“God’s Fatherly Pity”: C.H. Spurgeon vs the Schoolmen on Divine Impassibility

Like as a father pitieth his children,
so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.
—Psalm 103:13.

In the former part of this psalm the Psalmist sang of God’s deeds of love, his gifts, his benefits, and his acts of kindness; but here he goes deeper into the divine motive, and hence he finds sweeter incentives to devout gratitude. There is a fulness of consolation in the fact that the heart of God is towards his people. He not only dispenses blessings—so does the sun, so do the clouds, so do the fruitful fields—but he takes a warm interest in our welfare, and has a feeling towards us of kindly, gentle affection, and that of such intensity that one of the highest forms of earthly love is here used as a figure to set forth the tender mercy of our God towards us.

“Without Passions”?

I have always been taught as an axiom in theology that God has no griefs,—that he is “without parts or passions” I think was the definition; but I have often inwardly demurred to such statements; they seemed to me so inconsistent with the tone and tenor of Scripture; for he appears to take pleasure in his people, and to be “grieved” with their ill-manners. Surely, metaphors that are inspired must have a meaning that is instructive. If the Father’s “bowels yearn,” if our Lord and Saviour is “moved with compassion,” and if the Holy Spirit is “vexed,” there must be something analogous to what we call emotion among ourselves in the acknowledged attributes of the Most High. At least he appears to sympathize with us, so that “in all our afflictions he is afflicted,” and he pities us “as a father pitieth his children.”

“After the Manner of Men”?

“That is speaking after the manner of men,” says somebody. True; and it is exactly the way I do speak. In no other way do I know how to speak, and until I learn to speak after the manner of angels you must pardon me, and accept an apology, not only for my own ignorance of any other tongue than that in which I was born, but also for the incapacity of my hearers to understand any other than human language. Neither do I know anything, so limited is my intelligence, except after the manner of men. It seems to me that if there be any other manner or means of communicating thoughts and emotions, it must belong to some other being than man; and if it be correct to speak after the manner of men, then be it understood I do speak after that manner, and I am perfectly satisfied that I am able so to speak the truth as shall give a faithful and adequate impression to your minds.

The Schoolmen Dismissed

There is a feeling which has a measure of pain in it, familiarly known to us as “pity;” it is a love which so sympathizes with its objects that in a manner it makes itself one with them, and if it should involve suffering, pity shares the pang. If there be any kind of grief in the one that is pitied, he that pities becomes a partaker of that grief. I believe in a God who can feel. As to Baal, and the gods of the heathen, they may be passionless and without emotion, or without anything that is akin to feeling. Not so do I find Jehovah to be described. How did his anger kindle when he gave his people over to the sword, and was wroth with his inheritance! And how transporting is his love to the daughter of Zion when he rejoices over her with joy! He has a pity, ay, and a sorrow too, according to this Book. I dismiss therefore the theology of the schoolmen; I am quite satisfied with the divinity that I find in these Scriptures.1

  1. C. H. Spurgeon, “God’s Fatherly Pity,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 28 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1882), 157–158. Headings in the post above are mine.[]

2 responses to ““God’s Fatherly Pity”: C.H. Spurgeon vs the Schoolmen on Divine Impassibility”

  1. Yoelvys Socorro Avatar
    Yoelvys Socorro

    The Augustinian rule says that biblical texts that seem to attribute change, ignorance, or suffering to God belong to economic language or to Christological language about Christ’s human nature never to ontological language about the divine being itself.
    This is not an external imposition upon Scripture. It is a rule that Scripture itself provides because the same Scripture that says “the Lord repented” also says “the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind.” The hermeneutical rule does not come from Plato or Aristotle. it comes from Scripture interpreting itself.

    1. Thanks for your comment. I’m well-aware of the move Augustine and others in the classical tradition make.

      I agree that Scripture should interpret Scripture (and so does Spurgeon). The problem is the so-called Augustinian rule goes too far. What passages that speak of God not changing his mind are referring to is his absolute moral rectitude and the fact that he always keeps his word. Not some abstract notion that he is absolutely timeless and, therefore, incapable of movement or responding to events in time. When passages like Jonah 3, for example, speak of God “repenting” or “changing his mind” regarding the judgment he had threatened on Nineveh, they are teaching that God responds to repentant sinners by withholding judgment and extending mercy. They are not mere metaphors.

      Regarding the text Spurgeon expounds (Psalm 103), he is disagreeing with theologians like, for example, Anselm who insist that God does not feel compassion but he only outwardly demonstrates compassion, that is, God’s timeless act issues forth in temporal effects that benefit those in need. That move is based on commitments that are derived more from Greek philosophy than from Scripture. So Spurgeon demurs because of his greater commitment to sola Scriptura.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from It Is Written

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading