All Comments for: Suffering God | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > March

Christianity Today, March, 2007 |

Reflections

Suffering God

Quotations to stir heart and mind.

posted 3/05/2007 08:58AM

HE WAS DESPISED and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity. … Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

David Harrison

Posted: March 15, 2007 10:03 AM

When will we begin to realise that we are all part of the same family, and learn to love one another and not allow the enemy a foothold in our family. He doesn't even belong here, (among us, who are a part of the Body of Christ). To love God and to love one another, and not condemn others because they have a different opinion. Opinions should die with the flesh, as well as anything else which is not in agreement with the mind of the Holy Spirit. We are all at different stages in our respective walks with the Lord. May we learn to live with one another with this in mind. I'm still learning how to live with my own ignorance, let alone with anyone else's. Still trying to love, when not being so. Blessings Brethren

Trevor

Posted: March 10, 2007 4:18 PM

God made us in his image, and if there was not something inherently good in suffering (and only God is good) then he would not have made us able to suffer just like Him. Just think about how important it is to mourn with those who mourn and to celebrate with joy with those who rejoice. What a flat idol of a god our God would be if he was so abstracted and divorced from us that he did not suffer just as any person (Person in his case) would. Just because we refer to Him as a Person with a capital "P" to show our respect for His Majesty does not make him any less of a full person.

Jojo Bive

Posted: March 08, 2007 11:02 PM

The idea of God suffering is all over the prophetic writings. The issue here is whether these presentations were merely anthropopatic and anthropomorphic or real and actual sufferings, analogous to human suffering. I would have to say that while it is true that the prophecies are garbed in anthropopatic expressions, they were real sufferings of a loving God, who chose to suffer, in behalf of His redeemed. This suffering however cannot be defined in human terms nor can be likened to any earthly suffering. His transcendence will always be a mystery to us. But I would not confuse it with the transcendent God of Anselm which made God wholly insensitive and detached from human suffering. On the other hand, to say to the extent that God died would be putting too much sugar on the icing. I think this balance must always be kept in view. God's suffering is not uncaused for the very reason of his volition to suffer and this suffering is consistent with his communicable attributes.

CSimmons

Posted: March 06, 2007 7:39 AM

I teach a Sunday school class along with my husband to kids who are in the 4th & 5th grades. Some of these kids come from Catholic backgrounds and struggle to understand the Biblical truths they are being taught about God and Christ. Understandable! Since the Lord Jesus Christ is in fact God, it can be understood that the Father suffered along with the Son as Messiah hung there making atonement for our sins. Yet and still the Son in his suffering says, "My God, my God - Why hast Thou forsaken me?" We know the Father did not forsake the Son, because the Scriptures say so. I have no problem beleiving that God the father suffers anymore than the way we live our lives grieve Him. This is not bringing Him down to our level. The reality is that our lives should reflect the character of Christ each and every day, if we are indeed His children, saved by the Blood of the Lamb.

Billy

Posted: March 06, 2007 6:42 AM

Glenn, the humerous part about your comment is that you say, "I find it fascinating that the lower-rating comments on this artcle all speak to theology but not one speaks from the Bible." But, you proceede to give your own theology and you DO NOT quote one scripture from the Bible. You have just fallen into the trap that you criticized the other people of doing. Second, all the others have made comments but unless you give an argument your comments are nothing but just that, comments.

Darrell Cosden

Posted: March 06, 2007 2:19 AM

Charlie Ray above suggests that the suffering of God amounts to heresy because it is patripassionism. Charlie seems not to understand the nature, history or purpose of the doctrine of patripassionism in Patristic throught. It is the doctrine that claims that the Father (not God in a general abstract metaphysical sense) does not suffer 'as' Christ. It need not be understood as excluding the Father's suffering for us 'in Christ'. This doctrine historically is not making an abstract metaphysical claim about the ousia of God, but rather is a safegard against modalism, which says something like: 'Jesus suffered, Jesus is God [= Father in a subsequent manifistation] therefore the Father suffered'. Non of the quotes above is even leaning toward modalism, in fact all authors quoted know better than this. Rather they are affirming with Cyril of Alexandria and the homoousias doctrine the paradox of the 'impassible suffering' of God which only makes sense if God is Trinity.

Glenn

Posted: March 06, 2007 1:34 AM

I find it fascinating that the lower-rating comments on this article all speak to theology but not one speaks from the Bible. In God's own Word, we find that He runs the full gamut of human emotion, from wrathful anger to grace-bestowing love. And why should He not? We are playing philosophical games if we deny that God can and will react to what we humans are doing and feeling. Were God so immovable, then prayer would be unnecessary and useless -- and yet, from one end of the Bible to the other, we are commanded to pray, to ask, to yearn, to hope. In any case, it is good for us to reflect on God's suffering as Christ, lest we boast of our own sufferings and forget the great gift of life He bought for us on the Cross.

Tim	Posted: March 05, 2007 8:05 PM

My dad used to say to me "I love you so much it hurts." I have two little girls and I now know what he meant. I have always considered that love and pain were not mutually exclusive, but went hand in hand. God's loving choice to create, and loving choice to redeem in and through His Son Jesus were both rooted in the Divine constant of Love. Both also involved divine pain, creating something outside one's self involves the pain of letting go. Part of the divine mystery of redemption is also the divine mystery of the incarnation- the divine-human Jesus entering the world of human suffering, contingency and eventually death- all out of love. As to where does it say that God suffers?, the stories of Hosea and Jeremiah's lives are intended as descriptions not only of His people's rejection but also God's reaction to that rejection. We run the risk of anthropomorphism whenever we attempt to describe God too closely in terms of our experience,but that shouldn't prevent holy imagination

Bradford Rosenquist

Posted: March 05, 2007 4:14 PM

There is no question as to the emotional and beautifical aspect of believing that God suffers. My question is simply this, and this, by the way, must be the bottom line on all statements about God, where in the Bible does it state: "God suffers?" We read of the messianic prophecies of what the Messiah would suffer...but we do not read of God suffering. In our desperate desire to somehow get God down to our level [our effort to do so...not God's effort as already accomplished as described in the gospel of John "made flesh and dwelt among us" ] we can easily get off the track and state things in a most compelling and beautiful and poetic fashion that simply are not biblically sound. God cannot die. God is spirit and spirit is eternal. Jesus the man died. Jesus the man was without sin. Jesus, the creator God did not die. If we believe that death is defined as without life, then we see that Jesus has never been without life, as he is the Creator God...the giver of life

Charlie Ray

Posted: March 05, 2007 3:39 PM

It is a heresy condemned by the church to suggest that God the Father suffered on the cross. It's called "patripassionism." When Christ suffered on the cross he suffered in his human nature which is not to confused with his divine nature. The two natures are perfectly united in one person, Jesus Christ, yet not mingled nor separated. We should also remember that Christ has two wills: a human will and a divine will. The sloppy thinking implied in these short quotes barely touch a theological issue that requires deep thought. To say the things these authors have said without qualifying them constitutes ignorance, dereliction and heresy. God is not human. His attributes set him apart from his creation. To confuse God with humanity is anthropomorphism at best and idolatry at worst. To confuse the incarnation with godhead is inexcusable for those who claim to be evangelical scholars. http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com

ElephantAndCross

Posted: March 05, 2007 2:37 PM

Bill Roach: "For if God is affected by an outside source it means that there is a cause of potency within the nature of God. Which means there is a creator for the Creator." I'm not entirely sure what the first sentence means but if you are saying that denying impassiblity entails that God is a contingent being, I think you're mistaken. I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion. Still, it seems that you are actually talking about immuatibility, which is closely related to impassibility. Immutability does, indeed, entail that God's relationship with humans cannot be dynamic. If there can be no change in his being whatsoever then there can be no dynamic interaction with individuals. I don't quite understand how anyone maintains that God is atemporal and immutable. After all, the second person of the trinity did take on a human nature. There is some obvious "before and after" to his life (contra atemporality) and some obvious change to his nature (contra immutability).

KT	Posted: March 05, 2007 2:30 PM

May be only Christians understand why God had to suffer in order to pay for humans sins. As a non Christian my understanding is very different but this might explain the unique way of explaining God. God=Love Any body disagrees? How can you love someone without Freedom? It is the top priority for God to give us unlimited freedom. Unfortunately freedom comes with a price that is evil or bad. But it does not matter for the God. He gave so much freedom to us that it was OK to mock Him, beat Him, spat on Him and even kill Him. His suffering is the most radical manifestation of Grace. vcindiana@yahoo.com

William

Posted: March 05, 2007 12:03 PM

God by definition is not beyond coprehension. Have you ever heard of analogy? Does that comment or thought of God in which you made go beyond comprehension? That is a contradiction. It is better to believe that God is known in so far as Act to act is known. It does not mean that one's knowledge is exhaustive, but what can be known is known via analogy. Second, it is a red herring to say that the 3 A's are wrong without proving it. This was held by all the creeds, Fathers, medievals, reformers, and contemporaries. You have to prove them wrong. Bill has offered a very strong refutation, in which you did not respond to his comment on God is Pure Actuality with no Potentiality. If you can prove that God's being is not the same as his essence, then ok di-polar theism wins the day. But you need to respond to Aquinas in the summa if you are going to win that argument. Also, he does not mean that all of God is caused, but only the suffered part. So again you have a caused part in the Uncasued.

Eddie Francisco

Posted: March 05, 2007 11:09 AM

To believe that God suffers does not require that he be created (per Bill Roach). Since God is by definition beyond our comprehension, it is possible that God--in his love--chooses to suffer as part of that love. To hold to a God who loves without experiencing the full effects of love is to create a fiction of what love is. Love must experience its effects--positive and negative. But experiencing its effects does not require a God who was created. As to "The 3 big A's: Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas"--it is possible for them to be wrong. After all, they held to a geocentric view of the universe. Maybe they were wrong in some other areas as well.

Bill Roach

Posted: March 05, 2007 10:54 AM

The passibility of God issue completely distroys classical theism. If God is Pure Actuality with no passive potency, then he is impassible. For if God is affected by an outside source it means that there is a cause of potency within the nature of God. Which means there is a creator for the Creator. How do we account for love? It does not mean that God does not love, but it means that the relationship between God and object is not a dynamic relationship. But rather, it is the type of love that exists between a cause and effect. This does not say that God does not have emotion, but it means that God does not have changing emotion. If someone is going to remove the impassibility of God. They are going to have a potent, casued, mutable, non-soverign God. Also, this doctrine is in contradiction with the 3 big A's: Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas (for more of a defense read these 3). For a full response please read Norman Geislers systematic theology book 2.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment