Table Of Content3 G. WEINANDY, O.F.M., Cap.
Does God Suffer?
To St Edith Stein
Cad
Does God Suffer?
Thomas G. Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap.
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME PRESS
NOTRE DAME, INDIANA
Copyright © T&T Clark Ltd, 2000
Published in Great Britain by T&T Clark Ltd,
59 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 2LQ, Scotland
www.tandtclark.co.uk
This edition published under license from T&T Clark Ltd by
University of Notre Dame Press
Notre Dame, IN 46556
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior permission of University of Notre Dame Press.
First published 2000
0-—268-—00890-6 (pb.)
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Weinandy, Thomas G. (Thomas Gerard)
Does God suffer? / Thomas Weinandy.
p- cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-—268—00890-6 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Suffering of God. 2. Suffering of God—History of doctrines.
I. Title.
BT453. S8W45 1999
231’.4—dc21
99-39506
Typeset by Fakenham Photosetting Ltd, Fakenham, Norfolk
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Bell & Bain Ltd, Glasgow
Contents
Preface
ig The God Who Suffers
Theology — Problems and Mysteries
Yahweh: The Presence of the Wholly Other
Bridges to the Patristic Doctrine of God
The Patristic Doctrine of God
The Trinity’s Loving Act of Creation 113
God’s Love and Human Suffering 147
The Incarnation — The Impassible Suffers 72
LOPWoFTPN TOhe RNedempAtive Suffering of Christ 214
10. Suffering in the Light of Christ 243
Conclusion 287
Bibliography 288
Index of Names 305
Index of Subjects 309
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2022 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation
https://archive.org/details/doesgodsufferO000wein
Preface
I did not want to write this book. In August of 1975 I completed my
doctoral dissertation on the relationship between God’s immutability
and the Incarnation — on how an unchanging God can actually become
man.' In attempting to bring clarity to that issue I became acutely aware
that the question of God’s impassibility, particularly that God, within his
divine nature, does not experience inner negative emotional states such
as suffering, was indeed even more problematic. One of my supervisors,
H.P. Owen (the other being E.L. Mascall) wrote at the time that the
impassibility of God ‘is the most questionable aspect of classical
theism.”
For approximately twenty years I tried to avoid the topic, even though
it incessantly arose within lectures, tutorials, seminars, and even within
‘pub’ conversations. I was aware of what the majority of the contem-
porary theological community was teaching, and I knew what it had
concluded — God is passible and so he suffers. I basically knew why such
was proposed — because God, being personal, is loving and
compassionate, he surely suffers in solidarity with those he loves. I too,
obviously, held that God is loving, but I was not comfortable with the
inference that he must therefore suffer. I was not convinced by the
arguments, though I did acknowledge that they were intellectually and
emotionally persuasive, and that I could not easily dismiss or refute
them. While part of me wanted to throw myself into what I considered
an exciting and significant philosophical and theological fray, another
part of me fearfully refused to become engaged.
What frightened me was not simply the need to confront the biblical
evidence where God, especially in the Old Testament, is said to experi-
ence differing emotional states, including suffering. I suspected that the
truth of such statements needed to be interpreted from within a broader
and deeper revelation of who God is. Nor was I particularly bothered by
the historical questions. Because of my knowledge of the Fathers and
Aquinas, who held God to be impassible, I instinctively knew that they
could not possibly be guilty of all, though maybe of some, of the errors
of which they were so frequently accused. Moreover, since I considered
1 This was subsequently revised and published as Does God Change?: The Word's Becoming
in the Incarnation (Petersham: St Bede’s Publications, 1985).
2 Concepts of Deity (London: Macmillan, 1971), p. 24.
vii
Viii Preface
myself an adequate philosopher, neither was I particularly timid in the
face of the philosophical issues, though I knew that these would be the
most knotty. I confidently trusted that, given some hard thought, I could
satisfactorily address them. Nor was I put off by the doctrinal and theo-
logical concerns. I felt that I could ultimately address the trinitarian,
incarnational and soteriological questions in quite a creative and
insightful manner. While it would have required some effort on my part
to address all of these concerns in a comprehensive and scholarly
fashion, they did not frighten me.
No, what I feared most was Auschwitz — with all of its contemporary
iconic meaning and pathos. With the Holocaust and similar events of
horrendous human suffering as the existential backdrop, how could I
write a book in which I would argue that God is impassible and so does
not suffer? How could such a book, and it was this book that I knew I
must write, even be contemplated? Within this contemporary setting, to
write such a book would demand that it be not only academically sound,
but also, and even more so, emotionally compelling. I feared that my
book, should I ever choose to write it, would lack this latter virtue, and
so for many years it never was attempted. To use a favorite phrase of one
of my esteemed colleagues, Professor R. Swinburne, I refused ‘to grasp
the nettle.’
On 13 February 1995 Mrs Jane Williams, then of Darton, Longman and
Todd, having read my book, Does God Change?, and finding it ‘a breath of
fresh air,’ wrote to me asking if I would be interested ‘in doing a more
popular and accessible book in defence of impassibility.’ I wryly smiled
at the words ‘popular’ and ‘accessible,’ but I consented to ‘give it a go.’ I
gave such consent aware that, because of the complexity of the topic, and
more so because of my own need to work through all of the ‘unpopular’
academic questions that required attention, I would probably be unable
to write such a ‘popular’ book. My suspicion was correct, and Darton,
Longman and Todd, having considered some draft chapters, rightly
turned it down. Nonetheless, it was Mrs Williams who compelled me to
conquer my fear and to undertake, finally, the topic I had so long
avoided. For this I owe her a great deal of gratitude.
In response to those who advocate a passible and so suffering God I
endeavor, in this book, to accomplish two ends. First, I strive to refute
what I consider to be the often erroneous arguments and assumptions
that support the notion of a suffering God, and in so doing diminish the
sincere but ultimately, I believe, often misconceived sentiments attached
to them. Second, and more important, I offer a positive Christian view of
God and of his relationship to humankind, with its history of grief,
which, I trust, is more biblically authentic, more historically accurate,
more philosophically convincing, more theologically persuasive, and so
more emotionally gratifying.
I attempt the above by systematically, in the various chapters,
addressing each of the issues concerning God and human suffering. I
attempt to safeguard the logical progression of my arguments, both
within the individual chapters and in the sequence of the chapters, so as
to ensure that all the distinct elements are properly placed and related. In
so doing I hope that the reader will be able to give assent at each critical
