Kevin DeYoung
wrote an article in 2006 titled, “Divine Impassibility and the Person
of Christ in the Book of Hebrews.” I recommend the article. I’ve
included a summary below, followed by my response.
DeYoung, Kevin. “Divine Impassibility and the Passion of Christ in the Book of Hebrews.” Westminster Theological Journal 68 (2006): 41-50.
The
doctrine of divine impassibility has lost favor within Christianity
today. Most believe that God suffers. There are four main theological
reasons why God’s impassibility is being rejected: 1) A suffering God is
the only possible theodicy. 2) God is love, and if God is love He must
enter into the pain of His creatures—anything less would be
diabolical. 3) The biblical description of God in His passions must be
taken at full face value and not diminished as anthropopathic language.
4) When Jesus Christ—the fullness of the Godhead in bodily
form—suffered, He showed the true suffering nature of God Himself. The
concern of this paper is with this fourth reason. According to those
who argue for God’s passibility, the suffering of Christ must entail the
suffering of God. I disagree. By looking at Hebrews, especially
2:5-18, I hope to demonstrate that God remains impassible even though
the Impassible suffered in Christ.
This
passage directs us towards two points crucial in our understanding of
how Jesus Christ can suffer while God does not: 1) The incarnation
involved some sort of change. Christ the exact representation of God
was made a little lower than the angels. Not every thing Jesus did or
felt revealed the character of God since He is fully human. Jesus ate,
slept, drank, etc. Continue at Jared Moore
No comments:
Post a Comment