The Love of Many Will Grow Cold

This is a hard time for Egypt. Jesus knew that in hard times it is hard to love. He said: “And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.”

Many of my family are in Egypt. I hear that more than 50 churches were burned in the last two days by radical Islamists – and I think, they have no love in their hearts. I hear that Christians are attacked, and killed in their homes and on the streets (just because they are Christians). Most media outlets seem to think it’s not worth reporting.

The reaction of the Christian leader of the Church in Egypt was to call on Christians to pray for their enemies, for the very people who persecute them, that God may forgive them, they pray and fast for their sake. They pray for the families who lost loved ones, no matter what religion they follow. I admit, may be my love grows cold.

Jesus told his disciples: “And the time will come when people will kill you and think they are doing God a favour.” Yet this is what he taught on love: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”.

Jesus didn’t just teach this – he knew persecution well in his life, and even as he hung on the cross this was his last prayer: “forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."

The followers of Jesus write: “For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” They say: “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

This is a wisdom I struggle to understand but I know it is true and right. The love of God is more than enough – may their love, our love - never grow cold as we wait for better times.

Depression, Anxiety and Medication in Hindsight

Awareness of Depression and Anxiety has increased significantly in recent times in recognition of the extent and impact felt by sufferers and the community as a whole. Surprisingly though, largely amongst the Christian community, the discussion seems to arrive at a premature conclusion; the prevailing attitude seems to be that if you’re a believer, ‘why would you need medication for depression or anxiety? Why would you even be depressed or anxious’ in the first place? This is not an open and shut case however. I say largely this is the prevailing attitude, because there are some who do not regard this topic through the judgemental lenses “well, the believer would not need antidepressants”– refreshingly some Christian figures such as Charles Swindoll, John Eldridge, and Mathew Stanford offer a balanced perspective, extending grace to those who have suffered with depression, even to those who arrived at the point of being prescribed anti-depressants.

Whilst many acknowledge the problems and respond with grace, in contrast, still many insist that depression and anxiety are purely ‘spiritual issues’ – thus the person should deal with their spiritual problems if they want to get better – and sadly, this is a commonly held belief in our churches. I remember the time when a woman who had been a regular and highly functioning member of a congregation I attended; during what seemed to be an acute depressive episode, disrupted the Sunday service – at which point the members treated her as if she was possessed with an evil spirit and proceeded with lengthy ‘deliverance’ ministry! I remember discussing this with the pastor and her family - sadly she was misunderstood and therefore unwittingly mistreated despite the best of intentions.

I must admit I was one who presumptuously made the same blanket judgement on the matter in my earlier days of being a psychologist – yes, to my untrained eyes and unexperienced soul, I thought that antidepressants must be for the unbelieving – those who did not have ‘the joy of the Lord’ with them. I remember making a comment to that effect to a couple of colleagues in a conference for Christian psychologists - an older and wiser Christian woman smiled and gently said ‘I’ve had my days on antidepressants’.

I know better now, and it is me saying ‘I’ve had my time on antidepressants’. Not long ago, severe depression and anxiety dominated my existence, and so for the better part of the last couple of years I have struggled to regain ‘normality’. They knew no boundaries – neither night nor day. It was not as if I did not experience sadness or anxiety earlier in life – I think my personality and natural predisposition lend themselves to melancholy and worry at times. Like most of us I have experienced hard times which left me troubled for a season. I had been through a bout of depression following the birth of my youngest child, it lasted a few months then it lifted to make way for happier days.

This time though, my best efforts to function failed. I had been going through severe grief at the time, but the weeks turned into months and the darkness seemed to settle. Sleep left - and my nights just prolonged the nightmare of an anxiety that would not loosen its grip. I could not eat - not only did I not have a desire to eat but I could not taste food. I lost weight rapidly, had no energy, even my physical health (down to my hair and skin) changed. I broke down frequently, in tears and at times in uncontrollable fits of desperation with life. I remember at some points I fell unconscious for a short while following such breakdowns – I believe it was God catching me in his arms of mercy. I tried to shield my children as best as I knew how – but I was unable to live ‘in the land of the living’. I tried to change and just walk through it, but I knew I needed help when my strongest wish and prayers longed for life to end.

I sought help from a Psychiatrist, and he prescribed medication for anxiety and depression as a first line of treatment. In hind sight, the medication was nothing short of a life line. It enabled me to sleep, and my appetite began to return. The frequency and intensity of breakdowns lessened and I was able to hang on to life. It would take many months before I felt that I was going to be well. In fact it was hard to see the progress in some aspects, two steps forward, one step back - but looking back I am grateful to be sure that I am out of the pit.  

They may be overprescribed in some instances, but medication is nothing short of life saving for many who suffer with depression and anxiety – believers are no exception here. I state this as a mental health professional, yet more confidently as a survivor of their darkness. The following are facts to keep in mind, as well as a summary of what I found helpful in survival and recovery.

Biochemical aspects to Depression and Anxiety:

The neurotransmitter Serotonin is the most implicated in depression as one of the vital chemicals that the brain manufactures for normal functioning (Norepinephrine also has a role to play). A lack of Serotonin (at times, the brain’s over processing of the chemical) leaves its supplies chronically depleted inturn leading to depression. The medical world knows this, yet in most instances, so far a test of Serotonin levels is not utilised in diagnosing and prescribing.

What does a lack of ‘healthy brain chemistry’ look like experientially? It can vary between mild low mood (we sometimes mistakenly attribute that to a person’s melancholic personality); to general fatigue and lack of interest in daily activities, decreased sleep, low appetite and a lack of enjoyment of life; to the extreme end of the spectrum where life is an inconceivable burden and ending it seems like the only way out. This is all influenced by a myriad of factors, including life’s circumstances, available family and social support, genetic factors, as well as gender - women are more prone to experience depression and this is attributed to hormonal factors. Moreover, recent research strongly supports the involvement of diet factors, which we will look at later on.

How antidepressants work

Most antidepressants act on one or more of the neurotransmitter pathways such as the one mentioned above. We will look at just one example, a class of antidepressants named Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) – well, you guessed it; they inhibit the re-absorption of serotonin, leaving more of it to act in the synapse where it’s needed. They work! While they don’t have a ‘magical effect’ on all there is to depression; depending on what symptoms they are effective with some aspects of functioning. Antidepressants will not make life ‘happy’ again. The individual still lives in, and has to cope with their reality and struggles in life whatever they may be. What they do is lift the level of functioning in basic areas such as sleep, appetite and they lower the intensity of the aversive mood. The person starts to taste food again, he can get a decent shut eye at night, and consequently the days are more bearable – in a real sense, antidepressants are a lifeline, without them, life would be unbearable – no rest at night and so much to face during the day.

A look at Recovery

A firm grasp of God’s love

As believers, we can not afford to detach from the love of our God. The worst of times should be a catalyst for running to God, indeed the biblical testimony is filled with the witness of the believer’s journey ‘through the valley of the shadow of death’, and their God was with them. I can testify that as dark as the darkness got, I knew God’s love as never before. During the worst of times, my Lord was never far from me, whenever I called out to him, he answered and poured out his strength on me. I knew the meaning of the psalmist’s words - ‘My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.’ I learned that I can have joy even in the darkness, that this can take the form of a verse in due season, a prayer, or the unmistakable understanding that I am not forsaken. Joy was not in ‘happiness’ or in the acceptance and affirmation from others, but in quietness and rest in Him.

God’s word became my constant companion and source of comfort – my bread and breath. I had been a relatively new born again believer. During this difficult time I was drawn to read the word from cover to cover, for the first time. I started to go to Bible College – predominantly because I wanted to spend more time meditating on his word, for me this was probably the most constructive choice of that time.

Remembering food

Some of us are naturally hard pressed for an appetite, but this is never felt so much as during depression. Eating becomes a chore that one can easily forsake. Food loses its taste along with any associated feeling of enjoyment or pleasure. This makes it hard to maintain consistent meals, and thus medication can help in improving appetite which is essential in supporting everyday functioning and in lifting mood.

Diet and supplements

Good food – particularly rich in the essential nutrients for brain health goes a long way on the road to recovery. Certain types of fish are rich in Omega 3, which is needed for repairing the coating on the nerve cells, thus facilitating nerve signal transmission, among other benefits. In addition, poultry products (particularly chicken meat) contain tryptophan, which is converted to Serotonin – the neurotransmitter discussed earlier. There is also a place for dietary supplements; I would highly recommend sufficient doses of a marine oil (such as fish oil) and also a strong natural anti-oxidant such as Astaxanthin which will aid in maintaining general physical and mental well being.

Sleep

It’s during sleep that our bodies and minds regenerate, in particular, healthy brain biochemistry relies on the sleep cycle. Getting sufficient sleep is not optional – particularly during acute episodes of depression or anxiety. Often when this line of defence fails, a relapse may be looming. The longer the sleep disturbance continues, the harder life gets and recovery is hindered. If all else fails to restore adequate sleep, medication may be needed in order to aid with falling asleep and staying asleep for a good duration. 

Time for company

My struggle was a private battle for the most part – I did not want people to know, I did not think they would understand, or be able to help. Still I felt some would judge me, and so I kept up an ‘I’m well’ facade in front of most for the sake of my privacy. I withdrew from most company - except for attending non-assessable college classes. I know that the people who were close enough and able to get a glimpse of my struggle prayed and lovingly just offered their presence. Yet some of the closest people did not understand or know how to respond. Their well-meaning efforts translated into advice on how to get better quickly and fix my problems and get on with life - like Job’s friends, at times they were quick to blame and assign remedy. Relationships just became harder, I needed rest and the strain of expectations was too much to bear – sadly, those pressures meant that I was loosing out on fellowship; to withdraw from meaningful relationships was my way of maintaining peace.

It is tempting and often natural to withdraw from company during depression. Very few people have insight or even awareness of the experience of someone suffering from depression or anxiety – therefore being amongst others may feel like one is among complete strangers, and thus withdrawal from family and friends feels like the easiest thing to do. It’s important to prevent avoidance of social contact from setting in, which in the long run affects relationships and results in isolation. Left untreated, this may be hard to change. I know it was easier for me to be amongst people I hardly knew and who hardly knew me because they could not discern my difficulties, and therefore in the absence of ‘expectations’ it was easier to ‘just be’ me. 

Time for solitude and rest

Solitude for the believer never really means being alone. It means that the time is spent wholly with God. There is healing and renewal of strength in time spent in his presence. Jesus spent some time in a solitary place with the Father – particularly in times when he needed comfort and rest. This is never disappointing or fearful; it’s reassuring and full of peace. So finding the balance between good company and times of solitude with God is a way forward in God’s grace.

There are many aspects to depression and anxiety that need to be exposed, talked about, shared, questioned and understood. The way forward is not to deny, dismiss or even judge the experience of the depressed and anxious. A good start would be to weep with those who mourn, pray for the afflicted and seek God in desperate times.

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God.” (2 Corinthians 1:4)

Reflections on 'Kings'

Kings - Melakim, ruled over the land of God and over his inheritance. The book tells the story of a people who lived to see the height of glory on earth, the ones who tasted the bitterness of sin and walked the road to exile. A king without his King is lost and those he leads go astray. From the first to the last of them, they were gathered to their ancestors. All that was left was a testimony of doing right or evil in the sight of the Lord.

‘Gathered to his ancestors’ – starting with King David, the kings are said to be gathered to their fathers at the end of life. Solomon is declared the rightful king over the kingdom – ushered into his reign on King David’s mule.

 

The maker or breaker of the rule of kings is their attitude towards their God. In commissioning his son after him, King David charged him with this:

‘…observe what the Lord your God requires: Walk in obedience to him, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and regulations, as written in the Law of Moses. Do this so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go’

The fulfilment of God’s promises to Israel and the blessing therein lies in keeping this command. Solomon asks for wisdom to rule God’s people – and God honours his request. ‘God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore…he was wiser than anyone else…’ ‘The people of Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore; they ate, they drank and they were happy. And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon’s subjects all his life.’ ‘During Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, everyone under their own vine and under their own fig tree.’

And the word of the Lord to Solomon was: “As for this temple you are building, if you follow my decrees, observe my laws and keep all my commands and obey them, I will fulfil through you the promise I gave to David your father. And I will live among the Israelites and will not abandon my people Israel.”

These glorious days were marked by God dwelling among his people. At the dedication of the temple, “When the priests withdrew from the Holy Place, the cloud filled the temple of the Lord. And the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled his temple.” It was as close a return to the garden as man could hope for, a time when God dwelt among men in the sanctuary on earth. An image of what the Israelites were blessed with at the time of Moses when the presence of the Lord walked before them.

Solomon prays for the people, ‘May he turn our hearts to him, to walk in obedience to him and keep the commands, decrees and laws he gave our ancestors.’

This was the climax in the time of the kings of Israel – the kingdom of Israel started well indeed. The Lord appears to Solomon and acknowledges his petition, and promises to uphold his people as far as they worship him alone and uphold his commands, decrees and laws.

‘King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth.’ The rulers of surrounding nations pay tribute to him. The Queen of Sheba testifies ‘Praise be to the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and placed you on the throne of Israel.’

‘King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth’…

A good beginning

 And so it came to pass that Solomon took wives ‘from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.”….

He then followed other gods…

and ‘Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord’...

The fall of God’s people all over again – in seven days creation is complete and man gets to experience fellowship and rest with God – then they reach for what is forbidden.

In seven years of devotion, the temple of the Lord is built and the people experience the rest God intended for them, then Solomon turns to what is forbidden.

The beginning of the end is here.

God pronounces judgement. The adversaries of Israel are stirred up; Hadad the Edomite, Rezon of Zobah, and Jeroboam from within. As a garment is torn in the hands of the prophet, so God tore up the kingdom. Solomon reigned for forty years, just as his father did.

What became of Israel? Ten tribes given to Jeroboam – he fears that his people will turn back to Jerusalem and so he institutes false worship carried out by false priests; he makes two calves - The original sin of Israel all over again.

Two standards for good and evil unfold in the rule of kings – David, the king after God’s heart and Jeroboam, son of Nebat who did evil in the sight of the Lord. And so the first king of Israel becomes the standard for evil in the sight of the Lord.

A prophet of God is raised up and cries out against the altar in Bethel and the sin of Jeroboam. But even the prophet of God suffers under the hand of the Lord for disobedience – he too is devoured. It’s a devastating picture, a king forsaking his God, a prophet enticed to compromise, a nation gone astray after idols. God cuts off the house of Jeroboam for causing Israel to sin. Jeroboam’s infant son dies, although in him there was found something pleasing to God – therein an image of sin touching even the innocent; a picture of death and devastation.

King David is the standard for doing good in the sight of the Lord, but the house of Judah has strayed from this standard – for Rehoboam, (son of Solomon and an Ammonite) sins, and so Judah sins. Egypt invades and Pharaoh plunders; a reversal of the exodus begins. There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually. Unity is no longer, peace is lost.

The house of Israel continues to sin before the Lord, Baasha kills Nadab and smites all the house of Jeroboam, reigning two decades and doing evil in the sight of the Lord. Jehu rises against Baasha, the people make Omri king, Zimri kills himself with fire – half followed Omri and half Tibni but Omri prevails and ‘sinned more than all those before him’. Then Ahab his son reigns and does evil in the sight of the Lord – he takes Jezebel as wife and serves and worships Ball. He builds an altar and makes a grove and he ‘did more to provoke the Lord than did all the kings before him…’

Kings come and kings go, and they outdo each other in the measure of sin against the Lord.

The voice of the prophet

 Enough!

God has not forsaken his inheritance – he raises a prophet from among Israel to proclaim the word of the Lord. He speaks against Ahab and smites the land with famine. The people see that Baal is no god, the Lord reigns at Mount Carmel and the victory is in his name. Elijah cleanses the land from the prophets of Baal, and prays to God to ‘turn their hearts’ – just as Solomon prayed to God to remember his people when they sin. The land is cleansed, Elijah asks for rain and the Lord answers.

When the prophet’s strength fails, the Lord answers – just as his father Moses made the journey, Elijah would go to Mount Horeb. The famine is over, time to plough the field Elisha! The oxen are strapped, is not the land ready? – stop Elisha, slaughter the oxen and feed the people, come now judgement is set, Hazael to rule over Aram, Jehu to reign over Israel and you Elisha to carry the mantle of the prophet – judgement is coming and who shall escape?

The king of Aram says to the king of Israel, ‘Your silver and gold are mine, and the best of your wives and children are mine’  and the king of Israel replies, “Just as you say, my lord the king. I and all I have are yours.” But the Lord delivers Israel from the hands of Aram, yet Ahab determines to withhold the Lord’s judgement and sets the king of Aram free – who shall escape the Lord’s judgement?

Israel has gone astray – justice is not found – the innocent blood of Naboth cries out, dragged from his rightful place and vineyard he is murdered at the word of Jezebel, and on account of Ahab’s seal. The elders of the land proclaim a fast ahead of an evil deed and the people bear false witness, who shall escape judgement?

The word of the Lord is spoken against Ahab and his descendants, against Jezebel who caused Israel to sin. The sins of Israel have spread to the house of Judah; Jehoram and Ahaziah, kings of Judah follow the ways of Ahab! Who shall escape judgement?

Ahab is killed in battle. As for Ahab’s descendants, Ahaziah his son lives enquiring of Baal and not the Lord; and after him Joram continues the wayward legacy - Israel sees famine never seen before – they eat their own young as they wait besieged by their enemy. Joram reigns until he is killed by the hand of Jehu – him and all the remaining descendants of Ahab. Jezebel is killed without a burial just as the word of the prophet foretold. Jehu rids the land of Baal worship…. only to replace it with the golden calf in Dan and Bethel! – the sins of Jeroboam are not dead.

Is there hope?

Where are the faithful men of Israel? The Lord declares to Elijah: ‘I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and whose mouths have not kissed him.’ Elisha receives a double portion of Elijah’s spirit. Signs and wonders follow him. God has not forsaken the remnant of his inheritance. His arm alone delivers Israel from the hand of their enemies. He alone is faithful in answering the prayers of those who seek him. Kings who do evil in his sight turn to him in desperation; he sees the oppression of his people and he answers.

‘But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’

Even in the midst of judgement, his mercy endures forever.

Elisha dies and is buried. Jeroboam rules over Israel now – he did evil yet God responds to Israel’s cry of affliction:  ‘The Lord had seen how bitterly everyone in Israel, whether slave or free, was suffering; there was no one to help them. And since the Lord had not said he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Jehoash.’ In Israel now, men assassinate evil kings and rule in their place – only to be assassinated themselves. The last king of Israel finally arrives, Hoshea, son of Elah – under his reign Assyria invades the whole land of Israel, subdues Samaria and takes the people captives to Assyria.

‘All this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the Lord their God, who had brought them up out of Egypt from under the power of Pharaoh King of Egypt. They worshiped other gods and followed the practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before them, as well as the practices that the kings of Israel had introduced.’

A funeral dirge over Israel – retelling what was spoken by King Solomon – it ends with this: ‘They would not listen, however, but persisted in their former practices. Even while these people were worshiping the Lord, they were serving their idols. To this day their children and grandchildren continue to do as their ancestors did.’

Judah…

In Judah, Joash is made king by the prophet. Although young, he follows the wisdom of the Lord and heeds the instruction of the prophet. He reigns for forty years just as king David once did, and he did what was right in the sight of the Lord. Amaziah, son of Joash king of Judah – did what was right in the eyes of the Lord yet the high places remained and he fought against his brother Israel.

Azariah, son of Amaziah rules in Judah for fifty two years, he does what was right in the sight of the Lord. Then king Jotham ruled over Judah, and he did what is right in the eyes of the Lord, but ‘In those days the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah’ – for the next king, King Ahaz, was ‘Unlike David his father, he did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord his God. He followed the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. He offered sacrifices and burned incense at the high places, on the hilltops and under every spreading tree.’

And when he is afflicted by Israel and Aram, he does not seek the Lord, but seeks the king of Assyria instead – subjecting himself to the nations and even building a temple after their pattern - desecrating the temple of the Lord and placing the bronze altar that stood before the Lord in the new altar from Assyria.

‘Hezekiah trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him. He held fast to the Lord and did not stop following him; he kept the commands the Lord had given Moses. And the Lord was with him; he was successful in whatever he undertook.’

He withstood the pressure to yield to the king of Assyria ‘He rebelled against the king of Assyria and did not serve him.’ In the face of oppression and the threat of a mighty domineering kingdom, King Hezekiah sought the Lord and the Lord’s prophet. In humility he spread his cause before the Lord in his temple – ‘Now, Lord our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone, Lord, are God.” God responded in strength and might: “I will defend this city and save it, for my sake and for the sake of David my servant.” That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp.’ The king of Assyria went back to his land, and later died at the hands of his own sons whilst worshiping in the temple of his god.

Yet Hezekiah throws his pearls to the pigs – showing his tressures and all that was in his house to Babylon! – So the word of the prophet tells of the upcoming demise of Judah at the hand of Babylon. Manasseh reigns after Hezekiah and he does evil in the sight of the Lord ‘the people did not listen. Manasseh led them astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the Lord had destroyed before the Israelites.’ Ammon follows Manasseh, in rule and legacy and later is killed.

Josiah: the light for David

‘He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.’

Josiah is a king who weeps before the Lord.

He is a king who draws to his God and who acknowledges the sins of those who came before him. And the word of the Lord comforts all those who are broken before him. He declares to Josiah through the prophetess Huldah “because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the Lord. Therefore I will gather you to your ancestors, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.” (22:19-20)

Like his ancestor Asa, Josiah did what was right in the sight of the Lord removing idols and bringing gifts into the house of the Lord. Josiah acts in accordance with what God requires of him. He performs a wide spread spiritual cleansing never seen before in the land of Judah, purging the land of idols and false worship. He reinstates the Passover observance as has never been observed in the days of the kings.

Josiah’s legacy is marked by this testimony: ‘Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the Lord as he did—with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses.’

Even good kings perish just as good prophets perish. He dies in battle, and thus begins the judgement of the Lord upon Judah.

His son Jehoahaz is made king by the people, he did evil in the sight of the Lord, his reign lasting only three months and he is taken captive to Egypt by Pharaoh. His brother is instated in his place; the people are taxed to satisfy Pharaoh. Jehoiakim is followed by Jehoiakin – during their rule, Babylon invaded the land. Jehoiakin is taken prisoner to Babylon and the able people are taken captive. Zedekiah is appointed king over Judah by Babylon.

‘It was because of the Lord’s anger that all this happened to Jerusalem and Judah, and in the end he thrust them from his presence.’

Zedekiah king of Judah rebels against the King of Babylon, Jerusalem is finally ransacked and he is taken captive to Babylon blind and shackled – the last thing he witnesses is the slaughter of his sons. The temple of the Lord was set on fire – and the people taken captive to Babylon… ‘So Judah went into captivity, away from her land.’

The book of Kings ends with the image of a subdued king, far from his land, subject to another ruler – ‘So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king’s table. Day by day the king gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived.’

The kings were all gathered to their ancestors. As for the people of the Lord,

‘…. if they turn back to you with all their heart and soul in the land of their enemies who took them captive, …then from heaven, your dwelling place, hear their prayer and their plea, and uphold their cause. And forgive your people, who have sinned against you; forgive all the offenses they have committed against you, and cause their captors to show them mercy; for they are your people and your inheritance, whom you brought out of Egypt, out of that iron-smelting furnace.”

The true Gospel and the false gospel: letter to the Galatians

Abstract

 

 

The letter to the Galatians reflects a central theme and concern - the essence of the true gospel of Jesus Christ set in contrast to a false imposter gospel. In his letter, the apostle Paul exposes a false teaching threatening to ensnare the new Gentile believers and corrupt their faith in the work of their Lord and Saviour. In essence, subtle in its workings, this false gospel does not openly deny Christ yet preaches that justification is attained through the works of the Law. It replaces God’s grace with man’s righteousness, faith in Jesus with faith in one’s works – thus essentially denying the cross.
The letter by Paul the apostle to the Galatians is set as a champion for the true gospel and a polemic response to a false gospel. At first glance, one wishes for more insight into the apostle’s thought behind his text, or into the experience of the Galatians which led to receiving such a communication. The letter is an affectionate display of the apostle’s fatherly love toward the Galatians; yet this extends to a tone of serious chastisement and correction. At the heart of the message to the Galatians lies the contrast between the true gospel and the false gospel.

 

 

We are introduced to the ‘other gospel’ early in the opening of the letter. Following an assertion of his authority as an apostle of Jesus, Paul does not delay bringing up the reason for his letter: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.” (1:6-7).  

The apostle goes as far as calling down a curse upon anyone (not excluding himself) if they preach another gospel to the one of Jesus (1:7, 8). Further, he assures the Galatians of the divine origin of the true gospel, establishing Jesus Christ himself as the authority, and to the exclusion of any human influence (1:12). Evidently, the apostle goes to great lengths to state that the gospel he delivered to the Galatians was entrusted to him by God and not by man (1:1, 10, 11). In support of this he cites his background as a persecutor of the church and subsequently his true conversion, moreover, also citing the acceptance of leadership of the early church of his appointment as an apostle to the Gentiles (1:6-10).

In the second chapter, two issues give us insight into the concerns for the Galatians; the issue of circumcision and the issue of eating with Gentiles. Separation from the Gentiles, as well as forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish customs is seen as not acting in line with the true gospel (2:14). With regards to circumcision, the apostle Paul affirms that his companion Titus was not compelled to be circumcised and that in doing so he held on to the ‘freedom we have in Christ Jesus’ (2:3). Along similar lines, he cites open criticism of Peter for ceasing to eat with the Gentiles for the purpose of appeasing the ‘circumcision group’ (2:11-14). In light of circumcision being a sign of the Old Covenant and signifying inclusion to the people of God; Paul often cites circumcision as a representation of living under the Old Covenant. This is evident in his letter to the Galatians, where he draws the distinction between the Old and the New Covenants - being that the true gospel is for the circumcised and the uncircumcised. Therein lays the difference between the true gospel of Jesus and the imposter false gospel.

The heart of the matter

Justification is not by works of the Law but by faith in Jesus Christ – In 2:16 Paul stands as a Jew and testifies that: ‘We…know that a man is not justified by observing the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.’ The matter is summed up in verse 2:21 ‘I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the Law, Christ died for nothing!’

In the third chapter we encounter the famous phrase ‘You foolish Galatians’ – we glimpse Paul’s zeal for them not wanting to see them turn from the good beginning they had – where they witnessed Jesus crucified, the purpose being to attain for them righteousness before God. He reminds them that they did not receive the Holy Spirit by observing the Law (which they could not uphold to begin with), but directly from God by faith in Jesus.

Paul bolsters his argument by citing Abraham – who received the promise of blessing not through observing the Law, but through faith in the promise of God – essentially Abraham received the gospel ahead of time, “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (3:6 cf Gen 15:6)[1] – Later in verse 3:17 Paul reiterates the point that the Law came after Abraham, and certainly did not nullify the promise of God’s grace to Abraham.

The apostle uses the Law (and the Prophets) to drive his point home. He cites the curse of the Law (Deut 27:26) necessarily applying to all who were yoked to the covenant of the Law, since all failed to uphold the whole Law. He thus demonstrates that reliance on the Law is futile for seeking righteousness. He then quotes the Prophets, ‘the righteous will live by faith’ (3:11, cf Hab 2:4), showing that the Law, as a vehicle for justification, has nothing to do with, and is contrary to faith. In Paul’s eyes, Jesus’ died on our behalf (necessarily becoming a curse for us in order to redeem us from the curse of the Law) (3:13 cf Deut 21:23) so that by faith we might receive the promise of the spirit made to Abraham (v 14) – thus the inheritance depends on the promise, it never depended on keeping the Law (v 18).

Paul clearly makes the point that whilst the Law is not opposed to the promises, justification is not attained through observing the Law (3:21). The crucial message to the Galatians is that righteousness is attained only through faith in Jesus. The apostle explains that the Law was our guardian until Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Christ (3:26) – now we, Jew or Gentile, are all baptised as children of God, clothed with Christ. In the New Covenant baptism in Christ is viewed as a parallel to the Old Covenant sign of circumcision in Israel. All who belong to Christ are Abraham’s true seed and inherit the promise. ‘Neither Jew nor Gentile’ meaning that being a Jew (by observing the Law) does not make you belonging to God, rather, faith in Christ does.

In the forth chapter, we see more of the apostle’s thought on the function of the Law. He uses the analogy of the underage son – who is being subjected to a guardian (the Law) whilst he waits for the inheritance (the spirit through faith) – God sent his son under the Law to redeem those under the Law that we might receive adoption to sonship (4:5). Here we witness yet again this swapping of roles which God performs to save us – earlier in 3:13, Christ becomes the curse to free us from the curse; here God’s Son comes under the Law redeeming to sonship those under the Law!

Speaking to the Gentile believers, the apostle calls them heirs and sons of God, who can call out ‘Abba father’ through the spirit of his son which they received into their hearts – what a gospel! This is the true gospel.

The grave concern expressed for the Galatians is that they should not be ensnared as slaves again – likening such an entanglement to their past as worshipers of pagan gods; ‘Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?’ (4:8, 9) It appears that the apostle views their past somewhat as his own, tied to ‘observing days, months, seasons and years’. Lovingly he entreats them and exhorts them to become like him as he becomes like them (4:12), as if they both meet in the middle where the gospel of Christ unites them.

As a Jew, he then argues effectively from the Law that there can only be one covenant of relationship with God – just as only one son, Isaac, was the child of the promise. Paul recognises in the Galatians a need to belong to the family of God – but he says that they should not seek the illegitimate means to attain this, for through faith in Jesus they are Isaac’s sons and the true children of the promise, children of the free woman (Christ’s supernatural righteousness by God’s grace) and not of the slave woman (natural righteousness through works of the Law).

‘It is for freedom that Christ has set us free’

Finally, the Apostle Paul urges them to stand in the freedom afforded to them by Jesus – affirming that circumcision, taken to mean obligation to the Law, constitutes falling away from Christ. Those who by keeping the Law try to attain justification are fallen away from grace. Circumcision, in as far as it represents a way to God, counts for nothing (5:4). In his view ‘The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.’ (5:6) – and flowing from that is the living out of the Law of God; ‘The entire Law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbours as yourself.’ (5:14). How are they to live now? They are urged to now be led by the Spirit, upholding the law of Christ – a contrast is made between the acts of the sinful nature to the fruit of the Spirit – ‘against which there is no law’.

Essentially the message to the Galatians is that they can not have it both ways – one must choose either the way of faith in Jesus or the way of works of the Law. While looking like a Jew may have saved him from persecution, the Apostle states that he has chosen to place his faith in Jesus; as a result, he is persecuted for not preaching the works of the Law, rather, for preaching Christ crucified!

Paul ends his letter by stating: ‘May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (6:14) He does not boast in his circumcision, neither does he commend it to anyone, ‘Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.’ (6:15, 16).

Insight from other letters by the apostle Paul

The argument made by Paul on the true gospel is echoed in some of his other writings. In Romans, he states: ‘Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the Law; rather, through the Law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from Law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.’ (Rom 3:20-22) ‘For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the Law.’ (Rom 3:28) ‘However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.’ (Rom 4:5); ‘Christ is the end of the Law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes’ (Rom 10:4).

In his letter to the Ephesians he writes: ‘For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.’ (Eph 2:8-10) Similar teaching is seen in the letter to Titus, where Paul instructs on justification by God’s grace and not through any righteous acts anyone can present before God (Ti 35, 7) To the Corinthians, it is written: ‘He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.’ (2 Cor 3:6) 

Conclusion

The real difference between the true gospel and the false gospel is the power of the cross. The false gospel proclaims the works of the Law as means of justification; the true gospel proclaims the work of Jesus on the cross. The false gospel is impotent in attaining righteousness before God while the true gospel of grace through faith in Jesus Christ is the way to righteousness with God. One leads to death, the other leads to life. One enslaves; the other sets free. The grace of God has always been dependant on faith, from the time of Abraham and applying to the true sons of Abraham’s seed. ‘I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the Law, Christ died for nothing!’ ‘May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:

All biblical citations are from New International Version 1984.

 

---

[1] Paul uses the same logic and argument in Romans 4 demonstrating that righteousness is not attained through personal works.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread

The feast of unleavened bread marks the time of the Israelites’ exit from the land of their captivity. It coincides with their deliverance - the Passover – when God passed over their lives on seeing the blood of the lamb upon their door posts.

What is the place of the Feast of Unleavened Bread in our lives as believers?

The Feast of Unleavened Bread was instituted by God as an everlasting observance for the Israelites – God always speaks and acts with a purpose. The major references to the feast are the following. ‘Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.’ (Exod 12:17) This is echoed in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy: ‘Eat unleavened bread during those seven days; nothing with yeast in it is to be seen among you, nor shall any yeast be seen anywhere within your borders.’(Exod 13:7) ‘Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread; for seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt. No one is to appear before me empty-handed.’ (Exod 23:15) ‘On the fifteenth day of that month the Lord's Festival of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast.’ (Lev 23:26). ‘Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.’ (Exod 34:18)' For seven days the bread you eat must be made without yeast ... eat this bread - the bread of suffering - so that as long as you live you will remember the day you departed from Egypt' (Deut 16:3).

It is true that the feast was appointed for Israel as a reminder of the time of the exodus from Egypt. Let us however consider the new covenant scriptures referring to the feast of unleavened bread in order to glean the meaning and significance of the observance and how it fits in with God’s plan unfolding for all who believe.

The gospels testify to the meaning of the feast in the life of a believer. 'On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" (Mark 14:12) – (see also parallels in Luke 22:7 and Matthew 26:17). Jesus observed the beginning of the feast with his disciples during the last supper. ‘And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19) His command was for all who believe, Jew or gentile (1 Cor 11:24). The unleavened bread is a representation of his body – free of the leaven that is sin – broken for our sake, 'the bread of suffering'.

We find an exhortation by the apostle Paul to the church: ‘Therefore let us keep the festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.’ (1 Cor 5:8). In context with the preceding verses where the apostle urges believers to 'put away' the unrepentant from their midst, we see that the leaven/sin is in question here. The unleavened bread represents a spiritual truth of remembrance of deliverance and in turn the need for personal consecration.  In the letter to the Corinthians Paul again reminds believers of what was passed onto him‘…and when he (Jesus) had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."’ (1 Cor 11:24, cf Luke 22:19)

The Lord is our Passover lamb, without blemish; his body is the bread without leaven – he lived without sin, no leaven was part of him. We remember and partake at the appointed time purging the leaven which corrupts and desecrates. The remembrance and observance of the feast is so that we remember that we all were delivered out of the land of captivity and to renew our commitment to live as such.

'Under whose wings you have come to take refuge'

It was Naomi’s prayer that God would provide Ruth a place of rest and security ('Menocha' in Hebrew) - that place of rest would be found in the house of her husband (Ruth 1:9); indeed she wished this for both her daughters in law after the death of their husbands. She loved them and gave them all she had available in her power, a prayer that the Lord God would give them a place they can call home. Naomi’s words were: “May the Lord show kindness to you, as you have shown to your dead and to me. May the Lord grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband.” (Ruth 1:8b, 9).

We know that the blessing which Naomi spoke over Ruth was fulfilled. But though whom did the blessing come to Ruth? The story is familiar to us, she is redeemed by Boaz, an Israelite from the house of Judah – but there is more to the redemption extended to Ruth – who is the redeemer? A closer look at the Hebrew text reveals a richness which is missed in English translations.

Ruth meets Boaz on his field when she goes out to glean for herself and her mother in law – he meets her with kindness and shows her instantaneous favour. When she enquires of him: “Why have I found such favor in your eyes that you notice me—a foreigner?” (Ruth 2:10) he answers her: “May the Lord repay you for what you have done. May you be richly rewarded by the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge.” (Ruth 2:12) In the eyes of Boaz, Ruth is no longer a foreigner, she is of the household of the God of Israel since she has sought refuge under thewings of the God of Israel.

The word for ‘his wings’ is ‘knaphaeo’ – We encounter the same Hebrew root elsewhere in Ruth – Ruth speaks a similar utterance to Boaz ‘kenapheka’ (here rendered as ‘your garment’); “I am Ruth your maidservant,” she said. “Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer.” (Ruth 3:9) The same hebrew root is behind the words rendered here 'wings' and 'garment'.

In these simple mirroring words, we see the heart and character of God revealed. He is the source of refuge to those who seek him. YHVH spreads his wings over the foreigners who return to him, redeeming them to himself. As a worshiper of YHVH, Boaz is a reflection of this character, one who spreads his garment over those who seek his compassion and provision. As in the words of the Apostle Paul to gentile believers in Ephesus, “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household” (Eph 2:19)

Ruth learns to seek refuge under God’s wings, the very God who blesses her and meets her every need, and the God who is faithful. She is blessed by Boaz but first and foremost her greatest gift is in her God and Redeemer.

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.