God without Passions?

The Westminster Confession of Faith states that ‘the only living and true God…is without passions’ (Chapter 2, article I)[1]. Affirmed in a description of God’s being and character, this statement is often overlooked in early expositions of the Confession, usually receiving little biblically supported discussion. Some resources and works dedicated to the confession brush over this particular statement[2], while others simply omit comment altogether. The commentary on this section of the confession usually draws attention to scriptural references on the spiritual nature of God (James 1:17; Mal 3:6; Acts 14:11), none of which, however, address the ‘without passions’ affirmation. Is there any scriptural merit to the statement? The aim here is to review the theological arguments and Biblical evidence, inturn discussing arising implications to how church services may be conducted.

 

The language of ‘passions’ and the doctrine of impassibility

First, let us regard the word ‘passions’. Muller notes the etymology of the word - Passio, from patior – defined as a ‘suffering or enduring of something – noting that it can refer to an occurrence or a phenomenon or even a disease, thus a strong emphasis on the state as a result of something external to the individual.[3]

Here in lies the overlapping discussion of the doctrine of ‘impassibility’ and the issue of ‘passions’. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions defines impassibility as: “The belief that because God is immutable, unchanging, and unchangeable, he cannot suffer or be affected by what happens in his creation.” Bray notes that the relationship of the words is rooted in the term apathes which may be translated as ‘passionless’ (taken to mean without suffering in practice ) or ‘impassible’ – (meaning without suffering in principle).[4] It is important however to note that discussions of passions in the theological literature extend to experiences not typically associated with suffering, for instance, joy, delight, hatred and even love.

Indeed the language used to describe God in the scriptures often depict him as grieved (Ps 78:40), angry (Deuteronomy 1:37), jealous (Deut 6:15) - but also pleased (1 Kgs 3:10), joyful (Zeph 3:17), and moved by pity (Judg 2:18). How should such statements be regarded then?

Robert Shaw in his exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith explains scripture’s use of emotive language ascribed to God in the same way anthropomorphisms work. He argues that scripture describes God as having body parts, for example hands, face eyes and ears, simply to accommodate to our human frame of reference; ‘In the same manner must we explain the several passions that are ascribed to God, - such as anger, fury, jealousy, revenge, bowels of mercy…’[5] Along similar lines, classical theism treats such biblical statements as anthropopathisms— defined as figurative expressions ascribing human passions to God, such figures of speech are said to accommodate the limitations of human language and understanding. This post hoc qualification aside, however, it is difficult to ascertain what the confession precisely includes or excludes in the word ‘passions’. Upon regarding the complete statement on God (Chapter 2), it seems that whatever ‘passions’ meant to the authors, they are distinguished from; long-suffering, love and mercy amongst other divine attributes; for the statement reads of God: “…most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, … and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin;…”. Thus, the writers of the statement were either affirming a distinction between passions and the attributes above, or using language such as ‘hating’ only figuratively.

What of love? The preceding position denying passions being properly attributed to God does not account for the scriptural statement ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:16). Whilst love is considered to be attributed to God, Philip R. Johnson argues that human love is closer to ‘passion’, but God’s love, as revealed in the scriptures reflects God’s ‘affection’ which is essentially very different from the human experience; he states: “But if love is stripped of passion, we think, it's a lesser kind of love.”, essentially arguing that love stripped of passion is a higher form of love. It is difficult to perceive of love in such a vacuum. In the words of Henry Scougal, ‘Love is that powerful prevalent passion by which all the faculties and inclinations of the soul are determined…’[6]

Richard Muller in outlining ‘the problem of affections and passions in God’ offers a relatively comprehensive review of the issue of passions. He enlists a division of Polanus which necessitates that the divine attributes are either proper or figurative. It is noted that for the most part in this discussion that affections (or passions)[7] are attributed to God not properly but figuratively. He cites a qualification by Ames that the affections of God such as love, hatred and the like as either designating acts of will, or apply to God only figuratively. What makes affections metaphorical in this view is ‘its apparent variation, temporality or alterability’[8]. It is also argued that passion is also associated with a loss of power or self control, which can not be attributed to God. Muller observes that the language of ‘passions’ and ‘affections’ is inherently associated with the changeableness of human beings. Thus if the transient manifestation of affections is an expression of divine will, then it will reflect an essentially changeless divine will (in line with the immutability of God).

Whether passions or affections; Muller identifies four problems inherent in the use of such language. First, he poses that they have an inherent sense of incompleteness in and of their own, second, he argues that affections or passions indicate a lack or deficiency in the being who has them, thus a sense of incompleteness which can not be attributed to God; third, ‘affections are necessarily accompanied with change and mutability, and forth, some affections when taken without qualifications as metaphors or figurative language reflect a weak God or ‘denote impotence’ as quoted of Owen.[9]

In turn he puts forth that the reformers have followed on from this line of thought, their contribution reemphasising the constancy and consistency of God’s affections in his relationship to the world. He also notes that that the orthodox reformers acknowledge this premise with the qualification that unlike human affections, God’s affections are permanent rather that transient dispositions.[10] Moreover it is understood in this position that the affections are not essential attributes of God but rather ‘ad-extra’ manifestations by which God is known through these effects whilst enabling him to sustain a relationship with his creatures.

It seems that an essential goal of these discussions is the protection of God from the negative connotations attached to passions. Thus, the notion of God with passions is either denied, or heavily qualified, as in Muller’s concluding comments quoting Gill ‘…properly speaking, there are no affections in God,…they (affections) are ascribed to him; as love, pity, hatred, anger &c., from which must be removed everything that is carnal, sensual, or has any degree of imperfection in it’[11] And thus even the love of God is said to have its primary location ‘certainly among the affections of the divine will.’[12]

Affirming the doctrine of impassibility is thus considered to be in line with the Westminster stance of God without ‘passions’; instead, ‘affections’ are ascribed to God (strangely enough, some are even willing to list hatred as one of God’s affections).[13] Johnson cites J. I. Packer’s view of God's affections, that they are never passive and involuntary, but rather always active and deliberate, in Packer’s words: ‘God's experiences do not come upon him as ours come upon us, for his are foreknown, willed and chosen by himself, and are not involuntary surprises forced on him from outside, apart from his own decision, in the way that ours regularly are.’[14] Bray proposes that while God is moved by our suffering, God’s essence is untouched by it[15], insisting that the implications of abandoning the doctrine of impassibility would be catastrophic and would essentially leave us with ‘a God who can be crippled with pain’

Amidst the assertion that much of the biblical language of God is to be regarded in purely metaphorical terms, a due caution is sounded by some. Dabney offers a caution about the danger of brushing aside the meaning of biblical figures of speech. While he acknowledged the widespread use of anthropopathism in Scripture, he does not rid them from their ‘common sense applications’. Consequently, he begs the question: "Is all this so anthropopathic as not even to mean that God's active principles here have an objective? Why not let the Scriptures mean what they so plainly strive to declare?"[16] Erickson adopts a similar view emphasising that it is unreasonable to think of God as emotionless; since he is both transcendent and imminent, his experience of emotion must be somewhat like our experience and somewhat different from it.

What unites and what distinguishes our experience of passions from God's? Suffering often comes upon us as a consequence of straying from God's ways; 'Before I was afflicted, I went astray, but now I obey your word' (Psa 119:67). What of grief? We can be comforted in grief that God is no starnger to this kind of pain. In the midst of grief for his beloved Israel he declares: 'My heart is changed within me, all my compassion is kindled'. Our anger is often misplaced, God's is righteous and purposeful, indeed ultimately loving.

 

Passions are regarded by some as belonging to the material. A. Hodge, states in support of the Westminster statement: ‘We deny that the properties of matter, such as bodily parts and passions belong to Him’[17] He further states that ‘We make this denial – a) because there is no evidence that He does posses any such properties; and b) because from the very nature of matter and its affections, it is inconsistent with those infinite and absolute perfections which are of his essence…’ (emphasis added). First, it is assumed that passions are attributed to matter – interestingly however, Hodge does state that ‘in the case of men, spiritual faculties are exercised through bodily organs’[18], a distinction which is notable between God and his creatures. Hodge affirms that such language of passions is characteristic of the Old and not the New Testament and occurs for the most part in highly rhetorical passages of the poetical and prophetical books. The problem with this view is that while anthropomorphic language of body parts is clearly relevant to the physical, one can not say the same of passions which are spiritual in nature. Therefore it is not unreasonable to regard our passions as reflections of our spiritual nature, and thus our similarity to God in this way stems from our being made in his image and likeness.

Systematic theologians today are divided on the issue. Reymond understands the denial of passions as strictly referring to bodily passions, such as hunger and sexual desire. Whilst affirming that God is impassible in the sense that the creature can not inflict pain or suffering upon him that is outside his decreed will; Reymond states that God empathises with human grief and suffering. J I Packer is also cited in Reymond’s discussion – emphasising God’s ability to empathise and exhibit sensitivity towards his creatures. This position however, does not account for the real difference between empathy for another’s experience and experiencing the matter first hand. God is said to experience, not merely empathise with us.

On the other side of the spectrum, some theologians such as Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Professor of Philosophical Theology at Yale Divinity School, and author of ‘Does God suffer?’ rejects the doctrine of impassibility and concludes that God could not possibly be unmoved by human tragedy. Open theism leaps to the extreme of asserting a God who evolves in response to our change process – in one sense a God moulded by his creatures’ experiences. For instance, Clark Pinnock states "God is not cool and collected but is deeply involved and can be wounded."  He believes the essence of divine love and tenderness is seen in God's "making himself vulnerable within the relationship with us."[19] Must we affirm impassibility to guard against the dangers of open theism?

Grudem is of the opinion that affirming that God is without passions, along with adopting a view of God as impassible is beyond the boundaries of scripture. He regards the support cited for the ‘without passions’ affirmation in Acts 14:15 (when Paul and Barnabas refuse worship from the people at Lystra by saying that they are ‘men of like passions’) as inadequate and taken out of linguistic and situational context.[20] He refers to a few of many scriptural references of God’s passions, further observing that God, just as is shown in scripture, feels and experiences such ‘passions’ and emotions, and that he is the author of passions in his creatures.

 

The suffering Messiah

The reasoning regarding scriptural references to emotive language ascribed to God as merely metaphorical runs into problems particularly when the person of Jesus is regarded. However, this is strangely absent from much of this debate. The cross is the ultimate picture of suffering, Jesus experienced pain and suffered. Chapter II, article iii of the Confession affirms that the Son is God, and of Christ Chapter VIII, article iv affirms his suffering.

Full of passion, he was visibly angry (for example when he cleared the temple); when witnessing the the mourning Jews at the death of Lazarus, ‘he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled’ (John 11:33); ‘He was truly despised and rejected, a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.’ He suffered loneliness, abandonment and humiliation – very real, personal experiences. More so, God chose to accomplish the work of saving the world through the incarnation – and indeed the death and resurrection of the Son. ‘It was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer’, and 'After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light’ (Isa 53:10, 11). If we accept that Jesus was the true revelation of God, (and more so, a true reflection of the Father - John 14:9), then how do we appraise such reflections of grief, sorrow, pain, and suffering so vividly portrayed in Jesus? Must we ascribe these to his humanity alone? Must we assume a difference between the Son’s experience in his divine and human natures to satisfy a portrait of an impassible of God? The scriptural witness does not warrant this distinction, nor the dismissal of Jesus’ passions as mere ‘human’ attributes. These instances do not afford us the understanding that this was merely an attempt to condescend to our human experience. In fact these scriptures are consistent with the portrayals of God in the Old Testament. As Erickson points out, that God has chosen to allow evil, ‘Yet he did this, fully knowing all that would happen, including the suffering that he would bring on himself.’[21]

Implications for worship

The biblical portrait of God full of passion has implications for our worship. In light of our creation in his image - we are able relate to him with our whole being, including our passions. The Bible talks of God as delighting in his people (Zeph 3:17), and in our prayers, praise and worship (Psa 22:3). We are exhorted to sing and praise God in the scriptures - “shout to God with loud songs of joy” - the Psalms contain the most prominent examples, but also in the New Testament as in Ephesians 5:19.

Moreover, the language of the heart and soul is central to how we relate to our God and to each other – "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your mind, and you shall love your neighbour as yourself." (Luke 10:27). The picture of the new heaven and earth depicts service and worship to God in the same spirit (Rev 22:3).

How are we to pray, privately and in community? Believing that God responds to us, not just by an unaffected act of his will, but rather through affection and delight in relationship, empowers us to lift up our prayers to him in spirit and in truth, knowing that prayers are more than just means to an end but a process of relationship with our Father.

Lastly, to deny that God suffers is contrary in a real sense to the work of the cross. Whenever the last supper is partaken of, we remember the work of God effected through the suffering of the Son. And consequently we affirm that to suffer for his sake is honourable and that we share in all his sufferings (Rom 8:17) as his disciples (John 16:33). In our suffering, we hold on to the knowledge that God did not spare his only Son - if we can empathise with Abraham at the thought of losing Isaac; how can we not acknowledge the suffering of God because of his love for us? It is at the cross that we see God's love and God's suffering.

To affirm the statement that God is without passions would be either to deny much of the revelation of scripture on God’s person, nature and attributes, or at best to strip away their face value and replace it with qualifications and suppositions. In light of our creation in the image and likeness of our God, and as the scriptures portray a God of passions, we are created to experience and relate with passions – it is only natural that our experience in this regard reflects something of our creator. Humans are like him, the reverse is not true although his nature far exceeds its expressions in us. While our experience is marred by sin, God’s is righteous, and is always towards a good end. This very nature allows us to relate to God in prayer, praise and worship which are essentially spiritual. Our God given ability for emotional experience allows us to perceive and relate to God, we feel joy – not surprisingly as our creator feels joy; we grieve, are angered and experience jealousy – for scripture tells us that we bear the image and likeness of our God. Perhaps the statement ‘without passions’ is not well defended in theological literature because, when stripped away from its philosophical presuppositions and qualifications, it does not stand on sound scriptural basis. As B. B. Warfield eloquently stated: “Men tell us that God is, by the very necessity of His nature, incapable of passion, incapable of being moved by inducements from without; that He dwells in holy calm and unchangeable blessedness, untouched by human sufferings or human sorrows for ever,—… Let us bless our God that it is not true. God can feel; God does love. … “But is not this gross anthropomorphism? We are careless of names: it is the truth of God”… “And we decline to yield up the God of the Bible and the God of our hearts to any philosophical abstraction.”[22]

---

[1] Purpose for which WCF was written: Response to commission by the English parliament in 1643.

[2] For example, Pipa J. (2005)

[3] Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics : The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003, 554.

[4] Bray, G. The Doctrine of God. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

[5] Shaw, Robert. An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 1992.) 26.

[6] Scougal, Henry. The Life of God in the Soul of Man. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1961, 51

[7] At times the distinction between the two terms is brought into the discussion; affections being positive in nature and having an inclination of will, while a passion is negative, and a form of suffering and without a permanent disposition.

[8] Ames, Marrow, I.iv.62, in Muller.

[9] Owen, Vindiciae evangelicae, Works, 110, in Muller.

[10] Quoting Vermigli: ‘it must be considered that that the scripture speaketh of God after the manner of men…’  Calvin is also cited on this point: ‘I know quiet well that God is not subject to human passions’ , further explaining that when God is said to be angered, grieved, wrathful that those instances simply refer to God’s reproval of evil.

[11] Gill, Complete Body of Divinity, I, in Muller, 557.

[12] Muller, 561.

[13] Edwards makes this distinction as such: ‘Affection is a word that, in its ordinary signification, seems to be something more extensive than passion, being used for all vigorous lively actings of the will or inclination; but passion for those that are more sudden, and whose effects on the animal spirits are more violent, and the mind more overpowered, and less in its own command. Treatise Concerning the Religious Affections (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1961 reprint), 26-27, in Johnson.

[14] Theism for Our Time," in Peter T. O'Brien and David G. Peterson, God Who Is Rich in Mercy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 16, In Johnson.

[15] John of Damascus is cited as one of the earliest proponents of the doctrine of impassibility.

[16] ‘God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy’ in Johnson.

[17] Hodge, A. A. The Confession of Faith : A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Confession. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), 49.

[18] Hodge, 49.

[19] "An Interview with Clark Pinnock," Modern Reformation (Nov-Dec, 1998), 37, in Johnson.

[20] Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, Eng.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994, 129.

[21] Erickson, Millard J. God the Father Almighty: A Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998, 288.

[22] J. M. Frame. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2001, 189.

 

Bibliography:

Barth, Karl. "The Humanity of God." In The Faith of the Church. London: Collins, 1961.

Boff, Leonardo and Robert R. Barr. Passion of Christ, Passion of the World : The Facts, Their Interpretation, and Their Meaning Yesterday and Today. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1987.

Bray, G. The Doctrine of God. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Erickson, Millard J. God the Father Almighty : A Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998.

Frame J. M. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2001. 

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, Eng.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Hodge, A. A. The Confession of Faith : A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Confession. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1958.

Johnson, P. R., "God without Mood Swings: Recovering the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility. ", Canon Press. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm.

Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics : The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003.

Pipa, Joseph A. The Westminster Confession of Faith Study Book : A Study Guide for Churches. Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2005.

Piper, John. The Pleasures of God. Rev. and exp. ed. Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2001.

Religions, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World. Oxford University Press, 2003.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.

Scougal, Henry. The Life of God in the Soul of Man. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1961.

Shaw, Robert. An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 1992.

Smith, Robert. Theology 602 Lecture Notes (The Doctrine of God), Sydney Missionary and Bible College, 2012.

Williamson, G. I. The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes. Philadelphia, Pa.: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co, 1964.

Sons of Light

In the last post ‘Father of lights’ we looked at scriptural references associating the Divine nature and presence with the concept of light. Here we consider the implications of this to believers, the sons of God.

God is Light (1 Jn 1:5); consequently, in the scriptures we find references to the children of God as ‘sons of light’, in the words of the Apostle Paul: ‘You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness’ (1 Thes 5:5).

 

Jesus asserted that he is the light of the world (Jn 8:12, Jn 9:5, 11:9, 12:35, 12:36, 12:46) – and indeed the words by the prophet Isaiah foresaw the Messiah as the light of the world; spoken of as the ‘servant of the Lord’ who will be the light for the gentiles (Isa 42:6); and similarly in the words of Simeon recorded in Luke 2:32 speaking of Jesus as ‘the light for revelation to the gentiles’ (see also Acts 26:23).

Amazingly, however, we observe that the language of light is then imputed to believers and disciples of the Messiah. We are all familiar with the phrase Jesus spoke to his disciples: “You are the light of the world--like a city on a hilltop that cannot be hidden” (Matt 5:15). The Apostle Paul was building on this very concept (which as we will see is a pre-messianic teaching), when he preached in the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch: “For the Lord gave us this command when he said, 'I have made you a light to the Gentiles, to bring salvation to the farthest corners of the earth’” (Acts 13:47)* - the Apostle was quoting here the words given to the prophet Isaiah of the remnant of Israel (Isa 49:6); see also Isaiah 60:3 with reference to God’s people, Israel. The mission the Apostle was given was ‘to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God’ (Acts 26:18).

 

It is a wonderful thing that the children of God are referred to in similar terms to their Lord and saviour; and moreover assigned a purpose after the Lord’s, to be a light in the world. Isaiah 42:6 refers to the Lord’s servant; this portion of scripture is regarded by most scholars as a prophecy pointing to the Messiah: ‘I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles’. Then we see later in Isaiah 49:6 that God’s people, the remnant of Israel is referred to in the same terms ‘…I have made you a light to the gentiles…’ – which we see demonstrated in action by the Apostle (Acts 14:47).

The distinction and setting apart of the light from darkness, moreover the ways of light from the ways of darkness, is evident in the instruction by the Apostle Paul to followers of the Way; he writes to the Corinthians: ‘Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?’ (2 Cor 6:14); to the Ephesians: “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light” (Eph 5:8); to the Colossians: ‘…giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light’ (Col 1:12) and to the Thessalonians: ‘For you are all children of the light and of the day; we don't belong to darkness and night’ (1 Thes 5:5).

We also observe the Apostle Peter instructing believers: ‘But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light’ (1 Peter 2:9).

Similarly, the Apostle John, as we have seen in his gospel spoke of the divine Light; and in his letters (1 Jn 1:5), furthermore, elaborating how the light of God extends to cover the lives of believers: ‘But if we are living in the light, as God is in the light, then we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin’ (1 Jn 1:7); moreover, how they aught to love one another as fitting of abiding in the light (v. 8-10).

 

 

Notes:

* See also Romans 2:19, The Apostle Paul making reference to God’s people as the light to those in darkness.

Father of lights

The phrase is found in the letter by James, the brother of the Lord. He states: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. (James 1:17)¹

At first glance the words ‘father of lights’ sound mysterious; a journey through the scriptures, however, illuminates the phrase in all its richness. What is the significance of ‘light’; and why and how is it used in the biblical text?

We don’t have to go far into the scriptures to encounter that God’s first recorded words were: “let there be light”. ‘And God saw that the light was good’. Then He separated the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:3-4) Some rightly ask the question: what was the source of that first light prior to the creation of the sun and moon on the fourth day? Those who are familiar with the association of light with the presence of God point out that the Creator Himself was the source of that first light. Just a few steps further into Genesis, we see the lights appointed to rule upon each day and night (v 16). This off course is a description of the how light, literally as we know it came to be through God’s spoken word. And yet, from then on scripture associates light with the Divine presence.

For instance, God appears to Moses in a burning bush. We also observe that when the plague of darkness was over Egypt… ‘…all the children of Israel (God’s people) had light in their dwellings.’ (Exod 10:23)² - and God gave them light in a pillar of fire as they journeyed on – again, this was the indication that the presence of God was amongst them (see also Neh 9:12, 19). Later in their journey, God instructs the children of Israel to set seven lamps in the temple and the lamps were to burn continually (Exod 25:37, Num 8:2, Lev 24:2). This again symbolises God’s eternal presence, never to be extinguished.

The messianic age, the arrival of the Messiah, is ushered in by the entrance of light. Matthew refers to this when he writes: ‘the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death, a light has dawned.” (Matt 4:16) – here Matthew quotes the prophet Isaiah (cf Is 9:1, 2; see also Luke 1:79, 2:32).

The theme of the Divine light is particularly prominent in the writings of the Apostle John. Indeed, the opening of his gospel is marked by the entry of the light into the world (being the person of the Messiah): ‘In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it.’ (John 1:4, 5, see also to v9). It is doubtful that it is a mere coincidence that the Apostle’s prologue appears to mirror the opening of Genesis 'and God said: “Let there be light”. The Divine presence as light is also affirmed where the Apostle states: ‘This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all’ (1 John 1:5).

This theme is made manifest in Jesus’ own words of himself: ‘And the judgment is based on this fact: God's light came into the world, ...’ (John 3:19 see also to v 21) Jesus asserts: "I am the light of the world. If you follow me, you won't have to walk in darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life." (Jn 8:12) and he continues to refer to himself as the light (Jn 9:5, 11:9, 12:35, 12:36, 12:46).

As we have seen earlier, this theme is not novel to the New Testament writings, without a doubt it finds its roots in the scriptures of the Old Testament. Job contrasts the way of the righteous who has light, to ‘those who rebel against the light, who do not know its ways or stay in its paths” (Job 24:13).³ The psalmist speaks of the Almighty: ‘For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light’ (Ps 36:9); ‘He wraps himself in light as with a garment’ (Ps 104:2a); often referring to the light of God’s countenance’ (see Ps 44:3, 90:8).

The prophets spoke the language of light. Isaiah entreats Israel: ‘Come, descendants of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the LORD!’ (Isa 2:5) He later refers to God as the ‘Light of Israel’ (Isa 10:17); the prophet Micah states: ‘Do not gloat over me, my enemies! For though I fall, I will rise again. Though I sit in darkness, the LORD will be my light’ (Mic 7:8). Daniel the prophet affirms of the God of heaven: ‘He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what lies in darkness, and light dwells with him.’ (Dan 2:22).

The Apostle Paul also reflects this thought when he writes of the Almighty: ‘God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see (1 Tim 6:15b-16a). Note that the Apostle Paul when witnessing the glory of the Lord identifies the glory as a great light – (see Acts 22:11, 26:23).

Looking to the journey ahead, the prophet Isaiah was given the words of a wonderful promise that one day "No longer will you need the sun to shine by day, nor the moon to give its light by night, for the LORD your God will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory (Isa 60:19).

This vision is again renewed by the revelation given to the Apostle John, the beautiful vision of the New Jerusalem: ‘And the city has no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light.’ (Rev 21:11) ‘The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp (v23). The nations will walk by its light…’ (v 24); What an amazing vision! just as when before the sun and moon were spoken into existence, the Light was shining, so it will be without need for another. In the last chapter of the book - Revelation 22:5 - ‘And there will be no night there - no need for lamps or sun - for the Lord God will shine on them.' Amen.

 

Notes:

¹ The New Living Translation renders the partial phrase as ‘…God our father who created all the lights in the heavens’. The interpretation of ‘lights’ to mean the lights in the heavens here, I believe is unwarranted and a bit of a liberal stretch given the context. Most other Bible translations render the phrase ‘father of lights’ in line with the Greek text ‘patros ton photon’. Consider also the context in the statement of the verse directly following (v 18) ‘He (God) chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.’

² see also Ester_8:16 ‘The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honour.’

³ compare to John 3:19-20

 

Shalom

שָׁלוֹם

 

Shalom is one of the most frequently used words in the Hebrew Bible. To most of us, Shalom means ‘peace’; and in both ancient and modern Hebrew language, ‘Shalom’ is spoken as a greeting. It is also cited as a state of peace between parties (biblically such as in Joshua 19:15, 1 Sam 20:42).

The concept of Shalom, however, encompasses much more than these applications. The biblical application of the term extends to concepts of safety, wellness/welfare, blessing; and perhaps an all encompassing application of Shalom is wholeness or completeness. Let’s look at how it all fits together.

 

Starting at the end, Shalom is cited often at the end of the journey of life. ‘For those who follow godly paths will rest in peace (shalom) when they die.’ (Is 57:2) God spoke to Abraham and said ‘As for you, you will die in peace and be buried at a ripe old age.’(Gen 15:15), and to Zedekiah, king of Judah: ‘you will die peacefully. As people made a funeral fire in honour of your fathers, the former kings who preceded you, so they will make a fire in your honour and lament, "Alas, O master!" I myself make this promise, declares the LORD.'" (Jer 34:5)¹ The use of shalom in this context implies that shalom is a goal to be reached, the ultimate fulfilled promise.

In the Psalms, Shalom is often equated with blessing ‘The LORD gives his people strength. The LORD blesses them with peace.’ (Ps 29:11); ‘Jerusalem, may there be peace within your walls and prosperity in your palaces. For the sake of my family and friends, I will say, “May you have peace.” (Ps 122:7-8).

Peace is something we need and continuously seek. This primary human need for safety and peace is portrayed vividly in the struggle of Jacob. Early in his journey Jacob barters with God for shalom: ‘and if I return safely (state of shalom) to my father's home, then the LORD will certainly be my God.’ (Gen 28:21).

The scriptures teach that peace originates from God: ‘I will give you peace in the land, and you will be able to sleep with no cause for fear.’(Lev 26:6) ‘The LORD gives his people strength. The LORD blesses them with peace.’ (Ps 29:11). Indeed, after his encounter with the angel of the LORD, Gideon builds an altar and calls it ‘the LORD is peace’. We can’t attain shalom apart from God granting it. False peace is no peace.²

 

Historically we see that God establishes a covenant of peace with those who act in accordance with his purposes. Shalom is conditional on an expected action. For instance, to Phinehas, son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest who had turned God’s anger away from the Israelites, God promised: ‘Now tell him that I am making my special covenant of peace with him’ (Num 25:12). And of the covenant with the Levites: "The purpose of my covenant with the Levites was to bring life and peace, and that is what I gave them. This required reverence from them, and they greatly revered me and stood in awe of my name.’ (Mal 2:5/6) ‘But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace.’ (Ps 37:11) – the words of Jesus echoing the promise ‘Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth’ (Mat 5:5). ‘Consider the blameless, observe the upright; there is a future for the man of peace.’ (Ps 37:37).

 

The covenant of peace between God and His people Israel is spoken of in Isaiah. ‘Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed," says the LORD, who has compassion on you’ (Is 54:10). I will teach all your children, and they will enjoy great peace (v 13). ‘You will live in joy and peace. The mountains and hills will burst into song, and the trees of the field will clap their hands!’ (55:12) ‘bringing words of praise to their lips. May they have abundant peace, both near and far," says the LORD, who heals them.’ (Is 57:19)

 

In the scriptures, peace and righteousness are intertwined. ‘Unfailing love and truth have met together. Righteousness and peace have kissed!’ (Ps 85:10) ‘And this righteousness will bring peace. Yes, it will bring quietness and confidence forever.’ (Is 32:17) Similarly, truth is believed to be leading to a restoration of peace; ‘But this is what you must do: Tell the truth to each other. Render verdicts in your courts that are just and that lead to peace’…so love truth and peace’ (Zec 8:16/19)

Shalom does not signal simply a state of being but an activity, a movement towards a goal or a state. The Hebrew root of the word is ‘sh’-‘l’-‘m’ also carries the meaning of payment or a restored state. The scriptures speak of a new covenant of shalom made by God through the Messiah. ‘The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ ‘His government and its peace will never end. He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity. The passionate commitment of the LORD of Heaven's Armies will make this happen!’ (Is 9:6b/7) ‘But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole (derived from shalom). He was whipped so we could be healed.’ (Is 53:5)

The writers of the New Testament understood shalom in this context of restoration and establishing restitution through action and payment. The Apostle Paul wrote of the work of the Messiah on the cross: ‘and through him God reconciled everything to himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of Christ's blood on the cross.’ (Col 1:2). Shalom extends to peace between Jew and Gentile: ‘For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us’ (Eph 2:14). Shalom is core to relationship; conditional on a price, established by God himself.

 

Notes:

1 (see also 2 Ki 22:20).

2 The scriptures distinguish between a true peace of God is to be distinguished and a false peace. Let’s regard a few instances where false peace is described and warned against. ‘Those who hear the warnings of this curse should not congratulate themselves, thinking, 'I am safe’ even though I am following the desires of my own stubborn heart.' This would lead to utter ruin!’ (the word used for safe here is derived from ‘shalom’), (Deut 29:19). In the book of Ezekiel, God speaks of false prophets who declare a false peace: "This will happen because these evil prophets deceive my people by saying, 'All is peaceful' when there is no peace at all! It's as if the people have built a flimsy wall, and these prophets are trying to reinforce it by covering it with whitewash! (Ezek 13:10) and v. 16 ‘They were lying prophets who claimed peace would come to Jerusalem when there was no peace. I, the Sovereign LORD, have spoken!'; and in Micah 3:5 ‘This is what the LORD says: "You false prophets are leading my people astray! You promise peace for those who give you food, but you declare war on those who refuse to feed you.’

 

Words, ‘Devarim’

 דְּבָרִים

The opening of the first book in the Bible, Genesis, speaks of God creating the universe by the power of His spoken word. We are familiar with the text: "God said let there be...".

The scriptures also teach that our words are powerful, “Death and Life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit.” (Proverbs 18:21) Just how powerful? The power of life and death are in them. This is also evident in the teachings of James, the brother of our Lord likening the tongue to a spring of either fresh or salt water; a tree bearing fruit (James 3).

Two biblical accounts involving the significance of words stand out for me. The first is the account of God forbidding the generation He rescued out of Egypt from entering the promised land. Nearing the end of his life Moses recounts to the Israelites their sin which prevented that generation from entering the land. "When the Lord heard what you said, He was angry and solemnly swore: Not a man of this evil generation shall enter the good land I swore to give your forefathers."  (Deuteronomy 1:35). Moses reminds them that their long wilderness experience was a result of their wrong words against God’s good promise. It is also interesting that only Joshua and Caleb who brought and spoke a good report of the promised land, words aligned with God's good will, ultimately entered the land. To the Israelites, their past was a reminder of their unbelief, their disagreement with God; but thankfully it also marks a new beginning, in agreement with God’s good plans and the promises which He delivers.

The prophet Isaiah saw his ‘unclean lips’ as reason to prevent him from being in the presence of God. While seeing a vision of the Lord seated on His throne in the Temple, he cried, "Woe to me!" ... "I am ruined!  For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty’ (Isaiah 6:5). We see God sanctifying his lips and enabling him to speak God’s words to his people.

The psalms of David reflect his meditation on the Torah 'instruction' - the words referring to God's communication are repeatedly reiterated through out his writings. The phrase: 'laws, statutes, commandments and judgements' is a familiar feature of David's Psalms. The psalmist also instructs: “Who is the man who desires life, and loves many days, that he may see good? Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit.” (Psalm 34:13) and he prays: “Keep me safe from the secret purposes of wrongdoers: from the band of the workers of evil; who make their tongue sharp like a sword, and whose arrows are pointed, even bitter words.” (Psalm 64:2-3)

In Matthew 12:36, Jesus teaches us that we would be judged for every idle word we speak: “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.” Similarly the Apostle Paul instructs believers: "Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church"; furthermore: “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers…. Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice.” (Ephesians 4: 29, 31). Similar exhortations to teach, admonish, affirm and encourage one another are echoed throughout the biblical teaching (for example, 1 Thes 5:14, Rom 15:4, Tit 1:9, Col 3:16, 2 Thes 3:15). Our words matter and thus with utmost care we should speak. We are exalted to speak the truth in love, encourage and edify, correct and admonish one another, in doing so blessing one another.

The dichotomy and trichotomy models of man

The focus of the last post was on comparing the 'Monism'/'whole man' model of humanity to a model which acknowledges a complex unity of constituents (in the present life), being a material body and a nonmaterial element, the non-material element continuing beyond bodily existance - for a summary and scriptural evidence for this model see http://biblical-psychology.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/soul-and-spirit-in-hebrew.html

In an earlier post, we looked at the usage of the terms 'soul' and 'spirit' in Hebrew. In summary, while there is overlap between the translated hebrew concepts of ‘roo-akh’ and ‘nephesh’; in an existential sense, a distinction between the terms denotes 'Roo'-akh' / ‘spirit’ as the special gift of God to man. 'Soul'/'nephesh' is commonly concieved of as the whole creature (including animals), or the life or 'lifeblood' of a creature.

Thus, since it is scripturally established that the non-material component continues beyond the bodily existence, what constitutes this non-material element? The following is a brief overview of the dichotomy and trichotomy models of man, and the Biblical grounds cited for each position. The dichotomy model poses body and (soul/spirit), essentially proposing that there is no split in man's non-material element. In contrast, the trichotomy model holds three distinct elements in man being 'body', 'soul' and 'spirit', thus proposing a distinction between man's spiritual and 'soulish' (mind, will and emotions) elements.

Those advocating a trichotomy model of man in body, soul and spirit rely on the verses of
1 Thessalonians 5:23 in Paul’s prayer ‘I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.’; the claim is that this demonstrates that there is a tri-model; and Hebrews 4:12 as it refers to the word of God ‘dividing asunder of soul and spirit’ is also taken to indicate a distinction between soul and spirit. Note that both refernces are in Greek NT. Note also that man in the Biblical Hebrew framework is essentially 'dust' from the ground (adam-ah) and God's breath, 'neshamah'. In Ecclesiastes 12:7, the author writes ‘Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.' It seems logical that our understanding needs to be oriented to the Hebrew concept of created man, and moreover it needs to reconcile the Greek New Testament language to the Hebrew framework - rather that the other way around.

Berkhof argues in his Systematic Theology that a tri-model of body, soul and spirit finds its roots in Greek pagan philosophy which poses that our material body and immaterial spirit can relate only through a third intermediate entity, namely the soul. Reymond rightly points out the difficulties with forming a 'triune' doctrine based on these scriptures – mostly for the reason that in doing so we regard them out of context extracting a secondary message from the text which was not intended by the author. Burns agrees with this and warns that the Apostle Paul’s use of the terms taken to mean a trichotomy of ‘body’/’soul’ and the ‘spirit’ is problematic– and caution is sounded here as what we have of the Apostle’s thought on the subject is far from systematic (Burns 2007). Reference is also made by trichotomists to Jesus’ teaching in Luke 10:27 to ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' (parallels in Mark 12:30, and Matthew 22:37). Again, Reymond draws attention to the primary purpose of the passage the passages as simply admonishing us to love God with our entire being. Variations in text of these ‘components’ between the gospels are also relevantly noted here, likely indicating an encompasing parallelism rather than set distinctions.

Advocates of the dichotomy body and (soul/spirit) cite Ecclesiastes 12:7 ‘Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.’; and Mathew 10:28 ‘And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.’; and 2 Co 5:1-10 (referring to spirit and body) and Ph 1:21-24 (contrasting being present in the body with being present with Christ). Reymond notes that because of this evidence all the reformation creeds including the Westminster Confession affirm the dichotomy of body and (soul/spirit). Grudem concurs with this view stating “Such a view of dichotomy within unity will also help us to remember that, in this life, there is a continual interaction between our body and our spirit, and that they affect each other”. A dynamic model is thus suggested, a unity made up of two distinct elements a material body and an immaterial soul/spirit of man.
 


_________
References

Burns C. P. (2005). Cognitive Science and Christian Theology. In Soul, Psyche, Brain. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998)

Soul and Spirit in the Hebrew

רוּ֫ח

נֶ֫פֶשׁ

This is a brief overview analysis of the associated use of the words ‘Roo' ach’ and ‘nephesh’ in the Hebrew Bible. This was carried out using Strong’s Hebrew concordance in order to illuminate the Hebrew concepts in relation to what they contribute to human existence; moreover whether they are separate or distinct concepts from the physical body. ‘Spirit’ is usually the default translation for the Hebrew word ‘Roo’-akh’ – which can also mean ‘breath’, ‘wind’, and ‘mind’ (as in Gen 26:35). – (Jesus’ likening a person born of the spirit to the wind comes to mind here). Strong's concordance has a notation that the use of ‘spirit’ is applied only to a rational being*, however you will find that there are few exceptions to this where the word is rendered 'breath', for instance Gen 7:15. The concept rendered 'spirit' can also be used to describe an evil spirit – usually action-oriented and wilful (e.g. 1 Kings 22:22). A ‘spirit’ is perceived as something proceeding from God; for example, the spirit of wisdom, prophecy, jealousy (e.g. Judges 6:34 – on Gideon). The word is also used to describe spiritual states, such as grief, contrition, brokenness, and vexation.

The word ‘soul’ is usually the default translation of the Hebrew ‘nephesh’ – the undisputed use encompassing ‘soul’, ‘living being’ (a living body by implication) /’creature’ (including animals), ‘life’, ‘person’, (and less commonly rendered as ‘appetite’, ‘desire’, ‘emotion’, and ‘passion’) (Strong’s concordance). Note that ‘nephesh’ can be used to denote a whole creature. A visible distinction is also observed here in the application of ‘nephesh’ to living creatures in general not just man.

It should however be noted that ‘nephesh’ and ‘roo-akh’ are closely related in Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages such as Arabic – both for instance denote the concepts of wind and breath. 
Note however, that in Genesis 2, into man's nostrils alone does God breathe the breath of life 'neshama' (Gen 2:7)**. The term is also used in Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath 'neshama' of the Almighty hath given me life" In Job 32:8, Elihu points out "But there is a spirit 'neshama' in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding. Again, proverbs 20:27 reads "The spirit 'neshama' of man is the lamp of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly."



Notes: 
*The exception is found in Ecclesiastes 3:21 ‘Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?’ – given the varying views on how to appraise this verse, caution is warranted in taking it as a doctrinal statement.

* *Reymond (1998) outlines "the one context where some expositors contend that the nesh a¯måh, is identified with animals as well is Genesis 7:21–22, but a careful reading of the text will disclose that the nes a¯måh, of 7:22 has for its referent mankind at the very end of 7:21, but a careful reading of the text will disclose that the nes a¯måh, of 7:22 has for its referent mankind at the very end of 7:21, that is to say that the verses should be read "and all mankind - all on dry land [which excludes the occupants of the ark] in whose nostrils was the nes a¯måh, of life died"

Reference:
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998)