St. Ignatius of Antioch affirms that in the Incarnation God took on the ability to suffer.
Suffering does not diminish love but indeed can increase it.
God’s love is perfect. All of reality is an example of that perfect, gratuitous, overflowing love. It doesn’t increase because He suffered. That sounds like God was impoverished or incomplete. Again, God’s nature is impassible but the person of Christ can suffer due to the hypostatic union.
For Ignatius:
Ephesians 7:2 There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible — even Jesus Christ our Lord.
Polycarp 3:2 “Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes.”
Jesus was able to suffer in the flesh. Mary (passible). God (impassible). Notice the pairs. Nowhere does Ignatius claim God’s nature could suffer. He rightly affirms the impassible nature of God as do the other earliest Christians and our creeds. He may not have the full language of Chalcedon but the two natures is there (flash/spirit, made/notmade, Mary/God, passible/impassible).
I think Ignatius supports my view. Graham (ibid):
Moltmann misjudges the historical character of the doctrine, however. In fact, affirming divine impassibility helped the early Christians to define God against Greek notions of divinity. For the Greeks, the gods were full of passion and lawlessness (so Aristides, Apol. 7.1). They had bodies like we do. They committed adultery. They killed. They exploited.
God is not like the gods of the Greeks. According to Scripture, God is Spirit, and so he does not follow the passions of the body. He does not get tired and weak. He does not get angry because he is hungry. He does not have hormones that make his mood change. He is utterly unlike the false gods. And he is so because he is impassible.
Here is Aristides 1:2 (Apology ca 125)
I say, then, that God is not born, not made, an ever-abiding nature without beginning and without end, **immortal, perfect, and incomprehensible. Now when I say that he is perfect, this means that there is not in him any defect, and he is not in need of anything but all things are in need of him. And when I say that he is without beginning, this means that everything which has beginning has also an end, and that which has an end may be brought to an end. He has no name, for everything which has a name is kindred to things created. Form he has none, nor yet any union of members; for whatsoever possesses these is kindred to things fashioned. He is neither male nor female. The heavens do not limit him, but the heavens and all things, visible and invisible, receive their bounds from him. Adversary he has none, for there exists not any stronger than he. Wrath and indignation he possesses not, for there is nothing which is able to stand against him. Ignorance and forgetfulness are not in his nature, for he is altogether wisdom and understanding; and in Him stands fast all that exists. He requires not sacrifice and libation, nor even one of things visible; He requires not anything from any, but all living creatures stand in need of him.
You can see in Justin Matyr (ca. 150) extremely clearly what Graham was talking about:
And, secondly, because we — who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or Æsculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods — have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impassible God; of whom we are persuaded that never was he goaded by lust of Antiope, or such other women, or of Ganymede, nor was rescued by that hundred-handed giant whose aid was obtained through Thetis, nor was anxious on this account that her son Achilles should destroy many of the Greeks because of his concubine Briseis. Those who believe these things we pity, and those who invented them we know to be devils.
As noted already, this also shows up as early as the 90s in idiom form. Graham:
The letter to Diognetus, written sometime in the 100s, likewise speaks of God without anger (ἀόργητος; Diag. 8:8). In his idiom, to be without anger means something similar to impassible. The same is true for Clement of Rome who wrote sometime in the 90s and could affirm without qualification: “Let us note how free from anger (ἀόργητος) he is toward all his creation” (1 Clem 19:3).
Irenaeus in Against Heresis book 2:
- These things may properly be said to hold good in men, since they are compound by nature, and consist of a body and a soul. But those who affirm that Ennœa was sent forth from God, and Nous from Ennœa, and then, in succession, Logos from these, are, in the first place, to be blamed as having improperly used these productions; and, in the next place, as describing the affections, and passions, and mental tendencies of men, while they [thus prove themselves] ignorant of God. By their manner of speaking, they ascribe those things which apply to men to the Father of all, whom they also declare to be unknown to all; and they deny that He himself made the world, to guard against attributing want of power to Him; while, at the same time, they endow Him with human affections and passions. But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men. Isaiah 55:8 For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good— even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God.
- He is, however, above [all] these properties, and therefore indescribable. For He may well and properly be called an Understanding which comprehends all things, but He is not [on that account] like the understanding of men; and He may most properly be termed Light, but He is nothing like that light with which we are acquainted. And so, in all other particulars, the Father of all is in no degree similar to human weakness. He is spoken of in these terms according to the love [we bear Him]; but in point of greatness, our thoughts regarding Him transcend these expressions. If then, even in the case of human beings, understanding itself does not arise from emission, nor is that intelligence which produces other things separated from the living man, while its motions and affections come into manifestation, much more will the mind of God, who is all understanding, never by any means be separated from Himself; nor can anything [in His case] be produced as if by a different Being.
Book 2 ch 12:
- We may remark, in the first place, regarding their Triacontad, that the whole of it marvellously falls to ruin on both sides, that is, both as respects defect and excess. They say that to indicate it the Lord came to be baptized at the age of thirty years. But this assertion really amounts to a manifest subversion of their entire argument. As to defect, this happens as follows: first of all, because they reckon the Propator among the other Æons. For the Father of all ought not to be counted with other productions; He who was not produced with that which was produced; He who was unbegotten with that which was born; He whom no one comprehends with that which is comprehended by Him, and who is on this account [Himself] incomprehensible; and He who is without figure with that which has a definite shape. For inasmuch as He is superior to the rest, He ought not to be numbered with them, and that so that He who is impassible and not in error should be reckoned with an Æon subject to passion, and actually in error.
These Christians were combatting the Greek pantheon.
Book 3 Chap 19:
- For as He became man in order to undergo temptation, so also was He the Word that He might be glorified; the Word remaining quiescent, that He might be capable of being tempted, dishonoured, crucified, and of suffering death, but the human nature being swallowed up in it (the divine), when it conquered, and endured [without yielding], and performed acts of kindness, and rose again, and was received up [into heaven]. He therefore, the Son of God, our Lord, being the Word of the Father, and the Son of man, since He had a generation as to His human nature from Mary — who was descended from mankind, and who was herself a human being — was made the Son of man.
See also Tertullian 3.16 (Against Macron) and also Origen (1st Prin, 2.4.4)
Apostolic Christianity (those fathers who safeguarded, defended and championed apostolic teachings and writings) in the late 1st and 2nd century is classical Christianity. We can also look to numerous scriptures as well Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17, Numbers 23:19, Psalm 102:27 etc.
Vinnie
Okay, I’ll accept your first sentence here. Your second is straight up wrong.
No, and I don’t think “that’s the point.”
Your second clause simply does not logically follow from the first. You’re just repeating your claim without saying why. WHY does the ability to suffer necessitate contingency?
I didn’t say “biblical construct.” I said “extra-biblical construct.” Constructs that are secondary to the Bible—which does not make the Bible a “construct.” You say it is. Okay, I can grant that point. That does not equate scripture, such that it is, with that which is not scripture—extra-biblical constructs. I find it very strange that “one cannot understand scripture without the correct metaphysic.” How many people you think have been excluded from correct understanding, being denied the appropriate metaphysic? Historically?
I would suggest that the Jewish approach is “superior,” because it’s relational. A more analytical (I would argue “Greek”) approach to scripture, a philosophical approach reduces God to “the Ground of Being,” denying his Personhood. I believe God is primarily Person—someone to whom we relate. Not merely a conceptual foundation for being. I’ll appeal to Abraham Heschel:
“The Greeks learned in order to comprehend. The Hebrews learned in order to revere. The modern man learns in order to use.”
As per Iain McGilchrist, our human brains have two modes of attention, roughly based in the left and right hemispheres. The left is concerned with using, grasping, manipulating, detail, categorization, etc., whereas the right hemisphere is more interested in a gestalt—not just trees, but a forest, not just body parts, but a person.
I see the Greek framework as correlating with the left hemisphere—grasping, understanding, knowing about; the Jewish framework with the right—knowing…even knowing beyond the ability to define.
Interestingly, I see this also corresponding to Martin Buber’s I-It vs. I-Thou (the philosophy preceded the neuroscientific discovery; go figure).
See, and that’s what I find odd. We derive metaphysical concepts “out of scripture,” and then we subject our scriptural analysis to this derived system. Again, I appeal to Bauckham—God is revealed relationally: creator, covenant-maker, redeemer, etc. All of that before “the omnis.” You have to proof-text the omnis. I’m not sure that’s a legitimate move. I’m not appealing to literalism, but a more narrative approach.
Interestingly, the right hemisphere of the brain is a little short on vocabulary (primarily the domain of the left-hemisphere); it relies on metaphor and narrative to “communicate.” But the left hemisphere, ever the specialist, insists on explaining the metaphor; like a joke, once explained, it loses its power.
Further, yes, philosophical, analytical approaches are legitimate—but they’re secondary, the work of the “specialist.” The left hemisphere is the specialist; the right is the generalist. And the generalist always values the work of the specialist, but the reverse is not true.
Correct. And what really matters? Grasping the truth? Or knowing the Truth (a Person)?
And here is precisely the problem. IF you define God first with the “omnis,” then you run into this problem. But the Bible doesn’t do that. Even if you accept Jesus as omniscient (I don’t, not least because of Luke 2:52), he is absolutely not omnipresent. Not prior to his ascension, anyway.
But if you don’t “start with the ‘omnis’” but from a Jewish perspective, then incarnation and kenosis actually make sense without becoming unnecessarily paradoxical.
Were Jesus and his disciples “properly informed”? Did they believe “exactly what the Creeds describe”?
That’s a misrepresentation of “come to opposite conclusions.” That’s not mere disagreement or quibbling.
Of course. I’m suggesting that the better starting point is God’s self-revelation, not a metaphysic that’s not explicitly in scripture (not that God can’t work through that to reach people). The model is not the thing. The map is not the territory. The left hemisphere creates a mental model—it “re-prresents reality,” and then squeezes out what doesn’t fit. The right hemisphere engages with reality as it is. Left hemisphere: map of the ocean. Right hemisphere: getting your feet wet.
I know my wife. And I know something about her. But my “knowing her” is more than my knowing about her (e.g., BMI, total cell count, etc.). She’s just behind me. In the kitchen. We just completed a walk around the block before the rain falls. We talked about all kinds of things…plans for tomorrow, responsibilities, engaged with a neighbour, looked around at the neighborhood, etc. We were “being together.” But I don’t know how many steps she added to her daily count.
Ah, here we go. If you don’t mean “love,” then use a different word.
I would suggest that we know love at all because God loves. It starts with him. We love because he first loved us. Not that “our kind of love is so different from God’s that human love” (or God’s love) needs a completely different word. And no, love is not “a fluctuating emotional state.” Tell that to an exhausted mother with a sick child.
I actually explicitly said that love flows within the Trinity, if I remember correctly. This is again a problem with a metaphysical (“omni”) starting point that posits that perfection is unchanging. Why? Love expands. God created, not out of need, but out of love. If God’s self-sufficiency is the sum of his being, why create at all? Another paradox. But if his fundamental characteristic is love, then creation is almost inevitable.
You have yet to demonstrate clearly how a suffering God is contingent. The Bible (not a systematic theology) does not posit God as a “prime mover” or “ground of being” but a self-sufficient Person who loves self-sacrificially, one who self-empties (kenosis), not just as demonstration of his love, but demonstration of his very being. That’s straight from scripture; it doesn’t emerge from any derived (and then imposed?) philosophy, metaphysic, or systematic theology.
Love’n it! And that quote is going straight into my “quotes file” to end up on top of my ‘weekly quote’ series at the top of the board at school.