If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing (1 Cor. 13:1-3).

Third, I would point out biblical data that constrains us to see an inward dispositional and affectional dimension to biblical love. Note, for example, the synonymous parallelism below:

And Saul commanded his servants, “Speak to David in private and say,
‘Behold, the king has delight in you,
and all his servants love you.
Now then become the king’s son-in-law’” (1 Samuel 18:22)

For I find my delight in your commandments,
Which I love (Psalm 119:47).

A lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
Be intoxicated always in her love (Proverbs 5:19).

Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice in the wife of your youth,
A lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
Be intoxicated always in her love (Proverbs 5:18).

Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her;
Rejoice with her in joy, all you who mourn over her (Isaiah 66:10).

Therefore, my brothers, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm thus in the Lord, my beloved (Philippians 4:1).

Though you have not seen him, you love him.
Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory (1 Peter 1:8).

Accordingly, when God commands us, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5), he wants our affections. Merely giving him lip service and going through religious motions will not do (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8).

Hope this helps.

Bob G.

Trevor

I am looking forward to the whole series of articles. I have for years held that God does, indeed, “feel.” But I have stressed that His emotional responses were also an aspect of His predestined will. Thus, when He predestined the Fall, He did so knowing that sin would be sorrowful to Him and with His own sorrow over sin as part of His plan.

I look forward to seeing how you deal with this, though, because I still need to think more about it. I and my fellow-elders, however, have removed the phrase that states that God is without “passions” from our version of the Baptist Confession of 1689. We believe its assertion that God is “immutable” is sufficient.

By the way, I haven’t yet read the second article (I hope to this evening), but I vaguely recall J. Oliver Buswell having anticipated these issues in his theology text.

Thanks for your willingness to tackle this issue.

Good questions. I plan to address them in the subsequent posts. But I’ll offer a brief response here. First, an “emotion” is commonly defined as “an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness” (Random House Dictionary, 2006). This definition tends to reflect a certain view of psychology that compartmentalizes the mental, emotional, and volitional faculties. Jonathan Edwards does a fine job of demonstrating the connection between emotions (or “affections” as he calls them) and the will. John Frame does a good job of showing the connection between the mind and the emotions–emotive responses being intertwined with cognitive evaluations of events or states of affairs. Recently, Matthew Elliott has published a monograph entitled Faithful Feelings: Rethinking Emotion in the New Testament in which he demonstrates the cognitive element of emotions from the Scriptures. In any case, emotions are undoubtedly responses or reactions that entail psychological changes in the way one feels.

But how should we define divine “emotions”? I’m not sure I could improve on Greg Nichols’ definition: “God’s emotivity is his supreme capacity to act responsively and sensationally; to feel pure and principled affections of love and hate, joy and grief, pleasure and anger, and peace; in accord with his supreme, spiritual, and simple Being and impeccable virtue (103).” [Note: he includes a myriad of proof-texts that I omitted to conserve space.] So, according to a general and a theological definition emotions are “responses” or “reactions” to events or states of affair. Accordingly, I see nothing wrong with conceiving of God evaluating human sin and misery (6:5) and, as a result, responding inwardly with grief (6:6) and outwardly with redemption for Noah and judgment for the world (6:7ff.). In that sense, God’s emotions are analogous to human emotions. Better, human emotions are the ectype of divine emotions, which are the Archetype.

This leads to your next question: “When we speak of “passions” we usually think of emotions which move us; but is God ever “moved” by His “emotions” or does His will determine what He “feels” at all times?” I would answer your question, “Yes.” That is, “Both.” Ultimately, God has determined the end from the beginning. He ordained human sin. He ordained his inward emotional response to human sin. And he ordained his outward redemptive/punitive response to human sin. In that sense, we may speak of God as “impassible.” Nothing takes him by surprise. On the other hand, God manifests his covenant presence within the matrix of human history. He not only exists outside of time and space, but he has chosen to manifest his presence inside of time and space. And within the matrix of human history, God responds or, if I may use the term without being misunderstood, he is moved by human events. In the words of J. O. Buswell, “Does ever a sinner repent, there is always joy in the presence of the angels (Luke 15:7, 10). Does ever a child of God, ’sealed’ by the Spirit, fall into sin, the Holy Spirit is ‘grieved’ (Eph. 4:30)” (ST, 1:57). In other words, God really responds emotively to events that transpire within creation and redemption history. One might say that God is “impassible” from the perspective of his transcendence and “passible” from the perspective of his immanence.

Your third question is more challenging: “if the deepest part of God can be grieved, how can God be pure joy?” The answer to this question may partly depend on what is meant by the superlative “deepest.” The apostle Paul commands Christians to “rejoice in the Lord always.” Only one human being has been able to obey that command perfectly. Ironically, he’s called “the Man of Sorrows,” Jesus Christ. When Jesus was in Gethsemane, was grief or joy the “deepest” emotion? We certainly know he was weighed down with an unimaginable sorrow. Yet, we also know that he could endure that sorrow because of “the joy set before him.”

I’ve tried to think of a good illustration. Think of a movie director. He’s created a magnificent epic film. He knows the story from heart beginning to end. He knows it has a happy ending. Nevertheless, he also wrote tragedy into the script. As he watches the premier showing for the first time, he finds himself experiencing a complex of emotions. Deep down, there’s a sense of pride and joy in the masterpiece he’s created. Moreover, he has a sense of peace and calm, knowing the plot has a glorious ending. But as those tragic events come up in the film, he finds himself weeping at misfortune or angry at injustice. Granted, this illustration doesn’t come close to capturing the complexity of God’s heart. But I believe we must embrace all the biblical descriptions of God even if we can’t fully conceptualize their relations. I affirm that God is self-contained, independent, and wholly satisfied with himself. He possess a kind of joy that cannot be marred. Yet, I also affirm that within the matrix of human history God experiences grief, sorrow, anger, pleasure, love, hatred, jealousy, joy and peace. All of these emotional responses are perfectly consistent with his unchanging being, wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

Finally, you ask whether I’m in favor of revising the Confession? If so, how so? Well, as I suggested in a response to a comment left on Part II of this series, if the framers of the Confession simply meant to say that God is without human passions, then I think we should insert the term “human” in order to prevent the all too common misconception that God doesn’t have real emotions. If the framers were alluding to the fact that God is the ultimate cause behind every event and is not subject to events outside his control, then I’d agree with that idea. But I’d like to see it stated in less ambiguous terms. Moreover, I’d like to see the balancing truth affirmed, namely, that God does respond inwardly and outwardly to events and states of affairs within the sphere of history. One could affirm this truth while still affirming God’s absolute sovereign decree and providence over all things.

Hope this helps.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales