You can turn back to the book of Acts, Acts chapter 14. We're in between books. We finished the book of Leviticus a month or two ago, so we're taking some time off from Numbers until after our summer break. So we'll finish the month of June, these Wednesday night studies, and then take July-August off, and then, God willing, get back to Numbers in September.
There was no rhyme or reason, not sure why I alighted in the book of Acts, but it seems like a good, or it seemeth wise unto me to at least continue on here in Acts 14. So last time, last two weeks, we considered 14.1-7, the ministry of the Apostle Paul and Barnabas in the city of Iconium. This puts it in its larger context, what we call the first missionary journey in the Book of Acts. It's from Acts 13.1 all the way to Acts 14.28, took place in around AD 47 and 48, covered about 1,400 miles.
So it would have been Cyprus and the churches in southern Galatia, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. So the return is recorded in chapter 14 at verses 27 and 28, so they're sent out, or rather the Holy Spirit comes to the church, the Holy Spirit tells the church to set apart Paul and Barnabas, the church then sends those men out, they engage in missionary enterprise, and then they come back to the church, report what God had done, and then they stay there for a time, and then they go back out on a missionary journey. So it's a very church-oriented methodology and strategy, very much in terms of God's working in and through the local church to evangelize and to promote gospel mission in the world. So I will read beginning in verse 8, and as I said, we'll continue here, 8 to 18, the ministry in Lystra.
So, and in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother's womb, who had never walked. This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand up straight on your feet. And he leaped and walked.
Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycanian language, the gods have come down to us in the likeness of men. And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, Men, why are you doing these things?
We also are men with the same nature as you. and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless, he did not leave himself without witness, in that he did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them. Just continue to the end of the chapter.
Then Jews from Antioch and Iconium came there. And having persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead. However, when the disciples gathered around him, he rose up and went into the city. And the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.
And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, We must, through many tribulations, enter the kingdom of God. So when they had appointed elders in every church and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. And after they had passed through Pisidia, they came to Pamphylia. Now when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down to Adalia.
From there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work which they had completed. Now, when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. So they stayed there a long time with the disciples. Amen.
Introduction
Well, as we consider this section in Acts 14, specifically at verses 8 to 18, the ministry in Lystra, We'll not only learn something about the missionary enterprise of the Apostle Paul and Barnabas in the book of Acts, but there's a bit of theology that we can learn on the way. For some of you, this will be a review, not only Acts 14, but the particular theology that we will look at, specifically when the Apostle Paul declares in verse 15, we also are men with the same nature as you. We'll deal with that when we come to it, but it does hold out for us some truth concerning the living God. So when we look at this section,
Healing of the Lame Man
I want to look first at the healing of the lame man in verses 8 to 10. Secondly, the folly of the pagans in verses 11 to 13. And then thirdly, the proclamation of the living God in verses 14 to 18. And this is a specimen sample of the apostolic preaching to heathen or pagan.
Remember, Acts chapter 17, which we looked at several weeks ago, is another instance of that. The Apostle Paul in Athens is there meeting the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who wanted to understand something concerning Jesus and the resurrection. So Paul takes that opportunity to preach to them the glory of God Most High. Remember that when he preaches to the Jews in the synagogues, he doesn't spend his time on the doctrine of creation.
He doesn't spend his time on the doctrine of God's sovereign governance. He usually spends his time on demonstrating and reasoning from the scriptures that Jesus is in fact the Christ. The Jews already believe that God made the world. The Jews already believe that God sustained and governed the world.
The Jews did not believe that God sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who assumed our humanity, to live as the Messiah that was promised in the Old Testament Scriptures. So Paul's strategy or tactic in the synagogue was to reason and to demonstrate and to show from Scripture that Jesus was in fact the Christ. When he comes upon these pagans, he teaches them concerning the sovereignty of God, the nature of the true and living God, and that is precisely what he does here in Lystra. So looking first at the healing of the lame man, there's obvious similarities to what you see back in chapter 3, specifically in verses 1 to 10.
That instance when Peter and John went to pray, they met a lame man on the way, and he held out his palms and he asked for alms, and this is what Peter did say. There's a song that obviously goes to that, and Peter famously makes that statement, silver and gold have I not, but what I have I give to you. And in the name of Jesus Christ, he calls upon him to be healed. So we have an instance like that here in the ministry of the Apostle Paul.
So there's some similarities with Peter in Acts 3, but as well with Jesus in his ministry relative to the healing of the paralytic, specifically in Matthew chapter 9. As well, you see parallels in Mark and in Luke.
The Man's Condition and Paul's Perception
So we are in the city of Lystra. It's not too far away from Iconium, I think, probably about 60, 68 kilometers, so it's not a long distance. But notice how the man is described in verse eight. And in Lystra, a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother's womb who had never walked.
So his condition was severe and incurable. J.A. Alexander says, congenital infirmities of this kind being commonly regarded as incurable, the man's condition seemed to be a helpless one. And so we need to make sure we appreciate that.
What happens in this instance is great and glorious. God, through Paul and Barnabas, brings the gospel to bear upon these heathen in Lystra, but also this man who had these feet that were without strength and a cripple from his mother's womb was cured and was healed through the power of God. not the power of Paul. Remember, Paul doesn't have the ability in and of himself to go out and heal people. It's God who works these miracles and signs through the apostles.
And as I explained last time, when we were looking at the situation in Iconium, if you look back, or up, if you will, specifically in verse 3, it says, I mentioned that the Bible is a book full of miracles. but those miracles obtained at the time of revelation. So in other words, we see miracles during the ministry of Moses, we see miracles during the ministry of the prophets, we see miracles in the ministry of our Lord Jesus, and we see miracles in the ministry of the apostles. Now, the miracles aren't just to simply dazzle and to surprise and cause people to stand in awe of the miracle worker. They come at times when God is revealing his word.
So the miracles that Moses performs confirms or authenticates that Moses is speaking the truth of God's word. When the prophets engage in miraculous activity, it confirms and authenticates that they are preaching God's word. When Jesus does that, same thing. When the apostles do that, the same thing.
In the ending of Mark, some call it the long ending of Mark, I'll just call it the ending of Mark. Mark chapter 16, specifically at verse 20, I think you get that emphasis. And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen.
There seems to be a misplacement or a misguided approach on the part of some that are looking for the miracles as an ending of themselves. That's not wrong to pray to God to relieve you of whatever your situation or your issues are, but understand that biblically speaking, miracles come to confirm the miracle worker as being God's man with God's word and revelation is the end game. So, when we come to this particular man, we see Paul's action in verses 9 and 10. This man heard Paul speaking, Paul observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed.
The fact that he saw that he had faith to be healed probably indicates that the Spirit enabled Paul to see this in the man. There was nothing in the man necessarily that demonstrated this. He didn't have a light above his head or some sort of indicator that, yeah, I've got the faith that is requisite for this particular thing. Remember that the Spirit is active in the ministry of the apostles, and here when Paul observes him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, it's most likely leading by the Holy Spirit.
And then Paul says, what Paul says there in verse 10, So again, the power of God is such that Paul is able to speak and the man is healed. a congenital defect. He had never walked before, and now he is walking. This is, in fact, the power of God. It's miraculous, it is glorious, it is wondrous, and in the larger context of redemptive history, it confirms that the word that the apostle is speaking is, in fact, the word of the living and true God.
Bruce says that this lame man had faith, was made plain by his ready obedience to Paul's command to stand up. He jumped to his feet, found that they supported his weight, and began to walk for the first time in his life. It really is miraculous. I mean, the man had never walked, and here he is walking.
Again, similarities with our Lord Jesus when he looks at that man who's lowered down on the mat, and he says, son, your sins are forgiven you. And of course, everybody wonders how in the world can this man forgive sins? And Jesus knows that they're thinking this way, and Jesus asks the simple question, which is easier, to say to the man, your sins are forgiven, or to say, rise, take up your mat, and walk? Well, it's easier to say that your sins are forgiven, because we can't see that.
I can say that, and you don't know whether or not it's true. And then Jesus says, but that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins, he says to the man, rise, take up your mat, and walk. So the miraculous healing demonstrated the more glorious miracle that the Son of Man has power to forgive sin. So what we find with Peter in Acts 3 and what we find with Paul here in Acts 14 is similar to the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So the healing of the lame man.
Folly of the Pagans
Now, that brings us to the folly of the pagans in verses 11 to 13. Certainly, they were there. They had seen. They had understood.
They saw what Paul had done. So of course, their pagan heathen instinct was, well, let's worship this one. If he's able to say in a loud voice to this man who's been crippled since his mother's womb to get up and walk, and the young man or the man was able to get up and walk, certainly Paul is one to be reckoned with. And so we see they ascribe to Paul and Barnabas deity.
Notice in verse 11. Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices saying in the Lycanian language, the gods have come down to us in the likeness of men. It says, and Barnabas they called Zeus and Paul Hermes because he was the chief speaker. So what you have here is a demonstration of the power of the living and true God, and so then the heathen ascribe it to their deities.
They ascribe it to the gods coming down in the form and likeness of men. So get that in your head, that that's the particular issue that's in view, and that's the particular issue that the Apostle Paul is going to address. These men think that other men are actually gods, and so Paul needs to correct their theology. That's why I said, it's not only a historical study in the first missionary journey, but Paul teaches theology to these heathen, and I think by virtue of that, we need to pay attention, because if we're not as more accurate in our understanding of who God is, and I would argue that at least some chunks of the church aren't, then we need to get it together.
Because if the heathen are instructed, and not that it took with all the heathen, we see that in verse 18, but nevertheless the apostle taught good theology to them to correct them from this idea that God is kind of just like us, but perhaps a better version of us. So they ascribe deity to these men.
Identification of Barnabas and Paul as Gods
They speak in the Lycanian language. Probably tells or explains why it took Paul and Barnabas a little bit longer to sort of clue in on what was going on. And then they identified Barnabas as Zeus. Zeus is the Greek name.
Jupiter is the Roman name, the king of the great gods. Paul as Hermes. Hermes is the Greek name. Mercury is the Roman name, the messenger of the gods.
Not sure why. Other than Paul was the one that was speaking. Paul was the one with the loud voice. So perhaps they concluded he must be Mercury or Hermes.
And Barnabas perhaps was an older man, must be Zeus. He must be the king of the gods. But that shows you the conception that these persons had. That the gods had come down to us in the likeness of man.
So they identify Barnabas with Zeus. They identify Paul with Hermes. And then notice this attempt at worship in verse 13. These heathen are at least consistent with their belief system.
I've got to give them credit for that. If they thought that the gods had come down to them in the likeness of men, then what we find there in verse 13 is perfectly appropriate. That's legit. That's the way we ought to be with reference to the living and true God.
We ought to have that response, that reflex in terms of worship and praise and adoration. So notice in verse 13, then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes. Brethren, as far as they were concerned, the gods had come down in the likeness of man. What do you do when the gods come down in the likeness of man?
You worship them, you ascribe deity to them, and then you were a sacrifice to them, and you do everything that is appropriate to being in the presence of the gods. Heathen, in the book of Acts, at times, demonstrate the coldness of Christian hearts in many instances. We've got to get provoked. We've got to be harangued.
We've got to be sort of argued into church attendance at times. The heathen, they just come. If they know that divinity, or at least they suspect that divinity is present, their reflex response is to worship and to praise and to adore.
Proclamation of the Living God
And then that brings us then to the proclamation of the living God. First we see the rejection of worship, then we see the proclamation of the truth, and then we see the section end with a bit of a misunderstanding of the truth set forth by Paul. But notice the rejection of the worship. Verse 14, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, This is consistent with what we know concerning our God and true religion.
Turn back to Acts chapter 10. Again, another parallel with the ministry of Simon Peter. Specifically at verse 24, "...and the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends.
As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up saying, stand up, I myself am also a man. As well, you can turn to the book of Revelation, Revelation chapter 19. Another instance where a creature attempting to worship another creature is rebuked by that creature saying, don't worship me, but rather worship God and God alone.
I think I got the wrong text. It's not, oh yeah, it is Revelation 19.10. So intriguingly, we have Paul, we have Peter, we have an angel rejecting worship when it's issued or given to them. Compare that with the several instances in the gospel records where people worship Jesus.
Does Jesus shoo them away? Does Jesus reject them? Does Jesus rebuke them? Does Jesus say, no, don't do that?
No, Jesus receives it. When Thomas says, my Lord and my God, Jesus doesn't redirect him. Jesus accepts that and approves of it. So there is a stark contrast between what we find in the apostles and what we find in the angels versus what we find in true divinity.
So our Lord receives it. So we have this consistency with other creatures on the part of Paul, but then the rejection. Notice this response, and it's similar to what you see elsewhere in scripture. Notice specifically in verse 14 again, it says, but when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude.
Remember Jesus before the high priest and the high priest put him under oath. Are you the king? Are you the Messiah? Are you the Christ?
And he says, you have said rightly. What does the high priest do? He tears his clothes. As far as he's concerned, this was a blasphemous statement.
And so what the apostles do in this particular instance evidence that. It reflects that. It demonstrates that. And the question, why are you doing these things, is the appropriate question for the people of Lystra to ponder.
And it sets the stage for what the apostle is going to do by means of corrective theology. He wants to lead them to this place of contemplation and reflection. Why are you doing these things? We're just men.
We're like you. Bruce says, the summary which Luke proceeds to give of their expostulation provides us with one of the two examples and acts of the preaching of the gospel to purely pagan audiences. to people who, unlike the Gentiles who attended synagogue worship, had no acquaintance with the God of Israel or with the Hebrew prophets. The other and fuller example is the speech delivered by Paul to the Athenian court of the Areopagus in chapter 17. So then we move to the proclamation of that truth in verses 15b to 17.
And the first thing I want us to appreciate is the non-divinity of the apostles. the non-divinity of the apostles.
Non-Divinity of the Apostles
We're going to slow down a bit and just sort of unpack some of the theology in this particular section. As I said, it's a review for those who've heard the sermon on Acts 14. It's a review for those who have heard of the doctrine of divine impassibility. If you're relatively new to our church, you've probably heard that doctrine more than you ever heard it in your life before.
Why are these people so caught up with this doctrine of impassibility? What is it about impassibility that really fires their passions? What is it about these people? Well, I'll give you a brief synopsis of what it is about these people.
In 2014, we were part of a larger association of churches called the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches in America. And when we were a member of that particular association, controversy broke out over a clause in our confession. In the confession of faith, we have a description, or rather a definition, or rather a sort of summary statement of what we call God's perfections. We might call them God's attributes.
We might call them whatever, you know, other things. I tend to prefer the word perfection. but it tells us that the Lord our God is but one only, living and true God, whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection, whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, everywhere infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and with all most just and terrible in his judgments." Nothing too out of the ordinary in terms of Christian theology, except for a particular clause or a series of clauses that seem to have gotten neglected over the years. In other words, if I asked you what are the attributes of God, you might recite Westminster Shorter Catechism number four. What is God?
God is spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. In His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Typically, when we discuss the attributes or perfections of God, that's where our minds go. God is loving.
God is holy. God is just. God is righteous. God is good.
God is, you know, whatever. We don't usually ponder, at least up until 2014, probably some people did, but some of us didn't really ponder some of the more fundamental grammar of the doctrine of God that is set forth here in our confession. This statement of most pure spirit. a most pure spirit. There's a world of theological reflection behind that statement.
I may nod to it as we move through the material tonight. And then it says invisible, and then this next three, without body, parts, or passions. That was where the debate centered, specifically on the passions part. So without body.
We know God's without body because Jesus tells us in John 4, 24, God is spirit. So what do we conclude from that? God doesn't have a body. He's not spatial.
He's not, you know, he doesn't extend. There's no material to him. He's spirit. But there have been in the history of the church people that have taught that God has a body.
He's got feet, he's got arms, he's got hands, he's got whatever. And then this next statement, that God is without parts. That may seem a bit odd, but it simply is what's called the doctrine of divine simplicity. You didn't get that.
I said it's simply the doctrine of divine simplicity. Now, the doctrine of divine simplicity isn't altogether simple for us simple-minded folk. But nevertheless, simplicity simply means that God's not made of parts. Now, that's a profound statement, because if he was, that means those parts are more ultimate than God.
If there is some part out there that comes together to form God, then there's something outside of God that's more ultimate than God. God is a simple being. There's no composition. There's no two parts.
There's no, you know, he's made up of a bit of this and a bit of that. We are made up of flesh and spirit. We are material and immaterial. We are compound beings.
We are made good. in a way that God is not. And when it comes to the Trinity, never say that God is three parts. That is bad, bad stuff. Don't ever say, well, you know, God is three parts.
That's not the doctrine of the Trinity. That flies against divine simplicity. It flies against divine triunity. It's just a bad way.
But it's kind of common to say that, well, you know, God's three parts. No, he's not. The doctrine of divine simplicity means that God is not made up of parts. He is without parts.
Simple. Again, some things stretch it a little bit when you get a little bit more detail. But for now, he doesn't have a body, doesn't have parts, and he doesn't have passions. And this is where people get their sort of pants hung on the nail on the fence.
What do you mean he's without passions? Passions are good. We use passions typically in a positive way. That guy is really passionate.
That's great to see. We like a passionate preacher. We like a passionate politician, provided we agree with them. We don't like passionate commies.
We certainly don't like passionate heretics. But so far that they're passionate and they're on the right track, we like that. Passion's good. Well, the fundamental issue with passion is change.
So this without body, parts, or passions is a negation of or denial of change in the divine being. Passion is consistent with movement from one state to another. That's what the confession is denying when it says he's without passion. Now, the typical response is, well, then that means God doesn't love us.
No, it means that God is love, that He loves us, as the confession says, with mostness. It's the without passions bit in this paragraph that can lead to the most holy bit, the most wise bit, the most free bit, and the most absolute bit. It then says most loving, most gracious, most merciful, most long-suffering. Most means he can't get better and he can't get worse.
There's no increase and there's no decrease. And you can thank the doctrine of divine impassibility for that. There's no shadow of change or turning with God. And so what we have is this doctrine of divine impassibility, the without passions.
So in Arbka in 2014, one in the ranks started challenging that doctrine. He was graciously and kindly asked not to do it. Not, you know, he wasn't kicked out, he wasn't treated harshly. He had a blog, a public blog, and he represented ARPCA.
And they just said, look, you know, that's not the position of our confession, and it would be nice if you didn't do that. Well, as you might imagine, he continued to do that. So it caused this big disruption, which was a good thing. Outsiders thought, oh, I can't believe those guys are arguing over something so insignificant.
I'm sorry, but what better thing to argue over than the doctrine of God? I'd rather argue over that than the color of the hymn book that we use. At least it's something we're supposed to be arguing about. And it's something that, again, by and large, seemed to have been lost, at least for some, in the context of the church.
So when this kicked off, there was a process set in motion for people to study it, to try and understand it, for a committee to answer the question as to whether or not the confession actually taught it. What did the other confessions at the time teach? What did the early church teach? What did the medieval church teach?
In other words, historical theology. What has the church done with the doctrine of divine impassibility? Are we just some innovators here? Or are we actually doing something that's consistent with the life of the church?
Which is always the way to do theology. For all the negativity out there about the church, the church is Christ's bride. And we shouldn't do theology without being in concert with the church, not only our local church in terms of any writing or preaching or teaching we may do, but in terms of study, it's good to see how the fathers dealt, it's good to see how the medievals dealt, it's good to see how the reformers dealt, it's good to see how the post-reformation guys dealt. We're not the first ones to take the kick at this can.
And Christ ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and he gave gifts to men. And those gifts of men to men have spoken and written valuable and precious truth to help us to understand scripture. So basically, in the Arbka impassibility debate, it ended with Arbka affirming this particular statement in its historical, biblical, theological sort of universe, basically saying, yeah, God is impassible. Now, some left Arbka as a result of that.
Others stayed around, but only for a short time, because there was another torpedo fired at Arbka, and that's when we left. So we didn't continue on in Arbka. That's why there's a push, if you are new to our church, as to why we want to start an association of churches here in Western Canada. We think it's a good thing to work together and to be in concert with brothers and sisters and other churches that we know and love.
So when we come to this particular passage of scripture, it's actually a proof text in the Westminster Confession of Faith for without passions. And I'm going to try to navigate through this. So notice what it says in verse 15. The first thing is the fact that Paul and Barnabas were not God.
He says, we also are men with the same nature as you. The word passion is the Greek word here, like passion, similar passion. It's exactly what he says. Man, we are of like passion.
So basically, the Greek word means pertaining to experiencing similarity in feelings or circumstances with the same nature as someone. Barrett, a commentator, not Matthew, but a different one, said, same experiences and the same feelings. A modern commentator, Bach, says it beautifully, literally, of like passions. That's exactly what Paul says.
The King James gets it right. We also are men of like passions with you. Thumbs up for the King James! That's a wonderful translation.
You see it used in James 5.17 as well. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours. Elijah was a man with like passions. So what Paul says to these worshiping heathen, not worshiping heathen worshiping the true God, but trying to worship Paul, is that Paul is saying, we're not God.
He's stressing non-divinity. He's stressing their creatureliness and thus the inappropriateness on the part of the heathen to worship that. Worship is due and fit only for the living God. And he puts himself and Barnabas with these men.
Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same passions, or like passions, as you. We're just like you. Gill comments, men, not gods, of the same human nature, and that as created, alike sinful men, and need a sacrifice better than those.
Frail mortal men, subject to frailty, imperfection, afflictions, troubles, diseases, and death itself, and so very improper objects of worship. So the first thing to observe is the fact that Paul and Barnabas were not God.
God Is Not Like Us
The second thing to observe is the fact that God is not like us. See, if Paul says, men, we are of like passions with you, what's he saying by implication about God? God's not of like passions as you. God is not the same nature as you.
There is something significantly different about the true and living God. In the sense of the doctrine of divine impassibility, this like passions, this similar nature, God's is dissimilar from us. When the confession says that God's essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, as I've said on a number of occasions, that does not mean we cannot know truth about God. That does not mean we're drooling idiots when it comes to the 31,000 propositions in scripture, and we just scratch our heads and we can't understand.
We can certainly understand them. But in terms of who God is as God, the finite can never penetrate the infinite. The creature can never see fully the creator. There is a chasm that exists, and the apostle is stressing that.
So the text supports, again, it's not explicitly, Paul's not saying, OK, I'm going to teach you the doctrine of divine impassibility, what later confessional authors will describe as God without passions. But it's certainly there in the text. So the text supports the doctrine of divine impassibility. Now impassibility basically is described this way.
God does not experience inner emotional changes, whether enacted freely from within or affected by his relationship to and interaction with human beings in the created order. He's not like us. There's no ups and downs. There's no good days and bad days with God.
There's no, yeah, I'm just going to have to cancel on that. There's no variation. There's no shadow of turning. There's no change in God.
God does not experience inner emotional changes. See, the opponents of divine impossibility say, well, he wills that. He does that. No, he doesn't.
He doesn't have any inner turmoil. He is blessed. He is perfectly happy. He's pure act.
That means there's no potency in God. He can't move from one place. He can't decrease. He can't increase.
There's no change with God. And brethren, dare I say, that's the God we need. We're messed up. We change all the time.
If I'm out sailing, as I often do, and I come to straits and I have to throw my anchor, I don't want to throw it on the sand that's shifting and sinking. I want to throw it on the rock that's going to hold on to it. And that's the exact imagery that the apostle uses in the book of Hebrews in chapter 6. We don't want a God who's shifting.
We don't want a God who's changing. We want most loving, most gracious, most merciful, most long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth. We want all that God has promised to be in Holy Scripture. So He's pure act, and then this idea of simplicity.
Now, I don't want to confuse anybody, but I think it's important for us to understand this. God is all that is in God. For us, we are human nature, and then we have the capacity to love, we have the capacity to hate, we have the capacity to be kind, we have the capacity to do certain things. There's no capacity in God.
There's no potency in God. He's simple. He's not He's not moving. There's no getting better.
God's not graduating next year from God University to be all that He ever was supposed to be. That's just not the God of the Bible. He is who He is. So He is His attributes.
That's a bit of a tough one, and it takes some time to sort of process it, but it simply means that everything that is in God is God. And a perfect illustration is from 1 John. John tells us God is love. John doesn't tell me I am love, because I'm not.
I have the capacity to love, I can love, I'm built for that ability to love, but I'm not definitionally love. God definitionally is love. God definitionally is holiness. God definitionally is justice.
He's righteousness. He's all that we see here. So all that is in God is God. Again, there's no getting better for God.
There's no bad days. There's no getting worse for God. These are glorious truths. The doctrine of divine impassibility does not teach that God is static, inert, or unrelated to his creature. or his creation.
And I just read that. In 2nd London, he's most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering. That's not static. That's not inert.
The idea of static or the idea of inertia is applicable to a creature, but it really has no meaning when it comes to God, because God is pure act. No potency in God. It's not like he can not be static or be static. That's a category for creatures, not a category for us.
As well, the doctrine of divine impassibility highlights the distinction between God as creator and man as creature. We always need to maintain that, and that's what Paul is doing. Man, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you.
And interestingly, notice Paul's evangelistic strategy. Notice what he doesn't do. God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. No, he wants to set their thinking straight first and foremost about God.
Not just start promising them good things, but telling them about the good God. He wants to correct their bad theology. So the doctrine of divine impassibility highlights the distinction between God as creator and man as creature. Listen to James Dolezal.
James Dolezal says, God is not to be counted as existing in an ontological. Ontological is the doctrine of being. We might call it metaphysics. Again, some of these concepts or words, just stick with it.
Brethren, theology is like any other enterprise. You get into a hobby, do you know what you know about stamps on day one, what you know about stamps on day 100? No, you've learned a bit, right? By, you know, you're 80 years old, boy, you know a lot about stamps, or coins, or whatever your deal is, whatever floats your boat in that regard.
You don't go, well, there's big words there, I'm not going to do it. No, you are interested in the subject, so you think, maybe those big words will help me with that subject. Never understood why in the church we have the best of subjects, and people argue that way. Doesn't seem fitting to me.
Doesn't seem appropriate. Of course, I'm a lecturing, scolding pastor. That's probably got something to do with it. So he says, God is not to be counted as existing in an ontological series with any creature.
I think what he means is this. You don't have worm, and then animal, and then man, and then angel, and then God. God's not man writ large. He's not the top of a series of being.
You've got creature, man, angel, That's it, in the creaturely realm. God's in another category. God's in the God category. He's in the infinite.
He's creator. We're creature. He says, as the absolute cause of all creaturely being, God himself cannot be numbered as one of those things appearing with being in general. You can't just throw him in with the rest of us.
He is different. The God of Holy Scripture condemned Israel in Psalm 50. Why? Because you thought I was altogether just like you.
What's God saying? I'm not like you. That's a good thing, brethren. We don't want just a better version of us.
We want God Most High, the infinite, glorious One who created all things. Boevinck says, God is the real, the true being, the fullness of being, the sum total of all reality and perfection, the totality of being, from which all other being owes its existence. He is in an immeasurable and unbounded ocean of being. the absolute being who alone has being in himself. So there is a difference, and that's what Paul is highlighting.
And then I would suggest that the fourth observation under the fact that God is not like us is that
Impassibility Follows from Immutability
the doctrine of divine impassibility necessarily follows from the doctrine of divine immutability. That's usually the more popular of the two. People have heard of immutability. That means God is unchangeable.
In case you hadn't heard of immutability, I'm going to tip my hand. That's what it means. God is unchangeable. So the doctrine of immutability tells us that God cannot change.
So the doctrine of divine impassibility comes along and tells us he doesn't change. It's kind of like the relationship between infallible and inerrant. In the 20th century, there were debates about biblical inerrancy, and some person said, well, the confession doesn't have inerrancy, but it has infallibility. Infallibility means that the word of God cannot lie.
So it necessarily follows that if it cannot lie, it does not lie, which is inerrancy. And I see that impassibility as a subset of divine immutability. It's an amazing thing. People affirm and confess immutability.
And then you start talking about impassibility. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You mean God doesn't cry?
God doesn't repent? Because the Bible says he does. Yeah, the Bible also says God has a powerful right arm. The Bible also says that the eyes of the Lord are in every place.
Does God have eyes? No, we always understand that as what's called an anthropomorphism, the predicating of God, physical traits, to teach us something about Him. Well, the Bible does that with emotions and passions because we cannot, as the finite, enter into the infinite unless the infinite accommodates it for us. And so he accommodates it, in the language of Calvin, like a nurse lisping to a two-year-old.
You don't have dialogue with a two-year-old the way you do with your 22-year-old, unless you're a very bad parent. If you're talking to your 22-year-old the way you talk to your two-year-old, you didn't do your job at some point, because you should be able to speak to them in a different way. So the doctrine of divine impassibility necessarily follows from the doctrine of divine immutability. Numbers 23, 19, God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent. 1 Samuel 15, 29, and also the strength of Israel will not lie nor relent, for he is not a man that he should relent.
Malachi 3.6, for I am the Lord, I do not change, therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. Do you hear that? The doctrine of divine immutability, including impassibility, is the foundation of Israel's status that they continued on. I the Lord do not change, therefore you are not consumed.
If the Lord changed, He don't wipe them out, because they deserve to be wiped out. But He doesn't change. He covenants to preserve, He covenants to keep, He covenants to do, and He'll preserve, He'll keep, and He'll do. Because He is immutable.
He is impassable. James 1.17, every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Upon which Manton comments, but God doth not change, there is no wrinkle upon the brow of eternity, the arm of mercy is not dried up, nor do his bowels of love waste and spend themselves. I guess what I'm trying to present, brethren, is that when Paul says, men, why are you doing these things?
We also are men with like passions as you. He is affirming their non-divinity, but he is affirming something unique about the living and true God. That living and true God does not have like passions. He's not given to change.
He is not affected by those creaturely emotions. He's not affected by any emotions. If there are motions communicated concerning God in Scripture, they're what we call an improper predication, an analogical predication, again, designed to teach us truth, but not compromising the person, or rather, the doctrine of God.
Repentance and Works of God
So when we come back to this, notice then what they say, based on this true theology. You might say, well, you know, that's not the biggest lesson on theology. It's a big one to a bunch of, you know, man-worshiping heathen. What else would you tell these guys?
Good job, as far as you know. No, that's not what Paul says. Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you.
So on the heels of this true theology, he says, we also are men with the same nature as you and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God. preaching repentance to them, just like he does in Acts 17 at the Areopagus. And as I tried to show in our study in Acts 14, repentance and faith go hand-in-hand in the Book of Acts, in the Bible as a whole, but especially in the Book of Acts. You see repentance, you see belief. Belief and repentance are two sides of the same coin.
It's believing repentance, it's repentant faith. So when he says that you turn from these useless things to the living God, implicit in that is belief on this living God. And then notice, he then highlights the works of God. So persons might wonder, how does an impassable God relate to creation?
Well, Paul's going to tell you how an impassable God relates to creation. First, he created it. Notice in verse 15, after turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them. turn from this useless paganism or heathenism or Zeus and Hermes to the living God. Why?
Because the living God made the earth, he made heaven, he made the sea, and he made everything that is in that. As well, he then highlights the sovereignty of the living God. Notice in verse 16, who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Listen to Poole.
Poole, I think, describes this well. There were two main objections which these heathen idolaters might make against the gospel and the worship of the true God. And they are, first, from the antiquity, secondly, from the universality of that false worship. Right?
They might say, wait a minute, your God is the new God. We got Zeus, we got Hermes, we got this pantheon. So what's Paul saying? No, the true and living God made everything and the true and living God has been present throughout bygone generations.
The true and living God let bygone generations or allowed these nations to walk in their own ways. So Poole draws this lesson, both which, the idea of antiquity and universality, both which the apostle here gives a critical answer unto, telling them that the reason why so many, and for so long a time, they had followed idols, was from the just judgment of God upon them, as he does elsewhere. Psalm 81, Romans 1, Romans 1, 24 and 28. So what we see here is that God made the world, God governs the world, and whatever the question, well, why did God do that?
Well, why did God? That, I think, is sufficiently answered elsewhere, but that God did that is obviously clear from verse 16. And then in verse 17, he underscores something about the created order. and God's revelation of Himself through the created order. Notice in verse 17, nevertheless, He did not leave Himself without witness.
Even to you heathen. even to you pagans. We call this natural theology, general revelation. Belgic Confession says we know God by two means. First, by creation, preservation, and government of the universe.
Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine word. I think Paul does that in Acts 17. He certainly does this in Romans chapter 1. How does he say that God has demonstrated or made it clear that he exists even to the atheists?
Well, through his invisible attributes are seen through what is made. In other words, the effect should lead you back to the cause. And that's what he's saying here. So God has revealed himself, even to heathen and pagan.
Nevertheless, he did not leave himself without witness in that he did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.
Misunderstanding of the Truth
And then we see this misunderstanding of the truth. First of all, notice that Paul's intention is not simply to set forth their theology. I mean, he wants to do that, and he knows that it's intimately connected with soteriology. But for Paul, and as you look through the book of Acts, when they give information, it's not just to give information.
Paul wants the Lystrans to repent. He wants them to come to Jesus. He wants them to know forgiveness. He wants them to be saved.
He's an evangelist. He's a missionary. He's got a pastor's heart. He loves people.
And he's out there on the mission field. And he corrects their theology. He tells them to repent. And when we see that, it's unfortunate that verse 18 is there, but we see that at the Areopagus as well.
Not everybody receives the preaching of the Apostle Paul and says, I'm going to be saved. There's some who mocked in the Areopagus. There were some who said, well, we'll hear about this again later. And some did believe.
Well, same thing here in Lystra. Verse 18, and with these sayings, they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them. So there was this, nevertheless, in them, this pagan, heathen desire to worship them because he had done this great thing for this man who had been crippled from his mother's womb. Well, I had hoped to be done a bit earlier because if anyone has questions, but we do have some time, so I'll close in prayer and I'll save the application for another day.
Closing Prayer
Father in heaven, we thank you for your Word. We thank you for the doctrine of God as we find it in Scripture, as we have been helped in the history of the church to understand things in a In a clearer way, we thank you for our confession of faith and the good and robust definition that it gives concerning these truths. I pray that you would help us to get these things in our minds and in our hearts, and may it cause us to worship and to praise, to adore and to glorify our great and our holy and our awesome God. And we pray this in Jesus' name.
Amen.
Questions and Answers
There's got to be questions. Dr. Wright, I imagine, is revising his primer. And that primer's on pre-order right now at Broken Point.
Yes, that's true. So Sam Ranahan has a primer. I always think it looks like primer, but it's called God Without Passions, a primer, or primer, if you're rude like me. And then he has God Without Passions, a reader.
I cannot commend highly enough that primer. It just sets forth the doctrine of divine impassibility in a very simple way. Very clear, very concise, very biblical, wonderful. The reader is basically a compilation of quotations.
Here's what the dudes in the church have said all throughout the history of the church on this doctrine. The early church, many of the battles fought over Nod and especially the person of our Lord Jesus, were fought at the level of divine impassibility. The heretic said, no, divine impassibility is true, which everybody to a man agreed on. So for the heretic mind, well, how could Jesus do what Jesus did?
I thought for sure that question was going to come up. How could Jesus do what Jesus did? Because didn't Jesus cry? Didn't Jesus demonstrate passion?
Didn't Jesus have, you know, what appears to be ups and downs? Nobody has that question? Yes. So it was a really helpful overview of bio-impossibility. before like that, so thank you.
And interesting statement I just picked up earlier on, when he said he's not like us. He does not experience inner emotional change. And I was just thinking, how do you understand those texts in the Bible where the Lord's anger burns, is kindled against, I would say those are anthropopathic statements. Similar to an anthropomorphic statement, the predication of human emotion to God.
So you predicate human limbs to God in anthropomorphism, the Bible does that. It's by way of accommodation. The technical terminology is it's an improper predication. And an improper predication doesn't mean it's wrong or it's not true.
It's not proper to God as God. What is proper to God as God are the perfections of holiness and righteousness and justice. Improper, but again, not true, is wrath and fury and anger. That accommodates God to us, so we understand the gravity of the human condition, the gravity of the sinfulness of man, and it's an improper predication that shines the light on the truth of his justice, his righteousness.
It's spoken in the manner of men. That's another convention that you see often in older commentaries. John Gill will say, spoken in the manner of men. And that is a technical phrase, actually, in theological literature and biblical commentary to characterize what is an improper predication.
Proper predication is saying what the Bible says about God in terms of his nature or being. So he's holy, he's righteous, he's just. That's a proper predication. And improper is when it puts human emotion on him so that we learn something from, again, the human sin and the glory of God, and it's spoken in the manner of men.
It's accommodated language to us. Does that make sense? That's probably the best question you could possibly ask, so you get an A. You must have been in a good church years ago.
I'm kidding, and presently. Jeff, he was a member here many, many years ago. That was well taught. Good to have him here.
But you, that all predated the impassibility stuff. But method, that's a great question. And I would suggest the method is, the first question we ask of scripture is who is God? And then we ask, what does God do or how does God act?
Whatever God does or acts has to be consistent with who He is. If God says, I change not, and then we read that He relents or repents, We don't say, well, there's a contradiction. We don't say, oh, I don't know how to square this problem. God doesn't change.
But I know that God is condescending in communicating to me, so he uses language for me that I can get my mind wrapped around. So the priority is, who is God? How does the Bible describe our God? And then when we see God do things that seem to be a bit out of character for God, we let the who is God condition us.
In other words, if something seems to be out of character with our God, change, for instance, we come back to, no, he doesn't change. So whatever's going on here cannot mean he changes the way that we change. It's a revelatory way for the Lord to communicate to us. We know what relenting means.
The gravity of the situation in Genesis 6 is best described by God relenting that He had made man. There's no better way to describe the enormity of sin, the gravity of the problem, the glory and the majesty of God. If you think about it, there's no better way for God to have communicated this than, I'm sorry I even made man. That cannot mean, though, again, if you're thinking theologically, biblically oriented, that God messed up.
God doesn't mess up. That's not a potential in God. There's no way that God is going to ordain the creation of the world and all things in it, down to the very fall of Adam and Eve, down to the flood, every jot and tittle. We believe in the divine decree.
Nothing takes place apart from the plan and purpose of God. So for God to get to Genesis 6 and say, man, I just... It's too bad I made man. The issue isn't God saying, man, it's too bad I made man.
The issue is, look at what's happened to man. Look at how bad man is. And look at God's holy revulsion against that sin. And then that backdrop then becomes the broader context for the sending of the son of his love to save us from our sin.
So who is God? What does the Bible say who is God? And it's from that vantage point that you interpret texts that then seem to suggest something contrary in terms of the who is God-ness of God. So it's always a question of strategy, methodology, or hermeneutic.
And I would suggest that the faulty hermeneutic is to, well, you know, it says he changed. It says his heart was broken. It says, you know, yeah, it does, but what does the analogy of scripture and the analogy of faith teach us? Are you content with, you know, a God who's really sorry that he made man?
That opens up a world of issues and challenges and problems in theology that none of us are capable of tackling, unless we end up in open theism. And oftentimes, that's where people go. Open theism is a great commentary on the negation or the neglect of divine impassibility, among other fundamental grammar truths of God. Well, you can't take us past nine.
I have an unwritten covenant with the brethren. We don't go past nine. Sleep is good. We're not angels.
Thank you. God speaks to us with human language and imagery. As Herman Boving states, Scripture does not contain a few scattered anthropomorphisms, but is anthropomorphic through and through. As infinite in existence and essence, God's perfection of meaning cannot be comprehended by us.
Finite minds cannot contain an idea of God adequate to his infinite perfection. Neither can human language univocally express the perfection of his pure actuality and fullness of being. Thus, in speaking to us of the Bible and in distributing the messages of his perfection throughout the natural world, God clothes himself in creaturely imagery and communicates the truth about his infinite and unchanging existence under the form of what is finite and changeable. Furthermore, he reveals himself to humans bit by bit in the changing dynamic of our temporal and finite lives.
He alters the revelation of himself in order to meaningfully interact with us in our historical pilgrimage and to lead us into an increasingly deeper knowledge of himself. This does not mean, though, that God's intrinsic manner of being univocally corresponds to the manner in which he discloses himself. Yeah, that's a tight, that book is great. I would say Dolezal's All That Is In God is really, really an excellent book.
But I'm saying the book by Gozal kind of summarizes and brings these things to bear. And one final thought, Jeff, just put the analogy, keep it in your head, between anthropopathism and anthropomorphism. You don't get to 2 Chronicles and see that God's eyes run to and fro through the earth and think there must be actual eyes. We need to think that way about change.
We need to think about the implication of God moving from one state to another. There are grave and significant challenges with that. So, you know, it's like Asaph starts his Asaphian Psalm 73, where he's gonna basically say, I had some problems with God. How does he start?
God is good to Israel. He starts with that axiomatic principle, and then he says, but as for me, my foot nearly slipped. I saw the righteous suffer. I saw the unrighteous prosper.
I was a mess until I went into the sanctuary. So I think axiomatically, foundationally, fundamentally, What the Bible says about who God is in terms of his perfections has to be the operating assumption. And so that when texts come that seem to challenge that, we need to understand them in light of who God is. Just like God is spirit, doesn't have a body like men, so whatever it means about his arm, whatever it means about his eyes, can't mean there's actual spatial, temporal eyes running to and fro throughout the earth.
I think it probably indicates his omissions. It indicates his presence. It indicates things. Again, it's an improper predication.
The eyes of the Lord are in every place. So what do we learn from that? It's an improper predication. God doesn't have actual eyes, but it teaches us truth about divine omissions.
Just like his wrath, his fury, his relenting shows us something of his righteousness and justice. So that's it. It's a great subject. Yeah, go ahead.
If anybody needs to leave, I don't want to violate your contract. All that is in God is $3 on Kindle. Oh yeah, it's $3 on Kindle. All that is in God.
It is a great book. I just listened to an 8-minute thing by R.C. Sproul before he died. Stephen Nichols was in his office, in his library, and saw this new book by James Golezal, All That Is in God.
And Sproul said, yep, I've read it twice. It's fantastic. It is absolutely fantastic. And he commended it wholeheartedly, gave a little background about open theism, and just the necessity for classical Christian theism.
He even says at one point, I sometimes get more out of reading Plato than I do modern theology. I told Wim, put that on Facebook and watch the crazies come out. We will definitely get hit. Yes?
I just had a comment about the man that was healed in that first aid. It's all these modern day miracle faith healers. They never seem to be successful with people like Wayne from birth. Yeah, oh yeah.
And the other thing is, it's always on stage. Remember with the hospitals, you might tell people they're... Yeah, just go to the ER. That'd be a good thing.
That's what I've always thought. Good observations. OK.