Imagine facing the harsh realities of life: a devastating earthquake leveling your town, the weight of generational poverty, or the quiet sting of loneliness. In these moments, would you not yearn for a God who not only knows your pain but truly experiences it?

This question resonates deeply with many Asian Christians who experience profound levels of pain and suffering as part of daily living. Given this reality, many balk at the theological concept of divine impassibility, which is often understood to imply that God has no emotions and does not suffer.

In light of this pastoral concern, some Asian theologians have questioned the idea of divine impassibility.¹ One prominent voice is the Japanese theologian Kazoh Kitamori (1916-1998). Writing in the wake of the horrors of World War II, Kitamori helped give special prominence to the idea that God’s suffering unites him to the broken world.² From this perspective, God’s real emotional response is a qualifying factor for a real relationship. While their arguments come from different angles, Kitamori and other Asian thinkers have good company in the Western tradition. For example, German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously wrote from inside a Nazi prison cell that “only the suffering God can help.”³

At first blush, this argument seems persuasive. But a crucial question must be addressed: Does the Bible support the idea of God’s suffering or is this simply a human attempt to grasp God’s incomprehensible nature? Exploring the emotional life of God can be both exciting and challenging. Yet understanding it is crucial since we connect with him through our emotions.

In the book of Jonah, we encounter a verse that sheds light on the complex and fascinating world of divine emotions. While some see God as unchanging love or unwavering wrath, this verse suggests a richer reality. Imagine a loving parent celebrating their child’s successes and feeling disappointed by his or her mistakes. Along these lines, Jonah 3:10—“When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it” (ESV)—hints at a more complex reality. It points to a God who responds to our actions without compromising his unchanging nature. This nuanced understanding offers a deeper and more relatable perspective on God’s character, impacting how we connect with him and navigate life’s challenges.

To guide our study, we will do a theological reading of Scripture.⁴ To put it simply, we will understand the passage’s meaning within the Bible, consider the views of our predecessors, and apply them to the lives of believers.

Understanding the Witness of Scripture

The book of Jonah recounts the story of a reluctant prophet sent to warn the city of Nineveh of impending destruction. In Jonah 3:10, they were spared when the people heeded Jonah’s warning and repented, However, the specific word used to describe God’s response in different Bible translations raises interesting questions – “repent” or “relent”?

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates the Hebrew word nāḥam as “relented,” while the King James Version (KJV) uses “repented.” While both terms can be considered faithful renditions depending on the context, most scholars favor “relented” due to its theological implications. “Repent” often implies an active change of mind, suggesting that external events emotionally influenced God’s decision. However, “relenting” emphasizes a shift in action rather than an internal state, highlighting God’s sovereignty and agency.

This distinction poses another question: Does God ever truly change His mind? Put another way, can external forces sway God? Understanding the context and nuance allows for a deeper exploration of these complex questions.

Examining the usage of nāḥam reveals that Scripture uses it with specific nuances, going beyond a simple “change of mind” (c.f. Ex 32:12-14; Jer 18:8; Joel 2:13; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15; Jer 26:8, 13, 19; Jer 42:10). There are two key insights here.

First, God’s nāḥam signifies his response to human repentance. In other words, God “changed” his mind in bringing disaster to remain “unchanged” and true to his nature. When individuals turn from wrongdoings, God chooses to withhold the punishment. This does not imply any error in his initial plan rather it reflects His unchanging attribute of mercy.

Second, God’s nāḥam indicates his adherence to his promises. Put in another way, God “changed” his mind in bringing disaster to remain “unchanged” and true to his promises. He can adapt his course of action to remain consistent with past pronouncements, showing his unwavering faithfulness. Since the people had already repented, God also relented from causing disaster. This was entirely consistent with his nature and promises.⁵

It is crucial to remember that the use of nāḥam in Jonah does not portray God as capricious or indecisive. Instead, it highlights how his unchanging nature, with attributes like mercy and faithfulness, guides his actions even when he appears to adjust based on specific situations. The story of Jonah offers a fascinating contrast between the stable, unchanging emotions of God and the fluctuating emotions of human beings. This contrast, skillfully conveyed by the narrator, sheds light on the true nature of God’s emotional life.

For instance, in Jonah 4:10-11, we see God portrayed as someone filled with compassion (ḫûs) for the people of Nineveh. This compassion is likely the driving force behind God’s call for Jonah to warn the wicked city (Jonah 1:1-2). Even after Jonah’s disobedience, the Lord remains steadfast in his desire to offer the Ninevites a chance to hear the message. God’s emotions are unwavering and not affected by external forces. God is always gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, both to the wicked Ninevites as well as to the obstinate prophet, Jonah.

On the contrary, Jonah struggles with his shifting emotional responses. While Jonah is in the deep (chapter 2), he experiences a wide range of emotions – from being distressed to being hopeful. Jonah was once happy about the plant God provided, yet he became very angry the next day when it withered and died (chapter 4). But God is uniquely different. When people repented, God relented, demonstrating consistency with his attributes.

The storyteller in Jonah portrays that God indeed has emotions, but they are not coerced or manipulated by external influences. God’s emotions are perfect and unchanging, reflecting his unchanging character and will. They are not comparable to our human emotions, which are often driven by our lack of patience and limited foresight of shifting circumstances.

In summary, the story of Jonah shows that God experiences emotions differently from us. While external factors may sway us, God’s emotions are an integral part of his unchanging nature. The truth is that God is both impassible (emotionally unmanipulable by external factors) and impassioned (full of perfectly vibrant emotions) at the same time.

Theologian Rob Lister calls this the two-pronged view of divine emotion. He notes that God cannot be forced into an emotional response without him allowing it. But it does not mean that God is devoid of emotion. Rather, God has perfect emotions that allow him to be affected by his creatures but only in ways that are aligned with his sovereign will.⁶ I call this a paradoxical view of divine emotion since the concept of being impassible and impassioned at the same time seems absurd but expresses a significant truth.

Understanding God’s emotions can be tricky. Some argue that biblical descriptions of God’s emotions are mere anthropomorphism, a figure of speech that attributes human characteristics to the divine. I agree. Even so, this raises another critical question: Does God truly experience emotions, even if distinct from our own? I believe God’s emotions are real and so are his emotional responses to humanity.

After exploring the biblical understanding of God’s nāḥam, it is now time to turn the conversation over to our predecessors – the Church Fathers and the Reformers.

Listening to the Voices of Our Predecessors

I have chosen Origen, Augustine, Calvin, and Luther as dialogue partners because of their influence and writings on the subject at hand. It is remarkable how each of these figures, though not always evenly, presents both sides of the coin in their writings: God is both impassible and impassioned at the same time.

For Origen, it is not only Jesus Christ as Incarnate Logos who suffers passion in dealing with humanity but also God the Father. Origen writes,

The Father himself too—the God of the universe—who is long-suffering and very merciful and one who pities—does he not suffer in some way? Or are you unaware that when he manages human affairs, he suffers human passion? For the Lord your God sustained your ways, just as if a man were to sustain his own son. Therefore, God sustains our ways, just as the Son of God carries our passions. The Father himself is not impassible.⁷

Origen’s words seem to strongly support the idea that God is “emotionful.” However, in his other writings, Origen also argues for the other side of the coin. For instance, he writes, “When we speak of God’s wrath, we do not hold that it is an emotional reaction on His part, but something which He uses to correct by stern methods those who have committed many terrible sins.”⁸

Moreover, Augustine also seems to say that God is full of vibrant emotions. But this should be interpreted considering his unwavering commitment to God’s unchangeableness in the context of Creator/creature distinction. For example, Augustine writes, “Even though we speak of God changing His mind, of His becoming angry, for example, after being kind to certain people, it is, in reality, these people, not God, who change.”⁹

Following his argument, even though Augustine does not state categorically that God has no emotion, he implies that God’s passion is not the same as our human passion. He adds, “Just as He is jealous without any ill will, as He is angry without being emotionally upset, as He pities without grieving, as he is sorry without correcting any fault, so he is patient without suffering at all.”¹⁰ God’s emotional responses are fundamentally different from our human emotional responses. When we are angry, we often experience a mix of other emotions like frustration or resentment.

John Calvin’s comment on Jonah 3:10 seems to say that God has no emotions, and his emotional response is just a way of portraying a reality perceivable to human minds. Calvin writes,

Now as to what Jonah adds, that God was led to repent, it is a mode of speaking that ought to be sufficiently known to us. Strictly speaking, no repentance can belong to God: and it ought not to be ascribed to his secret and hidden counsel. God then is in himself ever the same, and consistent with himself; but he is said to repent, when a regard is had to the comprehension of men.¹¹

While Calvin emphasizes divine impassibility, he does not deny God’s emotional connection with humanity. Calvin notes that humans need to experience God’s wrath to feel true terror and respond in humility. Similarly, we cannot confidently call on God for help unless we believe he is willing to be merciful.¹²

In trying to wrestle with this paradoxical reality, Calvin explains God’s real emotional response to humanity within his twofold view of God:

We hence see that there is a twofold view of God, — as he sets himself forth in his word, — and as he is as to his hidden counsel. With regard to his secret counsel, I have already said that God is always like himself and is subject to none of our feelings: but with regard to the teaching of his word, it is accommodated to our capacities. God is now angry with us, and then, as though he were pacified, he offers pardon and is propitious to us.¹³

Martin Luther can be seen as strongly promoting divine emotions due to his emphasis on the theology of the cross.¹⁴ However, in his writings, it is noticeable that “the experience of divine suffering is limited to the sphere of the incarnation.”¹⁵ To better understand his view, we need to consider his teaching on the hiddenness of God.¹⁶ Just like Calvin, Luther adheres to the idea that God’s inner self cannot be emotionally triggered or affected.

Theologian Kevin Vanhoozer’s analysis is helpful here. He explains that “while most patristic theologians understood impassibility to mean ‘incapable of succumbing to the passions’ or ‘incapable of impassioned sinning,’ contemporary theologians tend to hear ‘incapable of experiencing emotions.”¹⁷ Understanding the use of terminologies in their context is crucial to avoid misrepresentation.

We have seen that the Church Fathers and Reformers do not fall neatly into “emotionful” or “emotionless” categories in the discussion of divine emotion. While they often emphasize one aspect to tackle a specific theological issue, they do not deny the other entirely. This complexity makes sense because discussions about God’s emotions are naturally shaped by their time and context.¹⁸ But what does this mean for us today?

Exploring Contextualized Life Applications

First, our understanding of divine emotion fuels our passion for God’s mission.

A close reading of the whole story of Jonah reiterates the idea that God owns salvation. He chooses to save undeserving people – the Ninevites and Jonah – out of his compassion (Jonah 2:9). Jonah had no right to be angry since he received the same compassion from God as the city of Nineveh.

Through the story of Jonah, the Bible reveals God’s unwavering love for the lost, a love that inspires us to extend similar care and compassion to others. Unlike our capacity for compassion, which can be limited, God’s love is unfailing. This message is especially relevant for those engaged in missionary work, where we are called to show love even to those who oppose us (Romans 12:14; Matthew 5:43-48). This message resonates deeply with Asian believers, pastors, and missionaries serving in challenging environments. They find strength and purpose in God’s unwavering compassion for the lost.

Second, our understanding of divine emotion rekindles our prayer ministry.

How will our paradoxical view of divine emotion affect the way we pray? On one hand, because God is impassible (emotionally unmanipulable by external factors), our future is secured in the hands of our God. It is based on this security that we submit our prayers and petitions. Nothing can ever happen in our lives that God has not appointed or permitted.

On the other hand, because God is impassioned (full of perfectly vibrant emotions), we can be emotional in our appeals to him especially in our sufferings. Jonah cries out to God in his distress and appeals to God’s emotional attribute (Jonah 4:2). There is nothing wrong with crying to God in our misery. The psalmists did that all the time. Even Jesus demonstrated this truth most profoundly when he cried out, “My God, why have you forsaken me!” (Matt 27:45-46).

Asian Christians who regularly deal with suffering due to corruption, poverty, persecution, and calamities are easily drawn to the God who can sympathize with our emotions. Knowing that he can relate, we can emotionally express our pain, misery, and suffering. The early church considered this doctrine a comfort—that no matter how bad things are for me, God is not “trapped” in the same emotional problems that I am in. Yet we must realize that no matter how emotional our prayers are, they have no power to manipulate God.

Embracing God’s Impassibility and Impassionedness

Instead of getting hung up on whether God is “emotionful” or “emotionless,” we can accept both sides of the coin: God’s impassibility and impassionedness. It is incorrect to assert that God has no emotions, or the other extreme, that God changes his mind arbitrarily because of fluctuating emotions. God does not have human emotions. Instead, he has divine emotions.

The truth is that God’s emotions exist in a different realm or category. They are divine and perfect. God’s emotions are not a stronger version of our human emotions subject to our finiteness and fallenness. Because of God’s perfect nature, he cannot be coerced. God’s emotional responses cannot in any way be manipulated by external forces.