Part V: Philosophical and Systematic Challenges

Chapter 27

The Trinity and Divine Emotion

Father, Son, and Spirit as Emotional Beings

Introduction: Why the Trinity Changes Everything

Up to this point in our study, we have explored the biblical evidence for God's emotional life, examined the philosophical challenges to impassibility, and wrestled with what the cross reveals about a God who suffers. But now we come to a question that ties everything together — and it may be the most important question in this entire book. What does the doctrine of the Trinity tell us about the emotional life of God?

This is not an afterthought. I believe the Trinity is actually the key that unlocks the whole debate about divine emotion. Here is why. God is not a solitary being — a single, isolated mind sitting alone in eternity. God is a Trinity. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons who have existed together in a fellowship of love from all eternity. And if that fellowship has always involved genuine emotional engagement — the Father loving the Son, the Son delighting in the Father, the Spirit proceeding as the bond of that mutual love — then emotion is not something foreign to God's nature. Emotion is not something God "picks up" only when He decides to create the world. It is intrinsic to who God is. It belongs to His very essence.

Think about what that means. If emotion is woven into the eternal inner life of the Trinity, then the impassibilist cannot simply dismiss God's biblical emotions as metaphors, accommodations, or mere descriptions of His actions toward creatures. God was emotional before there were any creatures. The Father loved the Son before the foundation of the world (John 17:24). The Son delighted in the Father from all eternity. The Spirit existed as the living bond of that love. There was joy, delight, and affection in the Godhead before a single atom of creation existed.

The thesis of this chapter is straightforward: a Trinitarian understanding of God's emotional life recognizes that the Father, Son, and Spirit each have genuine emotional engagement both within their eternal intra-Trinitarian relations and in their economic interactions with creation. I will argue that the inner life of the Trinity is a dynamic, living fellowship of love, joy, and delight — and that when God engages with creation, He freely opens Himself to being genuinely affected by His creatures. The Trinity does not undermine divine emotion. It grounds it.

We will proceed in several steps. First, I will explain the crucial distinction between the immanent Trinity (God as He is in Himself) and the economic Trinity (God as He relates to creation). Second, I will present J. D. Kim's important "dynamic reciprocity model," which sheds fresh light on how the three persons relate to each other emotionally within the immanent Trinity. Third, I will examine how each person of the Trinity — Father, Son, and Spirit — displays a genuine emotional life in Scripture. Fourth, I will address how the three persons relate emotionally to each other, especially at the cross. Fifth, I will respond to the objection that affirming distinct emotional responses for each person somehow compromises divine unity. And finally, I will draw conclusions for the passibility debate as a whole.

The Immanent Trinity and the Economic Trinity: A Crucial Distinction

Before we can explore the emotional life of the Trinity, we need to understand a distinction that theologians have used for centuries. It is the distinction between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. These terms might sound intimidating, but the idea behind them is actually quite simple.

The immanent Trinity refers to God as He is in Himself — apart from creation. This is the eternal, inner life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as they relate to each other. Before God created anything — before there was a universe, before there were angels, before there were human beings — God already existed as a fellowship of three persons. That inner fellowship is what theologians call the immanent Trinity.¹

The economic Trinity refers to God as He relates to creation — particularly in the work of salvation. The word "economic" here comes from the Greek word oikonomia (οἰκονομία), which means "household management" or "plan." The economic Trinity is about how Father, Son, and Spirit carry out God's plan in the world: the Father sends the Son, the Son becomes incarnate and dies for our sins, the Spirit applies salvation to believers.²

Why does this distinction matter for our discussion of divine emotion? Because it helps us ask two separate questions. First: does the inner, eternal life of the Trinity involve genuine emotional engagement? And second: does God's interaction with creation involve genuine emotional responsiveness? I believe the answer to both questions is yes — but the nature of that emotional engagement differs in important ways between the two contexts.

One important theological principle connects the two: what is often called "Rahner's Rule," named after the German Catholic theologian Karl Rahner. Rahner argued that "the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and vice versa."³ In other words, what God reveals of Himself in salvation history is a true reflection of who He is in Himself. The Father who sends the Son to die for sinners really is a Father who loves with self-giving love — not just in the economy of salvation, but in His eternal nature. The Son who weeps at Lazarus's tomb and agonizes in Gethsemane really does reveal the heart of the eternal Son. The Spirit who groans in intercession really is the Spirit who participates in the inner life of the Godhead as a person of genuine feeling.

Now, Rahner's Rule can be taken too far. Jürgen Moltmann, for instance, used it to collapse the immanent Trinity into the economic Trinity — essentially arguing that God's identity is constituted by what happens in salvation history, particularly the cross.⁴ As we discussed in Chapter 9, this goes too far because it makes God dependent on creation for His own identity. If God needs the cross to become who He is, then God needs the world — and that undermines divine freedom and aseity (God's self-existence).

But the basic insight of Rahner's Rule is sound: the God who reveals Himself in salvation history is the same God who exists from all eternity. If the economic Trinity displays genuine emotion, then the immanent Trinity must also be, in some sense, an emotional reality. And this is exactly what we find when we look at the biblical data carefully.

Kim's Dynamic Reciprocity Model: Emotion in the Eternal Trinity

One of the most creative and helpful recent contributions to this discussion comes from J. D. Kim's Constructing a Mediating Theology. Kim proposes a model he calls the "dynamic reciprocity model" to explain how the three persons of the Trinity relate to each other within the immanent Trinity — and how this inner life connects to God's engagement with creation.⁵

Kim's basic argument goes like this. Within the eternal life of God, the three divine persons both move and are moved by each other. The Father loves the Son. The Son loves the Father. The Spirit proceeds as the mutual love of Father and Son. This is not a static, frozen reality — like a painting of three persons standing motionless. It is a dynamic, living, relational exchange. Kim describes it as a reciprocity of active and passive movements: each person actively loves the others and is passively affected by the love of the others.⁶

Now, some readers might immediately ask: "Wait — if the persons of the Trinity are 'passively affected' by each other, doesn't that make God passible? And hasn't this book been arguing about whether passibility is a good thing?" Great question. Kim's answer is nuanced. He argues that the immanent Trinity is impassible in the specific sense that the inner life of God does not depend on creation. Nothing outside God causes or conditions the love between Father, Son, and Spirit. Their love is necessary, eternal, and self-sufficient. But — and this is the key insight — that inner life is still genuinely emotional. It involves real affection, real delight, real joy, and real relational engagement between persons.⁷

Let me unpack Kim's model a bit more, because I think it is genuinely illuminating.

The Self-Movement of the Triune God

Kim begins with the idea that God is self-moving. This is a classic theological concept: God is not set in motion by anything outside Himself. He is, to use Aristotle's famous phrase, the "unmoved mover." But Kim pushes this idea further. He argues that within the Trinity, the three persons move themselves and are moved by each other. The Father moves Himself to love the Son. The Son moves Himself to love the Father. And each person is genuinely affected — genuinely moved — by the love of the other persons.⁸

Kim explains that the personal movements within the eternal Trinity can be described in terms of active and passive dimensions. Each person is fully relational and interrelational with the other persons. The Father moves the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are moved by the Father, and in turn the Father is moved by the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son actively moves the Father and the Holy Spirit, who are moved by the Son, and the Son is passively moved by the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit moves the Father and the Son, who are moved by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is in turn moved by the Father and the Son.⁹

This sounds complicated, but the core idea is beautifully simple: the three divine persons are in an eternal dance of giving and receiving love. Each person is both Lover and Beloved. Each person actively gives love and passively receives love. There is a genuine reciprocity — a back-and-forth — within the very life of God.

The Innovative Insight: Passion Can Precede Action in Eternity

Here is where Kim's model gets really creative. In our human experience, action always comes before passion. Someone does something to us (the action), and then we respond (the passion). I say something kind to you, and then you feel grateful. The action causes the passion. But Kim argues that this temporal sequence does not apply to the eternal life of the Trinity. In eternity, there is no "before" and "after" in the way we experience time. The actions and passions of the divine persons are simultaneous and mutually conditioning.¹⁰

What does that mean practically? It means that within the Trinity, the Father's love for the Son is not "first" in time, with the Son's responsive love coming "second." Both are equally eternal, equally real, equally constitutive of who God is. The Father loves the Son, and the Son's being loved by the Father moves the Son to love the Father in return — but both of these are happening eternally, simultaneously, without one causing the other in a temporal sequence. Kim calls this the "dynamic reciprocity" of the divine persons — their actions and passions mutually condition each other in eternity.¹¹

Necessity and Freedom in the Immanent Trinity

Kim identifies two key characteristics of the inner-Trinitarian life: necessity and freedom. The love between Father, Son, and Spirit is necessary — it belongs to the very nature of God. God cannot not love within Himself. The Father cannot not love the Son; the Son cannot not love the Father; the Spirit cannot not participate in this mutual love. This reciprocity of love is intrinsic to the being of each divine person.¹²

But this love is also free. The divine persons are not prisoners of their own nature. They love each other freely, willingly, joyfully — not under compulsion. Kim uses the dynamic reciprocity model to explore this interplay: the active wills and passive wills of the three divine persons mutually condition one another dynamically, so that the giving and receiving of love is both necessary (it belongs to God's nature) and free (it is willingly embraced by each person).¹³

I find this deeply compelling. It means that the emotional life of the immanent Trinity — the joy, the delight, the love that the three persons share — is not accidental, not contingent, not something that might have been otherwise. It is essential to who God is. God is, in His very nature, an emotional being — a being of love, joy, and relational delight. And this is true apart from creation, before creation, and whether or not God ever creates anything at all.

The Impassible Blessedness of the Immanent Trinity

Kim is careful to note that the emotional life of the immanent Trinity is characterized by what he calls "impassible blessedness." Within the eternal fellowship, the three persons share their joy with each other. The Father shares His blessedness with the Son and Holy Spirit, and they are affected by the Father's blessedness. The Son shares His joy with the Father and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit actively shares His happiness with the Father and Son, and they are conditioned by the joy of the Spirit.¹⁴

As Kevin Vanhoozer describes it, the inner fellowship of Trinitarian love is "the eternal delight of the dialogical dance of call, response, acknowledgment, and affirmation."¹⁵ Leonardo Boff calls it "the ecstasy of love."¹⁶ Rob Lister describes the intra-Trinitarian life as a reality where there is "only the perfectly pitched ontology of love, glory, holiness, and intra-Trinitarian delight."¹⁷

This means that within the immanent Trinity, there is no grief, no anger, no suffering. The inner life of God is one of perfect, undisturbed, eternal joy. The three persons delight in each other with infinite satisfaction. There is no sin to provoke grief, no rebellion to provoke anger, no suffering to provoke compassion — because within the immanent Trinity, there is nothing but the perfection of the divine persons themselves. The inner Trinitarian life is, in Lister's terms, the eternally "impassible" ground from which all of God's subsequent emotional engagement with creation flows.¹⁸

But notice: this "impassibility" is not the cold, unfeeling, stone-like impassibility of strict classical theism. The immanent Trinity is not emotionless. It is supremely emotional — filled with joy, love, and delight. It is "impassible" only in the narrow sense that it is not affected by anything outside God. It does not suffer, because there is nothing to suffer about. It does not grieve, because there is nothing to grieve over. But it loves — oh, how it loves — with an intensity and a fullness that human language can barely begin to describe.

From Immanent to Economic: God Freely Opens Himself to Being Moved

Now we come to the most important move in Kim's argument — and, I believe, one of the most important moves in this entire book. How do we get from the impassible blessedness of the immanent Trinity to the passionate, emotionally engaged God we encounter in Scripture?

Kim's answer is both simple and profound: God freely chooses to be moved by the world.¹⁹

In the economy of salvation — God's engagement with creation — the three divine persons freely move themselves to move toward the world and to be moved by the world. They choose to enter into genuine, reciprocal relationships with created beings. And in doing so, they open themselves to being genuinely affected by what happens in creation. The Father genuinely grieves when His creatures rebel. The Son genuinely suffers at the cross. The Spirit genuinely groans in intercession. All of this is real — not metaphorical, not merely verbal, not an accommodation to human weakness. But it is also free. It is not imposed on God from outside. It flows from God's sovereign, loving decision to create a world and to enter into covenant relationship with the creatures He has made.²⁰

This distinction between essential impassibility and relational or economic passibility is, I believe, the key to the entire debate. Let me spell it out more clearly.

Essential impassibility means that the Trinity's inner life of love is not dependent on creation. God's essential nature — His holiness, love, power, wisdom — does not change based on what creatures do. The Father does not need creation to love the Son. The Son does not need creation to delight in the Father. God would be fully God, fully loving, fully joyful, fully complete if He had never created anything at all. The inner life of the Trinity is self-sufficient.

Relational or economic passibility means that when God creates and enters into covenant with creatures, He freely opens Himself to being affected by them. God's emotional responses to creation — His grief over sin, His anger at injustice, His joy over repentance, His compassion for the suffering — are real, genuine, and appropriate. They are not involuntary reactions imposed on God against His will. They are free, sovereign expressions of His love. The greatest possible love includes the willingness to be affected by the beloved. As we argued in Chapter 22, a love that cannot be affected by the beloved is not really love at all — it is indifference wearing a love costume.²¹

Kim puts it this way: the three divine persons of the economic Trinity freely move themselves both to move toward the world and to be moved by the world. They choose to suffer with human creatures as the expression of their love, as their response to human sin and suffering, and as the outcome of their decision to participate in real and actual reciprocal relationship with human creatures.²²

Notice how different this is from both strict impassibility and process theology. The strict impassibilist says God is never affected by the world in any way. The process theologian says God is necessarily affected by the world — He cannot help it, because God and the world are interdependent. Kim's mediating position says something much more biblical: God is freely affected by the world. He chooses to be moved. He is not passive or helpless in the face of creaturely action — He sovereignly decides to enter into the kind of relationship where genuine emotional responsiveness is possible. This preserves both divine sovereignty and genuine divine emotion.

The Characteristics of the Economic Trinity

Kim draws an important contrast between the characteristics of the immanent and economic Trinity. In the immanent Trinity, the movements of the divine persons are characterized by both necessity and freedom — the persons necessarily love each other (it belongs to their nature), and they do so freely (they are not prisoners of their nature). But in the economic Trinity, the dominant characteristic is freedom without necessity. Why? Because the world has never been a part of the reciprocity of love of the immanent Trinity. God did not have to create. He did not have to enter into relationship with creatures. His engagement with the world is entirely free, flowing from His gracious love rather than from any inner need.²³

John Frame captures this distinction helpfully: "There is a difference between what God is necessarily and what he freely chooses to do in his plan for creation."²⁴ Lister similarly observes that "though God's actions in the economy are all expressions and manifestations of his essential being and character, God's action in eternity is not identical in every respect to his action in the economy, because in eternity past, God was not engaged with a finite and fallen creation."²⁵

This means that God's emotional life in the economy — His grief, His anger, His compassion, His joy over repentance — is genuinely new. It is not something that existed within the immanent Trinity from all eternity. It arises from God's free decision to create, to love creatures, and to enter into their story. But it is not therefore less real. It is the expression, in a new key, of the same love that has always characterized the inner life of the Trinity.

Think of it this way. A couple who have loved each other deeply for fifty years experience a new kind of love when their first grandchild is born. That new love — the delight, the tenderness, the protectiveness they feel toward this tiny baby — is genuinely new. It did not exist before the grandchild existed. But it flows from the same deep well of love that has characterized their relationship for decades. It is a new expression of something that was always there. In a somewhat analogous way, God's emotional engagement with creation is a new expression of the love that has always characterized the inner life of the Trinity.

The Emotional Life of Each Trinitarian Person

With this theological framework in place, let us now briefly survey the emotional life of each person of the Trinity. I want to emphasize the word "briefly" here — we have already explored the emotions of Jesus in detail in Chapter 20, the emotional life of the Holy Spirit in Chapter 21, and the Father's emotions throughout the biblical chapters (Chapters 12–19). What I want to do here is not repeat those detailed discussions but rather pull together the threads and show how the emotional lives of the three persons relate to each other within a Trinitarian framework.

The Father's Emotions

Scripture presents the Father as a deeply emotional being. He loves with a passionate, pursuing, self-giving love (Deuteronomy 7:7–9, as we explored in Chapter 12). He grieves over sin with a grief so deep that it is described as pain in His heart (Genesis 6:6, as we explored in Chapter 15). He burns with righteous anger against injustice and rebellion (Exodus 32:10, as we explored in Chapter 16). He delights in His people with singing and rejoicing (Zephaniah 3:17, as we explored in Chapter 14). He is moved with compassion toward the suffering, with a tenderness compared to a mother's love (Isaiah 49:15, as we explored in Chapter 13).

But perhaps the most revealing glimpse into the Father's emotional life comes in two simple statements. The first is at Jesus's baptism:

"And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased'" (Matthew 3:17, ESV).

The Greek word for "well pleased" is eudokeō (εὐδοκέω), which means to take delight in, to be pleased with, to find satisfaction in. This is the Father expressing His emotional delight in the Son. He is not merely making a theological declaration — He is expressing affection. He is saying, in effect, "I love this person. He brings me joy. I am delighted in Him." And notice: this delight did not begin at Jesus's baptism. John 17:24 tells us that the Father loved the Son "before the foundation of the world." The Father's delight in the Son is an eternal reality — part of the immanent Trinity's inner life of love.²⁶

The second statement is in John 3:35: "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand." The verb here is agapaō (ἀγαπάω) — the distinctively Christian word for self-giving, covenantal love. But in John 5:20, a parallel statement uses the more emotionally warm verb phileō (φιλέω): "For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing." Phileō carries connotations of affection, fondness, and personal warmth. The Father does not merely have a "commitment" to the Son in some cold, contractual sense. He has genuine affection for the Son. He is fond of the Son. He delights in the Son.²⁷

I want to pause here and let the implications sink in. If the Father has genuine emotional delight in the Son from all eternity, then emotion is not something that was introduced into God's life when He created the world. Emotion did not originate in the economy. Emotion originates in the very nature of God — in the eternal relationship between Father and Son. The immanent Trinity is a community of love, delight, and joy. And this has staggering implications for the impassibility debate. If emotion is eternal — if it belongs to God's inner life before and apart from creation — then emotion is not a creaturely imperfection that God merely accommodates when He talks to us in human language. It is a divine perfection.

The Son's Emotions

We treated the emotions of Jesus in depth in Chapter 20, so I will only summarize here and add the Trinitarian dimension. Jesus displayed an extraordinarily rich emotional life during His earthly ministry: compassion for the crowds (Matthew 9:36), grief at Lazarus's tomb (John 11:33–35), anger at the hardness of heart He encountered (Mark 3:5), joy in the Holy Spirit (Luke 10:21), anguish in Gethsemane (Mark 14:33–34), and a love that persisted "to the end" (John 13:1).²⁸

The Trinitarian question is: whose emotions are these? On a Chalcedonian view of Christ — one that affirms two complete natures (divine and human) united in one person — the answer is that these are the emotions of the divine person of the Son, experienced through His human nature. It is the Son of God who weeps. It is the Son of God who is angry. It is the Son of God who is distressed. The human nature is the instrument through which the suffering is experienced, but the divine person is the subject who experiences it.²⁹

This means that the emotional life of Jesus is a window into the emotional life of the second person of the Trinity. When Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41–44), we are seeing the heart of God the Son — and through the Son, the heart of the Father, since "whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). When Jesus burns with anger at the money changers in the temple (John 2:13–17), we are seeing the holy zeal of God the Son. When Jesus agonizes in Gethsemane, we are seeing a divine person genuinely wrestling with the weight of what lies ahead.

The impassibilist wants to say that all of these emotions belong exclusively to Christ's human nature and tell us nothing about His divine nature. But as we argued in Chapter 26, this approach creates an unbearable tension. If the divine Son feels nothing — if He observes His own human nature's suffering with detached, undisturbed bliss — then the incarnation is not what Scripture presents it to be. The whole point of John 14:9 is that seeing Jesus is seeing the Father. The emotions of Jesus are supposed to reveal God to us, not hide Him behind a screen of impassibility.³⁰

The Spirit's Emotions

We treated the emotional life of the Holy Spirit in depth in Chapter 21, so again I will summarize briefly and add the Trinitarian dimension. The key texts are:

Ephesians 4:30: "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption" (ESV). The verb lypeō (λυπέω) means to cause pain, sorrow, or grief. Paul says that human sin causes genuine grief to a divine person — the Holy Spirit.³¹

Isaiah 63:10: "But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit" (ESV). The Hebrew word 'atsav (עצב) — the same word used in Genesis 6:6 for God's grief over human wickedness — is applied to the Spirit. The Old Testament already attributes grief to the Spirit.³²

Romans 8:26: "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words" (ESV). The word stenagmois (στεναγμοῖς) refers to deep, inarticulate expressions of pain or longing. The Spirit's intercessory work is not cool and detached. It involves something analogous to suffering — a deep empathetic engagement with human weakness and need.³³

Galatians 5:22–23 lists the fruit of the Spirit: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." These are emotional states and dispositions that the Spirit produces in believers. If the Spirit cultivates these qualities in us, it is reasonable to conclude that the Spirit Himself possesses them in a supreme and perfect degree. The Spirit is not merely a pipeline for emotions He does not share. He is the source of emotional life.³⁴

The Trinitarian point is significant: the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force or energy. He is a divine person — the third person of the Trinity — with a genuine emotional life. He can be grieved. He can groan. He produces in believers the very emotional qualities that characterize His own nature. If even one person of the Trinity is passible — genuinely affected by creaturely actions — then God is passible. And the Spirit's grief is perhaps the most direct biblical evidence for divine passibility in the entire New Testament.

How the Three Persons Relate Emotionally to Each Other

So far, we have surveyed the emotional life of each person individually. But the Trinity is not three isolated beings living parallel emotional lives. The Father, Son, and Spirit are one God — and their emotional lives are deeply interconnected. The theological term for this mutual indwelling and interpenetration of the three persons is perichoresis (περιχώρησις), which literally means "dancing around" or "making room for one another." It conveys the idea that the three persons are so intimately united that they share in each other's life while maintaining their personal distinctiveness.³⁵

What does perichoresis mean for the emotional life of the Trinity? I believe it means that the three persons share in each other's emotional experience. The Father does not merely observe the Son's suffering from a distance — He shares in it. The Spirit does not merely witness the Father's grief from the outside — He participates in it. Their emotional life is a communion — a shared experience of love, joy, grief, and delight that flows back and forth between them.

We see this most powerfully at the cross.

The Trinitarian Dimensions of the Cross

As we explored in Chapter 26, the cross is not merely something that happened to the human nature of Christ. It is an event within the Trinity. All three persons are involved, and all three persons experience genuine emotion — but each from a different relational perspective.

Moltmann captured this insight powerfully, even if he sometimes took it too far. He argued that at the cross, "the Son suffers dying, the Father suffers the death of the Son. The grief of the Father here is just as important as the death of the Son. The Fatherlessness of the Son is matched by the Sonlessness of the Father."³⁶ Moltmann was not a patripassianist — he was not saying the Father was crucified. He was saying that the Father suffered in His own way, distinct from the Son's suffering but equally real. The Son suffered the agony of crucifixion and the experience of divine abandonment. The Father suffered the anguish of watching His beloved Son die — the grief of a parent who loses a child.³⁷

Kim deepens this analysis by applying his dynamic reciprocity model to the cross. He argues that all three divine persons of the economic Trinity freely determine and accomplish their redemptive operations together. The salvation history that climaxes on the cross is not simply the individual activity of the Son but embraces the distinct and unified activities of all three divine persons. As Thomas Torrance explains: "The whole undivided Trinity is involved in our salvation, and thus in the central atoning passion of Christ, God the Father and God the Spirit, as well as God the Son, in their different but coordinated ways."³⁸

Kim further argues that the dynamic reciprocity model illuminates how each divine person's suffering is connected to the unique redemptive functions of the other divine persons on the cross. The Son's suffering is not an isolated event experienced by only one member of the Trinity while the others look on undisturbed. Because of the perichoretic union of the three persons, the Son's suffering reverberates through the entire Godhead. The Father feels the anguish of giving up His Son. The Spirit feels the weight of the broken relationship between Father and Son at that terrible moment when Jesus cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"³⁹

I find this deeply moving and theologically important. The cross is not just a transaction between the Son and the Father, with the Spirit standing by as an uninvolved bystander. It is a Trinitarian event — all three persons are actively engaged, and all three persons experience genuine suffering, each from a different perspective and in a different mode.

The Son suffers as the one who is crucified — who endures the physical agony, the shame, the weight of human sin, and the sense of abandonment by the Father.

The Father suffers as the parent who watches His beloved Son die — who delivers up the one He loves most for the sake of a rebellious world.

The Spirit suffers as the bond of love between Father and Son that is stretched to its limits — the one who sustains the Son through the cross (Hebrews 9:14 speaks of Christ offering Himself "through the eternal Spirit") while also groaning with the anguish of what is happening.

Against strict impassibilists, Kim argues that the traditional understanding — which does not allow the Son as divine to suffer on the cross, and does not allow the Father and Holy Spirit to be moved by the plight of Jesus — is biblically inadequate. Kim's position is closer to the passibilists and to Clark Pinnock, who affirms the suffering of all three divine persons in the event of the cross.⁴⁰

Now, I want to be careful here. I am not saying that the Father was crucified. That would be the ancient heresy of patripassianism. The Father was not on the cross. But I am saying — and I believe Scripture teaches — that the Father experienced genuine anguish at the cross. Every parent who has lost a child knows this kind of grief. Can we really imagine that the eternal Father, who declared at Jesus's baptism, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," watched the crucifixion with undisturbed bliss? I cannot believe that. I do not think Scripture allows it. The God who grieved over human wickedness in Genesis 6:6, who anguished over Israel's rebellion in Hosea 11:8, who wept through the prophet Jeremiah over the destruction of His people — this God did not watch the death of His own Son without feeling.

Emotional Communion in Other Contexts

The cross is the supreme example, but the emotional interconnection of the three persons extends beyond it. We can trace this perichoretic emotional communion throughout the biblical narrative.

When the Father delights in His people (Zephaniah 3:17), the Son also delights in them — for the Father and the Son are one in their love for creation. When the Spirit is grieved by human sin (Ephesians 4:30), the Father and the Son share that grief — for they are all equally holy and equally concerned with human rebellion. When the Son rejoices in the Holy Spirit (Luke 10:21), the Father shares that joy — for the Father's purposes are being accomplished through the Son by the Spirit.

The emotional life of the Trinity is not three separate, isolated emotional lives running in parallel. It is a unified, perichoretic emotional communion — a single emotional reality experienced from three distinct personal perspectives. The three persons always love the same things, grieve the same things, and rejoice in the same things. But they experience these emotions from different relational angles.

Think of a family gathered around a dinner table, celebrating a child's birthday. The mother, the father, and the grandparent all share the same emotion — joy and delight in this child. But they experience it from different perspectives. The mother's joy has the character of tender, nurturing love. The father's joy has the character of proud, protective affection. The grandparent's joy has the character of wonder and gratitude. Same emotion, different relational angles — unified in purpose and character, distinct in perspective.

In an analogous way (and all analogies for the Trinity are imperfect), the three persons of the Trinity share the same emotional responses to creation but experience them from different relational perspectives. The Father grieves as a parent. The Son grieves as one who has entered into human suffering from the inside. The Spirit grieves as the one who is personally present within believers and is directly resisted by their sin. Same grief, different relational angles — unified in character, distinct in perspective.

Augustine and the Spirit as the Bond of Love

One of the most influential Trinitarian models in Christian history comes from Augustine of Hippo, who described the Holy Spirit as the vinculum amoris — the "bond of love" between Father and Son.⁴¹ For Augustine, the Father is the Lover, the Son is the Beloved, and the Spirit is the Love that flows between them. This model has been enormously influential in Western theology, and it has important implications for our discussion of divine emotion.

If the Spirit is the love that binds Father and Son together, then the Spirit is, by nature, an emotional reality. Love is not a mere concept or a disembodied force — love is an emotional engagement, a commitment of the heart, a giving of oneself to another. And if the Spirit is this love — if the Spirit proceeds as the mutual love of Father and Son — then the Spirit's very existence is emotional. The Spirit does not merely have love; the Spirit, in some profound sense, is love made personal.⁴²

Now, I do not want to press Augustine's model too far. It has been criticized for potentially reducing the Spirit to a mere relation between Father and Son rather than a full, distinct person. And I agree that the Spirit is much more than the "bond" between the other two persons — He is a full divine person in His own right, with His own personal agency, His own will, and His own emotional life. But Augustine's insight captures something important: the Spirit is the one who makes the love of God real, personal, and present. When we experience God's love, it is through the Spirit that we experience it (Romans 5:5: "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us"). The Spirit is the one who takes the love that exists eternally between Father and Son and extends it outward to embrace creation.

And if the Spirit's very existence is bound up with love, then the Spirit's grief over sin (Ephesians 4:30) makes perfect sense. Sin grieves the Spirit because sin is the violation of love — and love is what the Spirit is all about. When human beings sin, they resist the very thing that the Spirit exists to embody and communicate. No wonder He is grieved.

Does Affirming Distinct Emotional Responses Compromise Divine Unity?

At this point, a careful reader might raise an important objection. "If you are saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit each have their own distinct emotional responses — the Father grieves as a parent, the Son grieves as one who enters into suffering, the Spirit grieves as the one who is resisted — aren't you describing three separate emotional lives? Doesn't that compromise divine unity? Doesn't that lead to a problematic 'social Trinitarianism' that treats the three persons as three separate gods?"

This is a fair question, and it deserves a careful answer.

My answer is no — affirming distinct emotional responses for each person does not compromise divine unity. Here is why.

First, the persons' emotional responses are always harmonious. The Father, Son, and Spirit always love the same things, grieve the same things, and rejoice in the same things. There is never a situation where the Father is pleased with something that the Son hates, or where the Spirit rejoices over something that grieves the Father. Their emotional responses are perfectly unified in content, even when they differ in relational perspective. The Father's grief over sin and the Spirit's grief over sin and the Son's grief over sin are all directed at the same reality — they differ only in the angle from which each person experiences that grief.⁴³

Second, the distinction between the persons' emotional responses reflects the distinction between the persons themselves — which is a core affirmation of orthodox Trinitarian theology, not a departure from it. The Nicene Creed affirms that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct persons who share one divine nature. The persons are not identical to each other — they are distinguished by their relations of origin (the Father begets the Son; the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son). If the persons are genuinely distinct, then we should expect their emotional responses to reflect that distinctness — not in what they feel (which is always the same), but in how they feel it (from which relational perspective).⁴⁴

Third, the perichoretic union of the three persons ensures that their distinct emotional experiences are not isolated from each other. Because the persons mutually indwell each other, each person participates in the emotional experience of the others. The Father's grief is not hidden from the Son and Spirit — they share in it. The Son's joy is not isolated from the Father and Spirit — they participate in it. The unity of the divine emotional life is preserved not by flattening out the distinctions between the persons but by affirming the perichoretic communion in which each person's experience is shared by the others.⁴⁵

Kim's work is helpful here as well. He notes that the social Trinity model — which emphasizes the distinct personhood of Father, Son, and Spirit — does not have to mean tritheism (three separate gods). A. H. Strong, whom Kim draws on, defines a divine person as one who "has its own individual subsistence, yet which is inseparable from the rest."⁴⁶ The key is the word "inseparable." The three persons are distinct but never separated. They are always together, always united, always sharing in each other's life and experience. Their emotional distinctness is held within their ontological unity — three perspectives on one emotional reality, not three separate emotional realities.

The Impassibilist Objection: Only the Human Nature Feels

At this point, the strict impassibilist will raise a familiar objection. "All of the emotions you have described for the Son belong to His human nature, not His divine nature. And the emotions attributed to the Father and Spirit in Scripture are anthropopathisms — figurative language that describes God in human terms without implying that God actually experiences emotions. The divine nature is impassible. Only the human nature of Christ feels."

We have addressed this objection in detail in earlier chapters, particularly Chapter 6 (the anthropomorphism objection) and Chapter 26 (the cross and the incarnation). But let me briefly restate why I find this objection unconvincing in a Trinitarian context.

First, regarding the Son's emotions: as we argued in Chapter 26, persons are the subjects of experience, not natures. When Jesus weeps at Lazarus's tomb, it is the person of the Son of God who weeps — not merely His human nature operating in isolation. The Chalcedonian definition affirms that Christ is one person with two natures. If the human nature experiences grief but the divine person does not, then who exactly is grieving? We end up with a strange picture: a divine person who is present in human suffering but not affected by it — who watches His own human nature weep without being moved. This is not Chalcedonian orthodoxy; it is a form of emotional Nestorianism — effectively splitting the person of Christ into two separate experiential subjects.⁴⁷

Second, regarding the Father's emotions: the anthropopathism objection faces a devastating problem when applied to the Father's love. If the Father's love for the Son is an anthropopathism — if the Father does not genuinely love the Son but is merely described as loving Him for our benefit — then the entire Trinitarian life collapses. The Father's love for the Son is the foundation of the Trinity. If it is not real, nothing is real. And if the Father's love for the Son is real — if it is a genuine emotional reality within the immanent Trinity — then we have already conceded that at least one emotion belongs to God's eternal nature. And if love is genuinely emotional in God, then we have no principled reason to deny that other emotions (grief, anger, delight, compassion) are also genuinely real in God.⁴⁸

Third, regarding the Spirit's emotions: the case of the Spirit is particularly challenging for the impassibilist because the Spirit does not have a human nature. Unlike the Son, the Spirit has never become incarnate. So the impassibilist cannot appeal to a human nature to explain the Spirit's grief (Ephesians 4:30) or groaning (Romans 8:26). If the Spirit can be genuinely grieved — and Paul certainly seems to say He can — then a divine person, without a human nature, experiences genuine emotion. This is a direct refutation of the claim that only human natures can feel.⁴⁹

Lister's "Impassible and Impassioned" Framework

Before we draw our conclusions, I want to engage with one more important Trinitarian perspective — Rob Lister's framework of "impassible and impassioned." Lister's approach is close to the position I am advocating, and his treatment of intra-Trinitarian love is particularly illuminating.

Lister argues that God's economic passion — His emotional engagement with creation — is grounded on His eternal impassibility. This sounds counterintuitive at first. How can passion be grounded on impassibility? Lister's answer is that the intra-Trinitarian love of God is the stable, eternal foundation from which all of God's emotional engagement with creation flows. God does not need creation to be loving, joyful, or emotionally full. He already is all of these things within the Trinity. And it is precisely because He is already complete in Himself that His engagement with creation is free, gracious, and genuinely loving — rather than needy or dependent.⁵⁰

Lister's treatment of John 17:20–24 is especially helpful here. In this passage, Jesus prays that His followers may experience the same love that the Father has for the Son. He says: "Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24, ESV). Lister observes that all of God's relational displays of love toward creation are grounded on, and not opposed to, the eternal intra-Trinitarian love of God. The love that God shows to human beings is an extension — a gracious overflow — of the love that has always existed between Father and Son.⁵¹

I appreciate Lister's framework, though I would push further in a passibilist direction than he does. Lister wants to preserve the language of "impassibility" to describe God's invulnerability to external manipulation or coercion. I agree with that concern — God is certainly not a victim of creaturely actions, not subject to mood swings, not emotionally unstable. But I think the word "impassibility" carries too much baggage from the strict classical tradition, where it meant that God has no emotions at all. I prefer to speak of God's "emotional sovereignty" — God is genuinely passible (genuinely affected by His creatures) but sovereignly so (He is never overwhelmed, never manipulated, never destabilized by what He experiences). His emotional life is real, but it is always under His own wise, loving, sovereign control.⁵²

The Trinitarian Ground of Divine Emotion: Pulling the Threads Together

Let me now pull all of these threads together and state as clearly as I can what I believe the Trinity teaches us about the emotional life of God.

First, emotion is eternal in God. The love between Father, Son, and Spirit did not begin at creation. It is not a response to creatures. It is an eternal reality within the immanent Trinity. The Father has always loved the Son. The Son has always delighted in the Father. The Spirit has always existed as the bond of their mutual love. This means emotion is not a creaturely imperfection that God condescends to use in speaking to us. It is a divine perfection — something that belongs to God's very nature.⁵³

Second, the immanent Trinity is characterized by impassible blessedness — eternal joy undisturbed by sin, suffering, or evil. Within the inner life of God, there is no grief, no anger, no sorrow — because there is nothing to grieve over. The three persons delight in each other with perfect, infinite satisfaction. This is the stable, eternal ground from which all of God's subsequent emotional engagement with creation flows.⁵⁴

Third, when God creates and enters into covenant with creatures, He freely opens Himself to being affected by them. The economic Trinity is genuinely passible — genuinely responsive to what happens in creation. The Father genuinely grieves over sin. The Son genuinely suffers at the cross. The Spirit genuinely groans in intercession. This passibility is not imposed on God from outside; it is a free, sovereign, loving choice flowing from the same love that characterizes the immanent Trinity.⁵⁵

Fourth, the three persons of the Trinity share a unified emotional life, experienced from three distinct relational perspectives. They always love the same things, grieve the same things, and rejoice in the same things. But they experience these emotions from different angles — the Father as the source and sender, the Son as the one who enters creation and suffers from within, the Spirit as the one who is present with and in creatures. This diversity within unity reflects the perichoretic nature of the Trinity itself.

Fifth, the cross is the supreme revelation of the Trinitarian emotional life in the economy. At Calvary, all three persons suffer — the Son in the agony of crucifixion and abandonment, the Father in the grief of watching His beloved Son die, the Spirit in sustaining the Son through suffering while groaning with the weight of it. The cross reveals what was always true about God's character: He is the kind of God who will go to any length to be with His creatures in their suffering and to rescue them from it.

Responding to Remaining Objections

Let me briefly address several remaining objections that might arise from this Trinitarian account of divine emotion.

Objection 1: Does This Make God Dependent on Creation?

No. The distinction between essential impassibility and economic passibility is precisely designed to prevent this conclusion. God's essential nature — His love, joy, holiness, and perfection — does not depend on creation in any way. God would be fully God, fully complete, fully joyful even if He had never created anything. His engagement with creation is entirely free and gracious, not necessary or dependent. This distinguishes my position sharply from process theology, which holds that God and the world are mutually dependent. I affirm creation ex nihilo — God created the world out of nothing, by a free act of His sovereign will, not out of any internal need.⁵⁶

Objection 2: Does This Compromise Divine Simplicity?

This depends on what one means by divine simplicity. If "simplicity" means that God has no distinguishable attributes — that His love is identical to His wrath, His mercy identical to His justice, His knowledge identical to His power — then yes, my position is incompatible with strict simplicity. But as I have argued throughout this book, strict simplicity is both philosophically problematic and biblically untenable (see Chapter 3). I affirm a modified simplicity: God's attributes are all rooted in His single, unified nature, but they are genuinely distinct from each other. God's love is not the same thing as His wrath. His joy is not the same thing as His grief. And the emotional diversity we see in the three persons of the Trinity is a beautiful expression of this rich, differentiated inner life.⁵⁷

Objection 3: Is This Approach Coherent?

I believe it is more coherent than the alternatives. Strict impassibility cannot account for the Father's love of the Son within the immanent Trinity (a love that is clearly emotional, involving delight, pleasure, and affection — as evidenced by Matthew 3:17 and John 17:24) without admitting that at least some emotions belong to God's eternal nature. And once we admit that love-as-emotion is eternal in God, we have already conceded the fundamental passibilist point: emotion is not a creaturely imperfection but a divine reality. The impassibilist who affirms that the Father eternally loves the Son with genuine delight has already stepped outside the strict impassibilist framework. The question is simply whether they will be consistent and admit that other emotional responses — grief, anger, compassion, joy — are equally real in God.⁵⁸

Objection 4: Does Moltmann's Approach Go Too Far?

Yes — and I want to be clear about where I diverge from Moltmann. Moltmann made a powerful and important contribution by insisting that the cross must be understood as a Trinitarian event. He was right that the Father suffers the death of the Son, that the Son suffers abandonment by the Father, and that the Spirit proceeds from this suffering love to bring reconciliation. But Moltmann went too far in several ways.⁵⁹

First, Moltmann tends to make suffering constitutive of God's eternal nature — as if God needs suffering to be who He is. I reject this entirely. God was fully God, fully loving, fully complete before creation and before the cross. Suffering is something God freely enters into, not something He requires for His identity.

Second, Moltmann sometimes collapses the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinity, arguing that God's identity is formed through His involvement in history. As I have argued, this makes God dependent on the world, which contradicts the biblical affirmation of divine aseity and freedom.

Third, Moltmann's Trinitarian theology sometimes blurs the distinction between the Father's suffering and the Son's suffering in ways that approach patripassianism — the heresy that the Father was crucified. I want to maintain a clear distinction: the Son was crucified; the Father was not. But the Father genuinely grieved — as a parent grieves for a dying child.⁶⁰

Despite these excesses, Moltmann's core insight stands: the cross reveals a God who is not a detached observer of human suffering but one who enters into it with all the passionate engagement of love. And this insight is deeply Trinitarian — it requires all three persons to be genuinely involved, genuinely affected, and genuinely emotional.

Implications for the Passibility Debate

What does all of this mean for the broader question of whether God is passible or impassible? I believe the Trinitarian evidence points overwhelmingly toward passibility — understood rightly. Let me summarize the key implications.

First, if emotion is eternal within the immanent Trinity, then emotion belongs to God's very nature. It is not a creaturely imperfection that God accommodates in His speech. It is a divine perfection. The strict impassibilist position — which holds that God has no emotions whatsoever — is incompatible with the Trinitarian doctrine of the eternal love between Father and Son.

Second, if the economic Trinity involves genuine emotional responsiveness to creation — and I have argued that it does — then God is passible in His engagement with the world. He genuinely grieves, genuinely rejoices, genuinely loves, and genuinely suffers. This passibility is not a weakness or imperfection. It is the highest expression of God's love — a love that freely chooses to be affected by the beloved.

Third, the distinction between essential impassibility and economic passibility provides a way to affirm both truths: God's emotional life does not depend on creation (essential impassibility), and God's emotional life is genuinely responsive to creation (economic passibility). This is the mediating position I have been arguing for throughout this book — and the Trinity provides the theological ground for it.

Fourth, the diversity of emotional perspectives within the Trinity — the Father grieving as a parent, the Son grieving as one who enters suffering, the Spirit grieving as the one who is resisted — reveals that God's emotional life is far richer and more complex than either strict impassibility (which denies all emotion) or a naive passibilism (which might reduce God's emotions to mere reactions) would suggest.

Fifth, the cross demonstrates that the Trinitarian emotional life has a cost. God's love is not a comfortable, risk-free affair. When God opens Himself to being affected by His creatures, He opens Himself to suffering. The cross is the price tag of divine love — the cost of a God who refuses to remain safely impassible when His creatures are perishing. As Sirvent argues in Embracing Vulnerability, emotional vulnerability is not a defect in love — it is constitutive of love. A love that cannot be hurt is not really love. And the Trinity shows us that even within God's own eternal life, love involves mutual giving, mutual receiving, and mutual vulnerability (in the qualified sense of being genuinely affected by the other).⁶¹

Conclusion: The God Whose Love Is Three-Personed

We began this chapter by asking what the Trinity teaches us about the emotional life of God. I believe the answer is both simple and profound: the Trinity teaches us that emotion is at the very heart of who God is.

God is not a solitary monad — a single, isolated intellect contemplating Himself in perfect, undisturbed abstraction. God is a fellowship. He is a community. He is a family. From all eternity, the Father has loved the Son with infinite delight, and the Son has loved the Father with perfect joy, and the Spirit has existed as the living, personal bond of that mutual love. There has never been a moment when God was without emotion — because there has never been a moment when God was without love, and love is inherently emotional.

When God creates the world, He does not leave behind His emotional life and put on a mask of impassibility. He extends His love outward — the same love that has always burned within the Trinity — and freely chooses to let that love make Him vulnerable to the creatures He has made. He opens Himself to being grieved by their sin, angered by their injustice, moved with compassion by their suffering, and delighted by their faithfulness. His emotional engagement with creation is not a departure from His eternal nature — it is the natural extension of it, into a new context.

And at the cross, we see the ultimate expression of this Trinitarian love. The Son dies. The Father grieves. The Spirit groans. All three persons are involved, all three are affected, and all three are united in the single, overwhelming purpose of redeeming a fallen world. The cross is not the moment when God's impassibility was temporarily suspended. It is the moment when God's eternal, passionate, three-personed love was most fully revealed.

The implications for our own lives are extraordinary. When we pray, we are not speaking to an unfeeling deity who registers our words without being moved. We are speaking to a Father who genuinely cares, a Son who genuinely understands (because He has entered our suffering from the inside), and a Spirit who genuinely intercedes — with groanings too deep for words — on our behalf. When we suffer, we are not alone. The God who is a Trinity of love is with us — not merely observing our pain from a position of undisturbed bliss, but sharing it, bearing it, and working through it to bring about redemption.

As we will explore further in the chapters to come, this Trinitarian understanding of divine emotion has profound implications for how we approach the problem of evil (Chapters 28–30), for how we live our daily lives in imitation of God (Chapter 31), and for how we worship, pray, and preach (Chapter 33). But for now, let us simply rest in the truth that has emerged from this chapter: the God we worship is not cold, not distant, not unfeeling. He is a Trinity of persons whose eternal life is a dance of love, delight, and joy — and who have opened their hearts to include us in that dance, at infinite cost to themselves.

That is the God of the Bible. That is the God of the gospel. And that is the God whose heart beats for you.

Bibliography

Augustine. De Trinitate. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Ayres, Lewis. Augustine and the Trinity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Boff, Leonardo. Trinity and Society. Translated by Paul Burns. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Crisp, Oliver. Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Emery, Gilles. The Trinitarian Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Translated by Francesca Aran Murphy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Frame, John. The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020.

Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Kim, J. D. Constructing a Mediating Theology: Affirming the Impassibility and the Passibility of the Triune God. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2022.

Lamb, David T. The Emotions of God: Making Sense of a God Who Hates, Weeps, and Loves. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2022.

Lister, Rob. God Is Impassible and Impassioned: Toward a Theology of Divine Emotion. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God. Translated by R. A. Wilson and John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

———. The Trinity and the Kingdom. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. 2nd ed. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Rev. ed. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Mullins, R. T. God and Emotion. Elements in the Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. Translated by Joseph Donceel. New York: Crossroad, 1997.

Sanders, Fred. The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything. 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017.

Sirvent, Roberto. Embracing Vulnerability: Human and Divine. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014.

Strong, Augustus H. Systematic Theology. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907.

Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.