Beware of Trick Questions!

Reformed churches and the Roman Catholic Church both teach that Jesus is Impassible. But is that true, since Jesus felt the agony of suffering the "passion" on the cross?

Today is a day for trick questions. First of all, a mild warning: you will not get a clear picture of the points here until you read to the end of the article.

Question: Is it accurate or not to say, "Mary is the mother of God"? (theotokos in Greek)

your answer: ________________________________

No pressure, but the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. kicked out of the church all would not say that.

A simple way to answer this: let's just be an echo of what Scripture teaches and don't go beyond it. Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is God with us (Mt 1:23).

God is Almighty, and God can do almost anything (except lie, be tempted by evil, or deny Himself.) But God cannot do a "thing" if it is not a real "thing", but a logical contradiction. So the Almighty cannot make an object He cannot life. So, while affirming that God is Almighty, we can respectfully ask the following questions, which can be a "no" if it is not a real thing, or "yes".

a) Could the True God ever have any passions, emotions, or moods? Could God suffer?

your answer: ________________________________

b) Let me ask a slightly different question: is it possible for God to have a human body, have the emotions of hunger and thirst, and is it possible for God to die? Is it possible for God to rise from the dead?

your answer: ________________________________

If you say "no" to all of that, then are you denying that Jesus is God?

The Westminster Confession

Is it accurate to say, as the Westminster Confession does, that God is "without body, parts or passions"? This sounds sort of like the question "Is Mary the mother of God." In both questions there is some truth presented in a misleading way. "No", Mary is not the mother of the Trinity, but "Yes" Mary is the mother of God the Son. Similarly, leaving aside questions on the visions of Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1:26-28; 8:2-3, "No" the Holy Spirit does not have a body or parts, but "Yes" Jesus did and does have a body and parts (head, neck, arms, legs, etc.) But what about passion? The Father, Son, and Spirit are never emotionally out of control, but do they have emotions, even strong emotions, like wrath? If God can have emotions, they don't have to be exactly like our emotions. In fact, some human emotions, like shame, embarrassment, and lust, God does not have at all.

What Does Scripture Say Jesus Felt?

Jesus had, and still has, two natures: fully God and fully man. But there are not two Jesus', only one Jesus with only one will. (Jesus did not have two wills as the heresy of Nestorianism taught.)

So on earth, our Lord, God the Son,

Died: It is a of first importance that we believe Christ died for our sins. (1 Cor 15:3) Many other scriptures also say that Christ died Mt 17:23; Jn 12:33; 18:32; Acts 2:23; Rom 5:6-8,16; 6:10; 14:9 2 Cor 5:14-15, Gal 2:21, Heb 2:9; Rev 1:18; 2:8;

Rose from the dead (not just rose): Luke 24:46; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; 1 Th 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 1:21

Real physical body: Jesus, after His resurrection, had a real, physical, glorified body. Luke 24:39; John 20:27

Really experienced suffering: Isa 53:3,11; Mt 8:31; 9:12; 17:12; Lk 9:22; 17:25; 22:15; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23; Php 3:10; Heb 2:9-10,18; 5:8; 13:12; 1 Pet 1:11; 2:21,23; 3:18; 4:1 (FYI, Monophysites/Copts tend to downplay this aspect.)

Jesus experienced the feeling of hunger: Mt 4:2; 21:18; Mk 11:12; Lk 4:2. If Jesus did not experience the discomfort of hunger, then one of the temptations mentioned in the wilderness was fake.

Jesus experienced the feeling of thirst: Ps 69:21; Jn 19:28

Jesus wept: Lk 11:33-35

Jesus's was troubled and greatly distressed, and His soul experience exceeding sorrow: Mt 26:38; Mk 14:33-34

In fact, Jesus was "in agony": Lk 22:44

Jesus experienced a mood of sorrow over Jerusalem: Mt 23:37-39

Jesus felt great desire (to eat the Passover with His disciples): Lk 22:15

Jesus felt joy in His spirit: Lk 10:21; Heb 12:2

So, did our God experience these emotions, endure suffering? Praise God that He did, for our sakes!

I did not count love here, because love can be a decision, intentions, and actions as well as emotions.

Not only did Jesus have emotion, but Jesus' crucifixion is called "the passion". It is not a sexual passion, but the emotions and pain Jesu felt were probably much stronger than any other human has ever felt.

Did Jesus lose his humanity when He ascended to Heaven? No. Hebrews 13:8 says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (NKJV)

When Jesus physically returns in the clouds, He will have a physical body. Acts 1:11; Rev 19:11-16

Maybe the Westminster Confession is OK After All

Before castigating the Westminster Confession as teaching error about God, consider a definition you put on a word might not have been the original intent. I would explain this, except I don't think I can explain it any better than William Tate did below The following is the entire short article, quoted verbatim from ThirdMill.org, a reformed organization at https://thirdmill.org/newfiles/wil_tate/wil_tate.impassibilty.html.

ReformedPerspectives Magazine Volume 9, Number 45, November 4 to November 10, 2007

The Affirmation that God is "Without…Passions"

By William Tate

Although they produced an English document, the theologians who prepared The Westminster Confession of Faith had all been educated as Latinists, and their English word choices sometimes follow, more or less closely, Latin originals. The meanings of words derive from usage more than from meaning, with the result that careless etymologizing can be misleading. Nevertheless, when such words occur, it can be helpful for readers less familiar with Latin to consider the shared etymologies of cognate words as a means of gaining understanding.

The first paragraph of the second chapter of The Westminster Confession of Faith includes in a list of attributes of God an affirmation of what traditionally has been called God's "impassibility," the teaching that God is "without…passions." This doctrine needs to be carefully explained because, due largely to the influence of the Greek philosophical tradition, it has often been misunderstood. Thinkers within the Christian tradition have sometimes shown a tendency to coalesce their understanding of the God of scripture with Aristotle's idea of a "prime mover" of the universe. According to this tradition, for God to be moved by something else implies that he is controlled by something else; but if He is controlled by something else, then that something else is higher than God, which is, by definition, impossible. It helps to remember here that "to move," "motive," and "emotion" are cognate words; when something "moves" us, it stirs our emotions—or becomes a "motive," a force to put us in motion. We don't make these connections in our everyday use of these words, but we need to notice them to understand the tradition. On this understanding of the terms, God cannot be moved. And therefore, on this understanding of the terms, God must not have "emotions" or "motives"—forces which control Him. When the tradition denies that God can be moved, it means that nothing greater than God controls God; God is entirely free, entirely self-sufficient, entirely self-governing. With this sense in mind, we can appropriately recognize that to say that God is motiveless emphatically does not mean that He has no purpose.

Similarly, most modern ears hear "without passions" as synonymous with "emotionless," meaning something like "without feeling," and again it's important to understand the terminology. Both "passion" and "impassibility" are related to the word "passive." In the tradition, "active" is the opposite of "passive;" an "agent" (cognate with "active") is one who acts, a "patient" (cognate with "passive" and "passion") is one who is acted upon. To be passionate in this sense is to be controlled by forces (including what we now think of as emotions) stronger than our wills; to be a patient is to be governed by the will of another. But God's will cannot be overruled; He will not be ruled by another. To say that God is "without passion," therefore, properly means that God is not passive, not acted upon or overruled by any other power or influence; He is the Supreme Free Agent; all of His actions are free; none of His actions is constrained.

To say that God is "without passion" should not be understood as a denial that God feels or a denial that He has emotions in something like—though also different from—our usual sense of the word. Scripture clearly affirms that God feels love, compassion, pity, hatred, and anger. Because our emotions are unreliable, inconsistent, and always affected (or infected) by our sinfulness and fallibility, our experience of emotion is only a very imperfect indicator of God's experience. For example, when we feel hatred, it tends to overrule our feelings of love, so that we don't fully experience both at the same time, we experience both as fluctuations, and we register our emotions as changeable.

Because God is whole and holy, His love, compassion, pity, hatred, and anger are perfect and can co-exist and endure in Him in a way that is impossible for us. In fact, it might be more correct to say that these are in God a single indistinguishable "emotion" which is essentially co-extensive with His will. Affirmation of God's impassibility underscores God's unchangeability. That God feels (in some sense) does not imply in Him, as it does in us, inconsistency or inconstancy. To affirm that God doesn't change is to affirm that He is always faithful to Himself, though from our (limited and fallen—and historical!) human perspective, to talk about what God does means to use the language of change.

Notes:

1. "Supreme being," another phrase from the philosophical tradition which has been absorbed by Christianity, points to this definition: God must be the highest being—if anything else controls or limits God, then that being is really "supreme" or "superior" and must therefore be God.

Conclusion

Is God, or Jesus, "impassible"? This is a trick question, because impassible could be defined as without the ability to suffer pain, or it could mean without the ability to feel any emotions at all.

To give a short answer to "Is God without body, parts, or passions?" my answer is: Jesus is Lord and God! So Yes, Jesus did in fact, have and still has, a body, with parts, and emotions, though no overwhelming passions to control Him. When Jesus came to earth, Jesus experienced what we experience because He was like us, except without sin (Heb 2:17 + Heb 4:15). Jesus could not be in agony or suffer in heaven, but Jesus voluntarily choose to come to earth and endure those things for our sake.

Yet, one additional question remains. Does God the Father, the Holy spirit, or Jesus before His mysterious incarnation, fell emotions? That is the topic of the next paper.

Appendix: Early Christians Taught the Jesus was impassible, but became passible and suffered

Early Christians generally appeared to define "passible" as not capable of passion or suffering. They taught the paradox that Jesus in heaven is impassible, but when He condescended to come to earth Jesus became passible and suffered. (Clement of Alexandria is an exception though.)

If passible is defined as "not capable of suffering", then this is correct.

Ignatius of Antioch (-107/116 A.D.) (mixed) "Weigh carefully the times. 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." Epistle to the Smyrnaeans ch.3 p.94

Ignatius of Antioch (-107/116 A.D.) "look for Him that is above the times, Him who has no times, Him who is invisible, Him who for our sakes became visible, Him who is impalpable, Him who is impassable, Him who for our sakes suffered, him who endured everything in every form for our sakes." Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp ch.3 p.99

Melito of Sardis (170-177/180 A.D.) says that God is impassable, but the impassible suffered but did not avenge, the immortal died, but answered not a word. Discourse on the Soul and Body p.756.

Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) (implied) "In this manner, therefore, did they also see the Son of God as a man conversant with men, while they prophesied what was to happen, saying the He who was not come as yet was present; proclaiming also the impassible as subject to suffering, and declaring that He who was then in heaven had descended into the dust of death." Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.20.8 p.490

Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) (partial) says the Gnostics were wrong to teach that the Superior Savior was not really killed since He was impassible. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.12.6 p.432

Clement of Alexandria (193-202 A.D.) refers to Jesus, who while still in the body, enjoyed "impassability and tranquility of soul." Stromata book 4 ch.7 p.419

Hippolytus of Portus (222-235/236 A.D.) "And He (was) clothed in a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called the Word of God."(2) See then, brethren, how the vesture sprinkled with blood denoted in symbol the flesh, through which the impassible Word of God came under suffering, as also the prophets testify to me. For thus speaks the blessed Micah: "The house of Jacob provoked the Spirit of the Lord to anger. These are their pursuits. Are not His words good with them, and do they walk rightly? And they have risen up in enmity against His countenance of peace, and they have stripped off His glory."(3) That means His suffering in the flesh." Against the Heresy of One Noetus ch.15 p.229

Hippolytus of Portus (222-235/236 A.D.) "For the divine is just the same after the incarnation that it was before the incarnation; in its essence infinite, illimitable, impassible, incomparable, unchangeable, inconvertable, self-potent, and, in short, subsisting in essence alone the infinitely worthy good." Fragment1 p.232

Origen (225-253/254 A.D.) "And great is the crowd without to whom the Word of God goes out, and, having poured out upon it the light of His ‘visitation,' beholds it; and, seeing that they were rather deserving of being pitied, because they were in such circumstances, as a lover of men He who was impassible suffered the emotion of pity, and not only had pity but healed their sick, who had sicknesses diverse and of every kind arising from their wickedness." Commentary on Matthew book 10 ch.23 p.430

Novatian (254/4-256/7 A.D.) "For if Scripture were to set forth that Christ is God only, and that there was no association of human weakness mingled in His nature, this intricate argument of theirs might reasonably avail something. If Christ is God, and Christ died, then God died. But when Scripture determines, as we have frequently shown, that He is not only God, but man also, it follows that what is immortal may be held to have remained uncorrupted. For who cannot understand that the divinity is impassible, although the human weakness is liable to suffering? When, therefore, Christ is understood to be mingled and associated as well of that which God is, as of that which man is--for "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us"--who cannot easily apprehend of himself, without any teacher and interpreter, that it was not that in Christ that died which is God, but that in Him died which is man?" Concerning the Trinity ch.25 p.636

Dionysius of Alexandria (246-265 A.D.) (mixed) "For the turned wine indicated very well the quick turning and change which He sustained, when He passed from His passion to impassibility, and from death to deathlessness, and from the position of one judged to that of one judging, and from subjection under the despot's power to the exercise of kingly dominion." The Gospel According to Luke ch.42 p.115 … "And accordingly, as by the intensity of the supplication and the severe agony, so also by the dense and excessive sweat [int eh garden], he made the facts patent, that the Saviour was man by nature and in reality, and not in mere semblance and appearance, and that He was subject to all the innocent sensibilities natural to men." Ibid ch.44 p.115

Adamantius (c.300 A.D.) "Nor is the fire, when cut by a sword, divided, for the dense flame runs back on itself and remains indivisible. If, then, material substances exert their strength against other substances and cannot be consumed, much more surely did the Word of God, being of an impassible and unchangeable nature, remain impassible, and absorbed the sufferings." Dialogue on the True Faith in God Fifth Part 8d-e p.158.

Adamantius (c.300 A.D.) calls Christ the "Word of God" "The Word of God experiences some passion if the Godhead feels shame. … Because you stated that it is shame to say that the Word assumed flesh. But the Godhead does not feel shame; it does not grasp at glory; nor does it experience desire. These things are passions, but the godhead is not susceptible to passions." (Adamantius is speaking) Dialogue on the True Faith Fourth Part d14 p.144-145.

Methodius (270-311/312 A.D.) "Wherefore for this cause the Son of God was in the manhood enclosed, because this was not impossible to Him. For with power He suffered, remaining impassible; and He died, bestowing the gift of immortality upon mortals." Homily on the Cross and Passion of Christ Fragment 3 p.400

Athanasius of Alexandria (c.318 A.D.) "For while He [the Word] Himself was in no way injured, being impassible and incorruptible and very Word and God, men who were suffering, and for whose sakes He endured all this, He maintained and preserved in His own impassibility." Incarnation of the Word ch.54 p.65