The Doctrine of Divine Impassibility

From the time of the protestant reformation onward, mainstream classical theism and reformed theology have affirmed the doctrine of divine impassibility (DDI) as essential to maintaining a proper doctrine of God. The creeds and confessions of the reformation agree in making this point and have presented a unified voice for centuries (WCF 2.1; Belgic Confession, Article 1; Philadelphia Confession, 2.1). The doctrine of divine impassibility states that “God does not experience emotional changes either from within or [is] effected by his relationship to creation. He is not changed from within or without; he remains unchanged and unchanging both prior and subsequent to creation.” (CBA Position Paper). This statement affirms the testimony of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (2LCF) when it says that our God is “without…passions” and is “immutable.” (2LCF 2.1). Our God is not a reactive, emotional being who changes his mind at the whims of his children, but rather a God whose “paths…are steadfast love and faithfulness” (Psalm 25:10), and we ought to take comfort and find assurance in these truths. This paper will aim to argue for the full DDI as asserted by Holy Scripture and as clarified by the 2LCF. First, we will address the necessity of the DDI. Second, we will argue for the presence of the DDI throughout Scripture and reformed literature. Finally, we will review common arguments and passages used against the DDI and seek to find doctrinal unity throughout the biblical text.

1. The Necessity of the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility

Before building a biblical-theological argument for the DDI, it will be helpful to understand its necessity as relating to the nature of God. In order for God to maintain his state as a single being of manifold perfections, one must not assume any change is possible within the divine being. Herman Bavinck says:

Those who predicate any change whatsoever of God, whether with respect to his essence, knowledge, or will, diminish all his attributes: independence, simplicity, eternity, omniscience, and omnipotence. This robs God of his divine nature, and religion of its firm foundation and assured comfort. (Dogmatics, 2.158).

The concept Bavinck articulates here is fundamental to theology proper: because all of the divine perfections hinge upon each other, if one diminishes any one of them, damage is done to the being of God and we are consequently robbed of our surety. God is not a God who can be changed from within or without, but stands in constance as the surety of our salvation (Heb. 7:22, 8:6).

Lack of change, however, is not restricted to the type of being God is, but also applies to depriving God of any change in emotion (i.e., affection or passion). This concept is the central thrust of the DDI. God cannot repent, lie, or react to the ways of man as though he had not seen them beforehand. “To change one’s mind (‘repent’ KJV) means to revise one’s plans and one’s judgments…We change our minds because we had not realized what new circumstances would emerge. This impossible with an all-knowing, all-powerful God.” (Johnson, 57).

One helpful distinction to note is that God acting uniquely in specific times and ways does not ascribe change to him. In a similar way to how the location and actions of a man does not change who he is, so the works of God do not require change of him. “Immutability…should not be confused with monotonous sameness or rigid immobility. Scripture itself leads us in describing God in the most manifold relations to all his creatures.” (Bavinck, Dogmatics 2.158). God relating to his creatures does not remove our ground for trusting in his unchangeable nature; rather, it strengthens our trust in the fact that he will carry out his purposes, and that his word will indeed accomplish the thing it was sent to do (Is. 55:11).

2. Biblical Arguments for the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility

The Divine Decrees

A brief look at the decree of God will is a helpful starting point when considering the Biblical nature of the DDI. The creeds and confessions of the reformed tradition have historically affirmed the doctrine of divine decrees and provide a helpful definition:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (WCF 3.1).

The phrase “whatsoever comes to pass” encapsulates not only the actions of mankind, but also the actions of God. Because God cannot change, he can issue an unchangeable decree.

While it is tempting to think that an unchanging God with unchanging decrees deprives mankind of any true change as well, that is not the case. “The fact that things and events…have been eternally known and fixed in that counsel of God does not rob them of their own character but rather establishes and guarantees them all, each in its own kind and nature and in its own context and circumstances.” (Bavinck, The Wonderful Works of God, 145). Mankind still experiences emotions and change in time and place, even in the context of a divine decree. God is impassible, without change of emotion and unaffected from within or without, but that does not then apply to his creatures, for we are not God and cannot possess his nature.

Having briefly established the divine decrees as a testament to the DDI, let us now turn to a few example texts in Scripture to ground our understanding of this doctrine in the Bible.

Impassibility Texts

Titus 1:2 makes clear the DDI by asserting the unchangeable nature of God’s decree: “…in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago…” First, Paul says that God “cannot lie.” Lying here refers to saying one thing and doing another, implying either a change of heart or an intent to sin. Because God cannot be the author of sin, Paul is referring to God keeping his own word. Only fallen men are capable of a change of heart, for they say one thing and do another, but this is not so with our God. Notice also, however, what Paul is affirming: the children of God can thereby hope in eternal life. Hope is possible because the promise of eternal life was made by a God who cannot change his mind, much less change with relation to his decree. In speaking of God’s children, Joel Beeke says that “The immutability of God’s counsel [or decree] gives his children ‘strong consolation’ and a hope that is ‘both sure and steadfast’ (Heb. 6:18-19). The God who has ordained their eternal glory will not waver." (Beeke, Systematic 1.962). Upon seeing the wretched nature of man, a God with a changeable mind could decide to recant on his promise of eternal life, but a God who is impassible does not react to his children in such a way. He stands in truthful keeping with his immutable decree and with his promised hope of eternal life.

Isaiah 46:8-11 specifically highlights the unchangeable nature of the counsel and purposes of God:

Remember this, and be assured; recall it to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure’; Calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.

In the beginning, the statement “I am God” alone is enough to teach us of the DDI, for God has called himself “I AM” (see Ex. 3:14), referring to his self-existence, constance, and certainty. “God’s self-declared name reveals God’s unchanging nature. As the ‘I AM,’ God doesn’t become, he is.” (CBA, 3). Bavinck reminds us once again that “Becoming is an attribute of creatures, a form of change in space and time. But God is who he is, eternally transcendent over space and time and far exalted above every creature.” (Dogmatics 2.158). Our God is the one who “was and who is and who is to come.” (Rev. 4:8). Although the opening statement alone in the Isaiah passage validates the unchanging nature of God, he continues speaking, “declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done…” The God who always was, is, and will be has declared, or decreed, all his counsel and purpose and will “surely…do it.” In commenting on this passage, Motyer states that God “is sovereign, his purpose…is inalterable and is the product not of whim but of his pleasurable will…In a word, he is a God who is God.” (Motyer, 370).

Although there are many other texts that assert God’s unchangeable nature, our last example will be Malachi 3:6: “For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” God is speaking here of his judgement on those who turn aside from his commands, namely, his own children. Clearly, “change” in this text refers to a reactive, emotional change because it is in reference to the actions of the sons of Jacob. If the sons of Jacob served a God who decided anything based on what they had done, they were surely consumed; however, God cites the reason for their preservation: “For I, the LORD, do not change.” The truth stated here in Malachi brings us full circle back to the previously cited words of Herman Bavinck: any predication of change in the Godhead “robs God of his divine nature, and religion of its firm foundation and assured comfort.” (Dogmatics 2.158). If God could change, our comfort in this life is vanquished, but praise be to his name that he cannot, for thereby we are not consumed for our sin.

3. Addressing Counter Arguments for the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility

Conditional Covenants

A first and common objection to the DDI is that God has established conditional covenants with his people, the outcome of the covenant hinging upon the actions of man. The Mosaic covenant is one such instance. In Exodus 19:5-6, God says, “Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” If the Israelites kept the covenant, God would grant them the covenant blessings: being a people set apart from the nations for him. If they did not, they would not be set apart, but would be conquered. It seems here that God is placing himself at the bidding of man; if man does one thing or another, then God will act accordingly. How can we claim that we serve an impassible God if he tells us that he will react to the work of his creatures?

A proper understanding of this passage is found in the creator-creature distinction, a foundational piece of theology that teaches us our different nature from God and magnifies his constancy in affection for us. (Beeke, Systematic 1.868). Because man is passible, God grants him the option to either obey or not, a statement in keeping with our nature as the creature. The creator, being unlike the creature, knows and declares the beginning from the end because he is both beginning and end, existing entirely outside of time (see Is. 46:8-10, Rev. 21:16). Human idioms and descriptors are used of God to help us understand his interaction with man, not to infer that God shares anything of our mutable and passible nature. (Tipton, 17). In the Mosaic covenant, God portrays himself anthropopathically to Israel to help them understand God relating to them in covenant; if God had told them they would rebel, they would not have had reason to make any efforts in keeping the covenant. Instead of viewing anthropopathic language as God offering himself to change, it ought to remind us of the heart of God. In the case of Israel obeying, it shows us that God loves a heart fully devoted to him; however, when they disobey, it points to the justice, holiness, and righteousness of God. Just as God’s total sovereignty does not negate his abiding love, so his dealings with passible and finite man do not negate his infinite knowledge and constancy.

God Repenting

Several times in Scripture God is said to “regret” or “repent” from his actions as sovereign Lord (see Gen. 6:7, Ex. 32:7-14, I Sam. 15:11, Jer. 18:8). In 1 Samuel 15, the Lord says to Samuel, “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands.” Upon a first reading of this passage, it seems as though the Lord truly did make a mistake; however, further down, Samuel brings clarity to the issue. “The Glory of Israel will not lie nor change His mind; for He is not a man, that He would change His mind.” (15:29). How do we reconcile two texts in the same story, one saying that God regrets something, and the other saying that he would not change his mind? As Calvin demonstrates, one passage must interpret the other:

“…we cannot attribute repentance to God without saying either that he knows not what is to happen, or that he cannot evade it, or that he rushes precipitately and inconsiderately into a resolution, and then forthwith regrets it. But so far is this from the meaning of the Holy Spirit, that in the very mention of repentance he declares that God is not influenced by any feeling of regret, that he is not a man that he should repent. And it is to be observed, that, in the same chapter, both things are so conjoined, that a comparison of the passages admirably removes the appearance of contradiction. When it is said that God repented of having made Saul king, the term change is used figuratively.” (Institutes 1.17.12).

Calvin demonstrates that taking the term “regret” literally would lead to God acting on the whim of the situation, a concept in direct contradiction with divine sovereignty. In understanding the sovereignty of God, Samuel clarifies God “regretting” by stating that God does not “change His mind.” To infer true regret to God would mean that his eternal plan can make him frustrated and cause him to change his plan, negating the eternality of his decree (CBA, 8). A God with an unchangeable mind requires an anthropopathic reading of “regret,” instead showing us a God who has a fierce wrath toward evil and an unending love for justice. This text ought to point us toward the perfections of God displayed by his rejection of Saul (i.e., justice, righteousness, holiness) rather than infer change in the heart or mind of God.

4. Summary

In conclusion, we affirm the DDI in that our Creator remains eternally distinct from his creatures and is impassible and immutable in his being and decrees. Although there are texts in Scripture that seem to imply repentance or change of emotion in the heart and mind of God, a deeper look at them reveals a more thorough picture of the character of God and opportunity for his people to understand him better. We affirm with the author of Hebrews that God shows us that “his purpose is unchangeable” so that we might “have strong encouragement to hold firmly to the hope set before us” (Heb. 6:17-18). God, the great “I AM,” is the one who does not change, for he just is (Ex. 3:14). Most importantly, we have a more sure and reliable word to trust, for in a world wrought with change, Isaiah tells us this:

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth and making it produce and sprout, and providing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so will My word be which goes out of my mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the purpose for which I sent it.” (Is. 55:10-11).

Bibliography

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. II: God and Creation. Edited by John Bolt, translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003.

Bavinck, Herman. The Wonderful Works of God: Instruction in the Christian Religion According to the Reformed Confession. Translated by Henry Zylstra. Glenside, Pennsylvania: Westminster Seminary Press, 2019.

Beeke, Joel R. & Paul M. Smalley. Reformed Systematic Theology, Vol. I: Revelation and God. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2019.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2021.

CBA Theology Committee. “A Position Paper Concerning the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility.” Confessional Baptist Association, 2015.

Johnson, Terry L. The Identity and Attributes of God. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2019.

Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Tipton, Lane G. “Locating the Mystery: Bavinck and Van Til on Immutability and Anthropomorphism.” The Confessional Presbyterian 17 (2021). https://search-ebscohost-com.libproxy.mbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,cpid&custid=s8385080&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiFZU220425000473&site=eds-live.