Impassibilidade Divina

7/31/2019 Impassibilidade Divina

1/6

The OT scholar Gerhard von Rad aptly depicts the spread of human sin after the Fall as an

avalanche.1 This avalanche accelerates to such staggering proportions that God is forced to

visit the world in a catastrophic flood-judgment (7:6-24). But prior to the judgment itself, God

evaluates the human condition in Genesis 6:5 and issues a judgment oracle in 6:7. Sandwiched

between the divine evaluation and oracle is a striking depiction of Gods inward response to the

human condition: The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart

was filled with pain (6:6, NIV). In response to mans change from very good (1:31) to very evil(6:5), the Lord feels a mixture of disappointment and anger, which in turn produces a profound

heart-felt sorrow, something with which any reader who has felt the pangs of the curse can to

some degree identify.2

O estudioso do Antigo Testamento, Gerhard von Rad, apropriadamente descreve a propagao do

pecado do homem aps a queda como "uma avalanche". [1] Esta avalanche acelera em propores to

gigantescas que Deus forado a visitar o mundo com uma catastrfica inundao-julgamento (7:6-

24 ). Mas antes do prprio julgamento, Deus avalia a condio humana em Gnesis 6:5 e emite um

juzo oracular em 6:7. Imprensado entre a avaliao divina e o orculo est uma impressionante

descrio da resposta interior de Deus condio humana: "O SENHOR entristeceu-se por ter feito o

homem sobre a terra, e seu corao se encheu de dor" (6:6, traduo da NIV). Em resposta mudanado homem de muito bom (1:31) para muito ruim (6:5), o Senhor sentiu uma mistura de decepo e

raiva, que por sua vez produziu uma profunda tristeza no corao, e isso algo com que qualquer

leitor que tenha sentido as dores da maldio pode se identificar em algum grau. [2]

O Corao de Deus Movido

Gods emotive reaction to the proliferation of human sin serves not only as the literary

connection between his inquest and doom oracle. It also serves to remind the reader that God

himself has a heart that can be touched by human sin and misery. To cite von Rad once again,

A reao emotiva de Deus para a proliferao do pecado humano serve no apenas como a conexo

literria entre o seu inqurito e o orculo de condenao. Serve tambm para lembrar ao leitor que o

prprio Deus tem um corao que pode ser tocado pelo pecado e pela misria humana. Para citar von

Rad mais uma vez,

From the first Fall sin had grown like an avalanche; here at a special climax the narrator pauses

and interrupts the regular progress of the account. He takes us from the world of complete

disorderliness to God and dares to look into Gods grieving heart. In daring contrast to what

is said about the human heart there follows a word about what takes place in Gods heart: grief,

affliction, and disappointment in man. Precisely in this way, by reference to the Creators

bewilderment, he has communicated something of the incomprehensibility of this incursion ofsin.3

A partir da primeira Queda o pecado cresceu como uma avalanche; aqui num clmax especial o

narrador faz uma pausa e interrompe o andamento regular do relato. Ele nos leva do mundo da

desordem total contra Deus e se atreve a olhar para o corao aflito de Deus .... Num contraste ousado

ao que dito sobre o corao humano, segue-se uma palavra sobre o que acontece no corao de

Deus: tristeza, angstia e decepo em relao ao homem. Precisamente deste modo, por referncia ao

desnorteamento do Criador, ele comunicou algo da incompreensibilidade dessa incurso do pecado."

[3]

Or in the words of Franz Delitzsch, [God] does not decide on the extinction of the world withcold indifference. The divine judgment and the divine pain are but two sides the external and

the internal of one and the same reality.4


2/6

Ou, nas palavras de Franz Delitzsch:

"[Deus] no decide sobre a extino do mundo com fria indiferena. O julgamento divino e a dor

divina so apenas dois lados, externo e interno, de uma mesma realidade. [4]

But Wait! It Really Doesnt Mean What It Says

In their effort to preserve Gods transcendence, sovereignty, and immutability, some Reformed

commentators and theologians dissuade the reader from interpreting Gods emotive response

literally.

God Doesnt Have Emotions

Mas Espere! Isso No Significa Realmente O Que Diz

Em seu esforo para preservar a transcendncia, a soberania e a imutabilidade de Deus, alguns

comentaristas e telogos reformados dissuadem o leitor de interpretar literalmente a resposta emotiva

de Deus.

Deus No Tem Emoes

John Calvin, for example, remarks, God was so offended by the atrocious wickedness of men,

as if they had wounded his heart with mortal grief. Nevertheless, the emotional grief Calvin

attributes to God with the right hand he retracts with his left hand when he couches his remark

within the follow qualification:

Joo Calvino, por exemplo, observa:

"Deus foi to ofendido pela maldade atroz dos homens, como se eles tivessem ferido seu corao

com tristeza mortal".

No entanto, a dor emocional que Calvino atribui a Deus com a mo direita ele retira com a esquerda

ao acompanhar sua observao com a seguinte qualificao:

The repentance [grief, NIV], which is here ascribed to God, does not properly belong to him,

but has reference to our understanding of him. For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it

is necessary that, for our sake, he should, in a certain sense, transform himself. Certainly God

is not sorrowful or sad; but remains for ever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet,

because it could not otherwise be known how great is Gods hatred and detestation of sin,therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity. God, in order more effectually to

pierce our hearts, clothes himself with our affections. This figure, which represents God as

transferring to himself what is peculiar to human nature, is called anthropopatheia (emphasis

added).5

O arrependimento ["tristeza", NIV], que aqui atribudo a Deus, no pertence propriamente a Ele,

mas tem referncia a nossa compreenso Dele. Porque, uma vez que no podemos compreend-Lo

como Ele , faz-se necessrio que, por nossa causa, Ele deva, em certo sentido, Se

transformar...Certamente Deus no pesaroso ou triste, mas permanece para sempre como Ele mesmo

em seu repouso celestial e feliz; ainda assim, como no poderia ser conhecido como grande o dio

e a repulsade Deus em relao ao pecado, ento o Esprito acomoda a Si mesmo nossa capacidade....Deus, para mais eficazmente penetrar em nossos coraes, veste-Se com nossas afeies. Esta figura

que representa Deus como atribuindo a Si mesmo o que peculiar natureza humana chamada de


3/6

antropopatia (nfase adicionada). [5]

So, according to Calvin, Gods transcendent and immutable condition of bliss precludes the

possibility that he might experience such emotive responses as sorrow or anger.6 Thus, the

reader should interpret the attribution of an emotional response in God as an accommodation

to finite human capacity. Calvin elaborates on this use of accommodative language in his

Institutes:

For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is

given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode

of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to

us. Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angry toward

sinners. Therefore whenever we hear that God is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion

in him, but rather to consider that this expression has been taken from our own human

experience; because God, whenever he is exercising judgment, exhibits the appearance of one

kindled and angered. So we ought not to understand anything else under the word repentance

than change of action, because men are wont by changing their action to testify that they are

displeased with themselves (emphasis added).7

Calvins line of reasoning seems to run as follows: the attribution of emotional states to God has

reference not to the inward feelings that you and I normally associate with emotions. Rather, it

has to do with the outward actions that such feelings in us normally provoke. Feelings of

sadness, grief, compassion, joy, or anger usually move us to react in certain ways. For example,

if we feel compassion towards someone in need, well be motivated to alleviate his or her need if

possible. If we feel angry towards someone who has wronged us, well seek vindication or

redress. Like you and me, God acts in certain ways towards others. He shows kindness to the

needy, and he executes judgment on the ungodly. But unlike us, Gods actions are not the

manifestations or consequences of genuine emotions. Instead, divine emotions serve as a literary

devicean anthropopathism, as Calvin calls itthat points to the effect rather than the cause.

Emotion Equals Action

Other Reformed commentators and theologians have followed Calvins view of divine emotivity.

Francis Turretin, one of Calvins successors, articulates this perspective with great precision:

Repentance is attributed to God after the manner of men (anthropopathos) but must be

understood after the manner of God (theoprepos), not with respect to his counsel, but to the

event; not in reference to his will, but to the thing willed; not to affection and internal grief, but

to the effect and external work because he does what a penitent man usually does. If repentance

concerning the creation of man (which he could not undo) is ascribed to God (Gen. 6:6, 7), itmust be understood not pathetically (pathetikos), but energetically (energetikos). Although he

could not by a non-creation undo what he had done, yet by a destruction he could produce

change.8

William Ames, John Owen, Stephen Charnock, John Gill, John Dick, and John Henley

Thornwell argue similarly.9 This viewpoint may be part of the rationale for a phrase found in

the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, and the Second London Baptist

Confession, all of which affirm that God is without body, parts, or passions [emphasis added]

(II, 2).

Passions vs AffectionsRichard Muller, an expert in post-Reformation dogmatics, seems to confirm this notion when he

writes,


4/6

Since a passion has its foundation or origin ad extra [without] and its terminus ad intra

[within], it cannot be predicated of God and, in fact, fails to correspond in its dynamic with the

way that God knows. An affection or virtue, by way of contrast, has its foundation or source ad

intra and terminates ad extra, corresponding with the pattern of operation of the divine

communicable attributes and, in particular, with the manner of the divine knowing. This

understanding of affections and passions corresponds, moreover, with the etymology of theterms: an af- or ad-fectio from adficio, to exert an influence on somethingin other words, an

influence directed toward, not a result from, something; whereas passio, from patior, is a

suffering or enduring of somethingit can refer to an occurrence or a phenomenon and even to

a disease.10

One might illustrate Mullers distinction between affections and passions as follows:

Diagram: Affection vs Passion

God Shows But Doesnt Feel CompassionIts important to note that Calvin and Reformed theology did not hatch this construal of divine

impassibility. One finds similar analyses in the writings Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas.11

Anselm, for instance, discusses whether or not God really feels compassion for those in need.

Writing as if he were speaking to God, Anselm queries,

How are thou compassionate, and, at the same time, passionless? For if thou are passionless,

thou dost not feel sympathy, thy heart is not wretched from sympathy for the wretched; but this

is to be compassionate. But if thou art not compassionate, whence cometh so great consolation

to the wretched?12

Do you see the tension Anselm is highlighting? The Bible describes God as compassionate.

The realization of such divine compassion brings great comfort to those who are in misery. Yet,

Anselm is committed to the idea that God is without passions. How does he reconcile the

apparent contradiction? Listen to his solution:

Truly, thou art [compassionate] in terms of our experience, but thou art not so in terms of thine

own. For, when thou beholdest us in our wretchedness, we experience the effect of compassion,

but thou does not experience the feeling. Therefore, thou are both compassionate, because thou

dost save the wretched, and spare those who sin against thee; and not compassionate, because

thou art affected by no sympathy for wretchedness.13

To illustrate Anselms viewpoint, think of Jesus parable of the Good Samaritan. When Jesus

depicts the Samaritan helping a wounded man, he wants us to imagine not merely a kind deed

but also a warm feeling arising within the Samaritans heart as he sees this needy victim on the

roadside. Indeed, Jesus himself is said to have felt such feelings. In Matthew 9:36, we read,

When [Jesus] saw the crowds, He felt compassion for them, because they were weary and worn

out, like sheep without a shepherd (CSB). But such is not true of God, Anselm would argue.

God may do kind things for needy people. But like Mr. Spock of Star Trek, God does not feel the

emotion of compassion.

Greek Philosophys Unmoved Mover

One may find analogous reasoning among some Greek philosophers. Although the nature ofdeity, as depicted in Greek philosophy, differed significantly from classical Christian theology

on a number of points (e.g., the Trinity), it did at points find semblance, particularly in an


5/6

emphasis on a kind of transcendence that precluded the proper attribution of emotion to deity.

For instance, the Epicurean Lucretius (96-55 b.c.) opined,

For the nature of gods must ever in itself of necessity enjoy immortality together with supreme

repose, far removed and withdrawn from our concerns; since exempt from every pain, exempt

from all dangers, strong in its own resources, not wanting aught of us, it is neither gained by

favors nor moved by anger.14

Lucretius phrase supreme repose has a similar ring to Calvins celestial and happy repose.

Such transcendent bliss is thought to be incompatible with emotional responses, which seem to

imply psychological changes within Gods heart. And, as the great Puritan theologian John

Owen argues,

That which is inconsistent with absolute blessedness and all-sufficiency is not to be ascribed to

God; to do so casts him down from his excellency. But can he be blessed, is he all-sufficient, who

is tossed up and down with hope, joy, fear, sorrow, repentance, anger, and the like?15

Clarification and IllustrationIt should be noted that this view of divine impassibility does not leave us with an immobile God.

That is, these theologians dont portray God as if he were in an eternally frozen pose.16

Unfortunately, some classic theologians have employed illustrations that may have prompted

such caricatures. Thomas Aquinas, for example, sought to account for apparent changes

ascribed to God in relationship to creation or humanity by means of a fixed stone pillar. When

the Scriptures ascribe changes in Gods attitude, disposition, or affections toward us, they are

not literally ascribing change to God but changes in us that place us in a different relationship

to the fixed stone pillar.17 Such an illustration is unsuitable since it leaves one with the

impression that God is immobile. Aquinas and other classic theologians clearly deny this and

affirm that God is active.

Perhaps we would do better to liken God to a bar magnet. Get on his right side, and he finds

you attractive, which the Scriptures might describe with such emotive terms as love, pleasure,

or peace. Get on his wrong side, and he finds you repulsive, which the Scriptures might

describe in terms of anger, wrath, or hatred. Or better, we might compare God to the mercury

in a thermometer. The mercury within the thermometer rises or falls according to the ethical

climate to which it is exposed, but the chemical properties of the mercury never change. But

these illustrations, though more helpful than Aquinass stone pillar, still leaves us with a God

that seems less than personal and who is emotively detached from this world.

In sum, the classical view of God would seem to preclude divine emotivity. Emotions attributedto God in the Bible are to be interpreted metaphorically because a literal interpretation, so it is

argued, would undermine divine transcendence, sovereignty, and immutability.

Does Human Sin and Misery Make God Mad and Sad?

Where does this leave our interpretation of Genesis 6:6? A literal reading of that text suggests

the idea that God genuinely experienced heart-felt sorrow and even anger in response to the

escalation and aggravation of human sin (6:5). If we follow the reasoning of some classic theists,

however, we may have to revise our exegetical conclusions. We are left with a God who thinks

(6:5) and a God who acts (6:7), but not with a God who genuinely feels (6:6). Gods remorse and

pain, we are told, do not refer to the kind of feelings that would prompt the redemptive/punitive

action described in the verses that follow (6:8ff.). They are, rather, Gods mode ofaccommodating himself to our finite understanding. It is only by the use of such human

expressions, writes Augustine, that Scripture can make its many kinds of readers whom it


6/6

wants to help to feel, as it were, at home. Only thus can Scripture frighten the proud and arouse

the slothful, provoke inquiries and provide food for the convinced.18

Hence, it would appear that the God of Genesis 6:6 is not profoundly touched by human sin and

misery. On the contrary, according to the reasoning summarized above, God would seem to be,

to borrow the title of a popular song, comfortably numb. Accordingly, we might be tempted

to provide the reader with the following lyrical caution:

There is no pain you are misreading;

Its just Gods mode of accommodation.

When it says, feels, it means, behaves;

His hearts moved, but thats not what its saying.

Has God an eye? Or has he an ear?

Or hands? Come on, you dumb buffoon!

Hes too transcendent to descend,

To grieve, to feel the plight of man.

Despite the load of evil done,

God shall remain comfortably numb.

The satirical lyric above is, admittedly, a bit hyperbolic and rhetorically overstated.19 In fact,

the God of classic and Reformed theologians like John Calvin is not heartless. Calvin himself

frequently speaks of Gods fatherly care, which he extends to all mankind.20 Moreover, the

classic portrayal of Gods impassibility contains a vital truth, which serves to ensure that Gods

supreme authority (transcendence), absolute control (sovereignty), and perfect nature

(immutability) remain intact.

In the next installment of this series (Part 2), well examine some reasons why classic theists

formulated the doctrine of divine impassibility as summarized above. Well also note some

Reformed theologians who dissent somewhat from the classic view (Part 3). Then well argue

that a commitment to the doctrine of divine impassibility need not preclude an affirmation of

divine emotivity (Part 4). Though secure in his celestial repose, God is not unaffected by human

sin and misery.

B.G.

Fonte: http://drbobgonzales.com/2012/there-is-no-pain-you-are-misreading-is-god-comfortably-

numb/
http://drbobgonzales.com/2012/there-is-no-pain-you-are-misreading-is-god-comfortably-numb/http://drbobgonzales.com/2012/there-is-no-pain-you-are-misreading-is-god-comfortably-numb/http://drbobgonzales.com/2012/there-is-no-pain-you-are-misreading-is-god-comfortably-numb/http://drbobgonzales.com/2012/there-is-no-pain-you-are-misreading-is-god-comfortably-numb/

Documents

Impassibilidade Divina