the answer is??) I’ll take “obedience” for $200 please Alex..- “G-d forbid.”
As Abba’s children, (and that is who we are because of the “new birth”) do we now want to do what is pleasing unto our Father? (A wonderful indication of “ownership” by the way..). Do we (now) want to sin or live a life of obedience to the instructions of our Father? If your “inclination” is to sin- then question your relationship to the Holy ONE. G-d hates sin. So should we. Look at the damage it has caused in this world. – We don’t have very far to look- do we?
Very interesting discussion today. What is our motivation? “love.” What is His motivation? “love.”
Sin breaks the heart of G-d. -Why? Because He knows the damage sin causes- far too well..
How do I know this? Oh sister, may I show you the scars of sin? I’m covered with them! But praise His name- He has forgiven me! Oh, the deep, deep love of Jesus.. (emotionless love, of course.. -er..huh?)
That’s a good point. I can’t think of a single thing that my children would do that would make me stop loving them!
Thanks for the reminder! 🙂
I too am one to take God totally at his word and a quote from Rick Warren, also reminds us of God’s laughter — at us?! and with us.
Psalm 2:4, “The One enthroned in heaven laughs.” Isn’t that a great verse? God has a sense of humor. God laughs! Have you ever seen the face of an orangutan? God thought that one up! That proves he has a sense of humor. .. A sense of humor can preserve your sanity.
“My heart is turned over within Me, all My compassions are kindled.” Hosea 11:8 NASB
“Christian theology contains a doctrine called impassibility – a doctrine that specifically claims that God not only does not feel but that He cannot feel.”
Hmmm
Realizing that my Bible (The Jerusalem Bible) has something of a “Catholic” perspective
It says, under the subtitle: “God’s love proves stronger than his vengeance”
11:8 Ephraim, how could I part with you?
11:8 Israel, how could I give you up
11:8 How could I treat you like Admah
11:8 or deal with you like Zebolim
11:8 My heart recoils from it
11:8 my whole being trembles at the thought
That is not a purely emotional statement, because it is somewhat rational in God’s view, but it is very emotional IMO
Yes, BIBLICAL language is filled with emotional statements, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is the MEANING of those statements for the nature of God. Take a short walk through mosts systematic theologies (there are some exceptions) and you will find that the paradigm of Greek perfection (the logical unchangeableness of God) dominates the scenery from immutability to non passe peccare (you can look that one up). Impassibility is a logical consequent of strong immutability which is a logical consequent of Parmenidean perfection – adopted by Aristotle, embraced by Augustine, embellished by Boethius, confirmed by Aquinas and now the foundation of most Christian thinking that depends on the via negativa.
Scholasticism, as you rightly indicate, had some real problems, because it’s foundations were centered on the created order, not the uncreated Person. But the issue on immutability, and the other attributes, depends eventually on the same foundation that you argue for the emotions of YHWH: What saith the Scriptures? You cannot go further than what is revealed.
The interesting thing is, when it comes to our personal salvation, we all hang on the unchangeable promises of a God whom we expect speaks without error, does not change his mind, and cannot be stopped by anything in order to bring to fruition His purposes in our lives.
I could almost agree. Almost. My book, God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience, argues that Christian doctrine derived from Parmenidean perfection does not adequately distinguish strong immutability from weak immutability. Strong immutability is the view that it is logically impossible to speak of a God who changes in any aspect without violating the requirement of perfection. Perfection in this sense is defined as logically unnecessary to change. Basically, if something is perfect, anything added to it would make it no longer perfect (or would imply that it wasn’t perfect in the first place) and obviously anything subtracted from it would have the same effect. Therefore, since emotions, changes in mind, expression of personal and temporal alteration are by definition changes, they cannot be applied to God if God is perfect as defined above. This is strong immutability – and with a little reflection you can see that if this is true, any description of God that suggests any change whatsoever must be logically false. This Greek idea of perfection has dominated the theological scene for at least 1800 years and it still stands behind many contemporary Christian doctrines.
Weak immutability, however, basically rejects the Greek idea of perfection, placing emphasis on the constancy of character found in the idea of a person. I argue that this is essentially the biblical (and Hebraic) concept of God, a God who does in fact change His mind, who feels, who has a temporal flow of personal characteristics, but who does not, by choice of will, alter His covenant promises and essential character. Under this view, perfection is the expression of holiness and moral justice tempered by mercy. In other words, perfection is not static (as with Parmenides) but rather the dynamic life of God, able to fully interact with His creation without jeopardizing His divinity. God does change His mind. He does react to human will. He does feel. He does decide, calculate, remember, plan, anticipate – but none of this changes who He is – merciful, compassionate, holy, just, forgiving, etc.
Unless we carefully distinguish these two senses of immutability, we find ourselves constantly shifting back and forth – and causing theological confusion along the way.
Mal. 3:6 6 “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.”
YHVH’s promise here appears to be predicated on His unchangeableness.
Shabbat Shalom Ian,
Are you agruing for the impassibility of YHWH? YHWH will not change within the parameters of His convenant to Abraham and the continuation of His convenant to the children of Abraham! His reliability is constant and cannot be changed and will not be shaken, but within that relationship He experiences the depths (He feels) of their unfaithfulness to Him. This does not change His unchangeableness to His people, and therefore they are not consumed.
Block logic seems to be in order here. Is God unchanging? Yes! Can He change His Mind? Yes! I am not bothered by this seeming contradiction. He is God and I am not. Blessed are You, Lord God, King of the Universe, You are the Master of the seeming contradictionary and In You alone and not apart from You does it all fit perfectly together!
Be blessed brother!
Brian,
I am not arguing for impassibility. But we search for ways to “explain” or “understand” what we see in Scripture. Skip rejects anthropomorphism as an explanation. I’m waiting for his “systematic” theology where he provides an adequate alternative. 🙂
To quote Jack Nicholson: “They call that a paradox”
Memorable quotes for
The Departed
What planet are “these people” from? As I recall.. “Jesus wept.” -maybe He had something in His eye..
Have these theological geniuses (who don’t have a clue) never read- “G-d so loved?” G-d’s love is logical? Ok Spock,- if you say so.. How can anyone be compassionate (Exodus 34.6) without feeling?
-Are we saying (theologically) of course.. G-d never was a man? “He was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.”
Yeshua was (and is) the most kind-hearted, tender, compassionate, “feeling” man (or woman) that ever lived (and still lives today). May I spend ten minutes a room somewhere with “these people..”
– Know your G-d, people.. (oy!)
The issue is a bit more complicated than simply expressions of Yeshua’s HUMAN emotions. Theologians don’t deny that the human Yeshua shows emotional transitions. They simply deny (if they hold a doctrine of impassibility) that God HImself in His essence cannot feel. God is not human, therefore language which appears to be human cannot be attached to His real essence. What the Bible does is convert God’s true essence into language that human beings can understand and engage, but the LOGIC of theology (based as it is on the Greek idea of perfection) demands that such things as emotions (and a lot more – including changes of mind, temporary decisions, etc.) cannot be ascribed to God as He really is.
We (humans) are made in the image of G-d. We are (in essence) like Him. “Like Father,- like son.” We (as humans)- male or female are full of emotions, from A-Z and in some cases “beyond.” Oh my “stoic” friends!- Until we know how much the Father loves us- we will never change. Yes, G-d is unchangeable and yes, G-d is all knowing, but He is G-d- totally “other” from us. We (all) will be like Him for this He has promised, and knowing His promises always are true gives me great comfort and great joy- (a “human” emotion by the way!).
Now here is something for the theologues to chew on.. (I much prefer the simplicity of a child). G-d became a man. (check yes or no.) Yes, He did. The word became flesh, (just like me, and you, and you.) Yeshua was fully human. And when I say fully human- He was more human than any human who ever lived. He was (and is) the second Adam- as he liked to refer to Himself- the son of man. For thirty three glorious years- He dwelt among us. Ate our food, breathed our air, laughed out loud, touched folks, probably wore sandals, might have walked barefoot, had a mother, a father, worked in a carpenter shop fixing and repairing stuff, held conversations with people and lived among us. Yes, He did. Yeshua was fully human. He showed us “in the flesh”- how to “do it.” How to live. With kindness, humility, compassion- etc. This is our G-d.
G-d became a man and was born of a virgin. He was born into this world and entered into our humanity. Probably cried like a baby when he was born. -I don’t know, I wasn’t there. My question is this? If G-d became a man, (and He did)- when did become “not a man?” As far as I know (which is not very far)- He still is “a man” even today.
Lest anyone go pulling their hair out and crying “blasphemy!”- He is much more than “just a man.” He is a just man. The (only) Holy One, Son of G-d and son of man. The Lamb of G-d will be seated upon His throne and we will see Him as He is, and know (both) the Lion and the Lamb are both now seated in glorious majesty and splendor.
There will be a royal wedding in the not to distant future and I’m looking forward to having a part in it. “Good eats” will be there in abundance, and we in our “glorified” bodies will partake of a feast that will have no end. Will we be human in heaven? Yes, -only more so, for we will be like Him.
Years ago as a teenager I was struggling deeply with the idea of predestination. During this process I was reading a book by Andrew Murray ” The Believers Secret of Becoming Like Christ” it was 30 or 31 chapter devotional. He would always start each chapter with a Scripture reference, and on this particular day it was a few verses from Ephesians 1. The particular verse that jumped out to me and settled the issue of predestination, even as he chose us IN HIM before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love. This one phrase settled and brought great peace to me ‘in Him.’ Predestination can only be found in relationship to Yeshua! Everything fits together in Him!
Scripture refers to God’s emotions. Yet you refer to another idea, predestination. And all these ideas are wrapped up together in our understanding of what the Bible teaches.
But . . . a legitimate question seems to be this one: is God dependent in any way upon time, or is time the theater of the outworking of His ultimate purposes – predestination? If so, our idea of immutability is going to be determined by our understanding of God’s eternal decree.
Is man the ultimate determiner of what transpires in God’s creation, or is God?
Good morning Ian,
Thank you for your two responses. Predestination and impassibility can be aligned together. God does not arbitrarily choose, He does not stand aloof and pick one individual over the over. All of God’s working toward every individual and His whole creation flows into and out from His relationship to Yeshua, ‘In Him’, and the whole of creation awaits how each person will choose to participate in some glorious and mysterious way (whether good or evil) God’s ultimate determination to bring blessing to the nations and restoration and renewal to the whole cosmos!
Shalom Brian
‘Block Logic seems to be in order here etc..’ I totally concur with this…HE is God and HE can change his mind. We are so Greek in how we think HE is and what HE can and can’t do. Thanks
Christine
P.S. Can you or anyone else help me re translations. I have recently moved to using The Jewish Bible according to the Masoretic Text because it has the Hebrew/English ( afreind gave it as a gift) From Skip’s lectures in Genesis I got the website blueletterbible. When I go to it with a verse I have in my text there is no version for the Masoretic Text it just shows it in Hebrew. So when I look at a Hebrew word that I have it is not in the break down menu…..I hope your following this?? Is there a way to get the English (even though I have it in my bible) on this site so I can see the breakdown/phonetics etc.? I this is non understandable dont worry I guess I will figure it out eventually. But if you or Skip can help I would appreciate it.
Christine
Thank you again Skip. Your lectures actually delivered me from the confusions that invaded my heart when I was studying Systematic Theology.
In the early 80’s, before becoming a believer in Yeshua, I was deep into a religion/philosophy called Theosophy. Theosophy is a more recent version (19th century) of Gnosticism. It espoused the doctrine of impassibility. Weren’t some of the early church fathers strongly influenced by Gnosticism?
Robin,
Gnosticism was certainly a problem. But if you take a look a those early church councils that debated topics such as this, you will find that orthodoxy — correct belief defined by the creeds– was against the Gnostic view. Neo-platonism, (mind/matter, spirit/physical dichotomy) on the other hand, was a more insidious intrusion into Christian thought that was not properly eradicated, although some parts of the Protestant Reformation made some headway against these errors. Unfortunately, again, Enlightenment thought reintroduced the neo-platonic errors not only into “secular” culture but filtered into many churches as well. I hope this helps.
Good morning Skip,
Thank you for your delineation between stong and weak immutability. Most excellent!
Skip,
Just a FYI for this article, in the body of the article you reference the verse as Hosea 1:8 instead of 11:8. Was confused at first when I made it to that portion of the text and was comparing the verses you had there.
Blessings
Robert
Sorry. Missed the key.