What do you think?
Rate this book
Overtures to Biblical Theology #14
The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective
In this comprehensive and thought-provoking study, Terence Fretheim focuses on the theme of divine suffering, an aspect of our understanding of God which both the church and scholarship have neglected. Maintaining that "metaphors matter," Fretheim carefully examines the ruling and anthropomorphic metaphors of the Old Testament and discusses them in the context of current biblical-theological scholarship. His aim is to broaden our understanding of the God of the Old Testament by showing that "suffering belongs to the person and purpose of God".
224 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1984
40 people are currently reading
247 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
September 6, 2022
I appreciate this book but disagree with it. First, I value Fretheim’s desire to read the text and read it well. He challenges a lot of Christian hand waving that can ignore nuances in the emotional descriptions and interactions between God and his people Israel. There is something to be said for all his categories.
At the same time, there is much to be desired. At a minute level, it seems Fretheim falls victim to the idea that because a verb is ascribed here it means the same over there. Thus, if a verb is used to describe Israel as sad and it used for God, then God is sad like Israel. But modern linguistics, following Saussure, Barr and others, rejects this type of one-to-one correspondence. Verbs mean different things for different people. If I’m sad and a dog is sad, that does not mean a dog is sad like I am. The same applies for an “equivalent person” (or greater) like my wife. On a more significant level, I think his attraction to theological pluralism is misled, mainly because he juxtaposes it against canonical readings. I find that his theological pluralistic readings are undistinguishable from a canonical reading. Theological Pluralism perhaps lets him delve deeper into certain issues of emotion apart from reading the text as a whole. But because he does not ever explain how theological pluralism leads to his understanding in breaking up the texts we are left to speculate.
Furthermore, just because God chooses to relate to the world and only this world(as far as has been revealed) does not mean that God chooses to be influenced by the world or that he is defined by it. This misunderstands the logic of relations in an Aristotelian sense. Just because I apprehended something by its relationship does not mean the relationship defines it. Perhaps, God chooses to relate and suffer with his people, but this does not mean we are influencing him. An example Fretheim gives is that God grieves because he gives a law knowing that people will disobey. He has put himself in a position to suffer with his creation. However, we can provide rules knowing they will be broken. God did this when he gave Israel a king. He knows it isn’t good and warns them, yet gives it anyway. That does not mean he is indebted to Israel. In the end, we should read the text deeply like Fretheim but do it in concert with the whole symphony.
89% Read deeply
At the same time, there is much to be desired. At a minute level, it seems Fretheim falls victim to the idea that because a verb is ascribed here it means the same over there. Thus, if a verb is used to describe Israel as sad and it used for God, then God is sad like Israel. But modern linguistics, following Saussure, Barr and others, rejects this type of one-to-one correspondence. Verbs mean different things for different people. If I’m sad and a dog is sad, that does not mean a dog is sad like I am. The same applies for an “equivalent person” (or greater) like my wife. On a more significant level, I think his attraction to theological pluralism is misled, mainly because he juxtaposes it against canonical readings. I find that his theological pluralistic readings are undistinguishable from a canonical reading. Theological Pluralism perhaps lets him delve deeper into certain issues of emotion apart from reading the text as a whole. But because he does not ever explain how theological pluralism leads to his understanding in breaking up the texts we are left to speculate.
Furthermore, just because God chooses to relate to the world and only this world(as far as has been revealed) does not mean that God chooses to be influenced by the world or that he is defined by it. This misunderstands the logic of relations in an Aristotelian sense. Just because I apprehended something by its relationship does not mean the relationship defines it. Perhaps, God chooses to relate and suffer with his people, but this does not mean we are influencing him. An example Fretheim gives is that God grieves because he gives a law knowing that people will disobey. He has put himself in a position to suffer with his creation. However, we can provide rules knowing they will be broken. God did this when he gave Israel a king. He knows it isn’t good and warns them, yet gives it anyway. That does not mean he is indebted to Israel. In the end, we should read the text deeply like Fretheim but do it in concert with the whole symphony.
89% Read deeply
February 16, 2017
I finally got around to reading this book as research for a sermon. It covers a perspective we ignore for most of our life. I guess parents are better able to relate to the parent-heart of God. I'm not at that stage yet but I think it's needed in the church to express the tender/passionate side of God which is separated from the humanistic anger/vindictive side we can wrongly attribute to God.
September 12, 2012
This book does a great job bringing to light texts/theological ideas from the Old Testament that are typically overlooked.
Fretheim deals with the ideas of a God in the midst of his creation, of opening himself up to his creation allowing himself to be hurt by that creation, and a God who empowers his creation and desires his creation to work alongside him.
These texts and themes are typically overlooked because of ignorance of the Old Testament, and the difficulty some people have with reading the prophets, where one finds a lot of scandalous ideas about God.
A great book for those familiar with these themes or are new to such ideas, and new to those ideas in the Old Testament.
Fretheim deals with the ideas of a God in the midst of his creation, of opening himself up to his creation allowing himself to be hurt by that creation, and a God who empowers his creation and desires his creation to work alongside him.
These texts and themes are typically overlooked because of ignorance of the Old Testament, and the difficulty some people have with reading the prophets, where one finds a lot of scandalous ideas about God.
A great book for those familiar with these themes or are new to such ideas, and new to those ideas in the Old Testament.
September 30, 2013
Despite my disagreement with Fretheim's open theist leanings, I thought this book was incredible - and one need not agree with his open theism to embrace his overall message. This is a much-needed topic that deserves more attention. There were a few slow points for me, but overall the book is compelling and incredibly insightful. A must-read!
July 3, 2021
I just finished "The Suffering of God," by Fretheim.
This was a wonderful book which, while being academic--I give it a 3 in difficulty--it was very readable. That is a strange combination. Everyone should read it if only for the chapter on the presence of God.
He begins well speaking of the tension many have between the picture of God in the Old testament and that which we see in Jesus. His tag line in this 1984 work is "metaphors matter." This is something I learned very well in "Theology in the Flesh," by John Sanders.
"An understanding of the atonement gets twisted so that Jesus is seen as the one who came to save us from God," (p.2).
Another good quote: "In short. It is not enough to say that God is the one who saves and blesses in these stories; what is crucial is the kind of God who is understood to be saving and blessing," (p.24).
"God knows all there is to know about the world, yet there is a future which does not yet exist to be known even by God. God is the Lord of time and history, yet God has chosen to be bound up in time and history of the world and to be limited thereby. God is unchangeable in respect to His love and and salvific will for all creatures, yet God does change in the light of what happens in the interaction between God and world," (p.35).
"Total control [sovereignty] of the other in a relationship is no relationship of integrity," (p.37).
Fretheim's coverage of God's relation to time is very good. I believe this is a critical concept that we have to have a better grasp on. To rightly see God "in time" is to truly see God as God with us, not as a wholly other, uber-transcendant deity who "views all of time as though watching a parade from a Church steeple." God "outside of time" has some real differences when thought out.
"God, too, moves into a future which is to some extent unknown," (p.49)
"When God makes a decision, God is open to changing it in light of the ongoing conversation with the leadership of the community of faith," (p.51).
"[M]etaphoric language [of God] must have some reasonable relationship to reality; such language says something about God just as much as words like 'constant' or 'wise' or 'decisive' do," (p.54).
"Most future-oriented prophetic texts are open-ended, dependent in some way on human response, and hence indeterminacy ate," (p.57).
"[W]hile God is always present, God's presence is significantly affected by human experience," (p.62).
"It is clear that human experience, especially human receptiveness or sin, can affect the I density of the divine presence," (p.65).
This chapter on divine presence was very good and may be interesting to many. I have always contemplated His presence in levels rather than an either/or. Fretheim's analysis using OT imagery is very applicable to this topic.
I found his chapter on theophanies very good. If the spoken word of God always worked then God would never appear otherwise. Sometimes Isreal needed an extra push. Then he compared this to todays argument about the sacraments: word and presence. I'll have to think more about this in light of the above Intensity of His Presence.
[Took break from writing]
"[F]or God to bear the sufferings of the people means that the people's suffering had a negative effect on God," (p.129).
"God is at work in death to bring life. And God works in the situation, not as someone who stands on the outside, working upon it externally like some welfare administrator signing vouchers for food stamps. God enters into the mournful situation, working for good from within," (pp.136-137).
"In the midst of judgement God works His salvific deed," (p.137).
This was a wonderful book which, while being academic--I give it a 3 in difficulty--it was very readable. That is a strange combination. Everyone should read it if only for the chapter on the presence of God.
He begins well speaking of the tension many have between the picture of God in the Old testament and that which we see in Jesus. His tag line in this 1984 work is "metaphors matter." This is something I learned very well in "Theology in the Flesh," by John Sanders.
"An understanding of the atonement gets twisted so that Jesus is seen as the one who came to save us from God," (p.2).
Another good quote: "In short. It is not enough to say that God is the one who saves and blesses in these stories; what is crucial is the kind of God who is understood to be saving and blessing," (p.24).
"God knows all there is to know about the world, yet there is a future which does not yet exist to be known even by God. God is the Lord of time and history, yet God has chosen to be bound up in time and history of the world and to be limited thereby. God is unchangeable in respect to His love and and salvific will for all creatures, yet God does change in the light of what happens in the interaction between God and world," (p.35).
"Total control [sovereignty] of the other in a relationship is no relationship of integrity," (p.37).
Fretheim's coverage of God's relation to time is very good. I believe this is a critical concept that we have to have a better grasp on. To rightly see God "in time" is to truly see God as God with us, not as a wholly other, uber-transcendant deity who "views all of time as though watching a parade from a Church steeple." God "outside of time" has some real differences when thought out.
"God, too, moves into a future which is to some extent unknown," (p.49)
"When God makes a decision, God is open to changing it in light of the ongoing conversation with the leadership of the community of faith," (p.51).
"[M]etaphoric language [of God] must have some reasonable relationship to reality; such language says something about God just as much as words like 'constant' or 'wise' or 'decisive' do," (p.54).
"Most future-oriented prophetic texts are open-ended, dependent in some way on human response, and hence indeterminacy ate," (p.57).
"[W]hile God is always present, God's presence is significantly affected by human experience," (p.62).
"It is clear that human experience, especially human receptiveness or sin, can affect the I density of the divine presence," (p.65).
This chapter on divine presence was very good and may be interesting to many. I have always contemplated His presence in levels rather than an either/or. Fretheim's analysis using OT imagery is very applicable to this topic.
I found his chapter on theophanies very good. If the spoken word of God always worked then God would never appear otherwise. Sometimes Isreal needed an extra push. Then he compared this to todays argument about the sacraments: word and presence. I'll have to think more about this in light of the above Intensity of His Presence.
[Took break from writing]
"[F]or God to bear the sufferings of the people means that the people's suffering had a negative effect on God," (p.129).
"God is at work in death to bring life. And God works in the situation, not as someone who stands on the outside, working upon it externally like some welfare administrator signing vouchers for food stamps. God enters into the mournful situation, working for good from within," (pp.136-137).
"In the midst of judgement God works His salvific deed," (p.137).
January 9, 2023
My last year at Emory University, I took a class with the late Professor Fretheim. I remember him, as many do, as one of the gentlest, kindest human beings I had ever encountered in my life. He was soft spoken, thoughtful, and was graced with the rare ability to listen to others. In private conversations, I found him to be a person who allowed others to say whatever they really thought or felt. There was an easy way about him. He was, as others put it, not only a gentleman but a gentle man.
In the class, much like in this book, we explored the idea of God suffering. And, furthermore, if God suffers then doesn't that make God mutable? I can't speak for Terry Fretheim, but what I can say is he certainly had a soft spot for open theism. And, as far as I can tell, this book is a step in that direction.
God suffers with us. God, according to the Old (and New) Testaments, participates in our suffering. Our suffering affects God; His/Her/Its suffering affects us. This is a two-way street. And, as Fretheim points out, "metaphors matter." If God is a hen concerned for Her chicks, then that metaphor matters, for example. Often, in OT and NT studies, we've been reading the Bible through lenses that have been dismissive of X metaphors while emphasizing Y metaphors (for example, placing an emphasis on God's masculinity). In addition, we've been reading into the biblical descriptors of God, sneaking Plotinus', Plato's (and other philosophers') ideologies into the biblical texts. Immutability is one such "philosophical idea."
"God doesn't change. At all," the ideologues say. "Even when the text states God 'repents' or 'changes' His mind, all of this is just, well, pure drivel. In fact, God doesn't even suffer."
If God's mutability is an illusion, it may be that God's suffering is an illusion as well (someone bring in the second-century Docetists!).
Of course, the above example is an extreme position, but you see the point. The biblical text doesn't really support an all-consuming immutability that "explains away" God's mutability, suffering, participation in humanity's suffering, et cetera. The immutability of God is something we are almost certainly imposing onto the biblical text. Metaphors matter. If it says God is suffering, maybe He is. And maybe, like human suffering, the suffering is, in fact, changing God.
In the class, much like in this book, we explored the idea of God suffering. And, furthermore, if God suffers then doesn't that make God mutable? I can't speak for Terry Fretheim, but what I can say is he certainly had a soft spot for open theism. And, as far as I can tell, this book is a step in that direction.
God suffers with us. God, according to the Old (and New) Testaments, participates in our suffering. Our suffering affects God; His/Her/Its suffering affects us. This is a two-way street. And, as Fretheim points out, "metaphors matter." If God is a hen concerned for Her chicks, then that metaphor matters, for example. Often, in OT and NT studies, we've been reading the Bible through lenses that have been dismissive of X metaphors while emphasizing Y metaphors (for example, placing an emphasis on God's masculinity). In addition, we've been reading into the biblical descriptors of God, sneaking Plotinus', Plato's (and other philosophers') ideologies into the biblical texts. Immutability is one such "philosophical idea."
"God doesn't change. At all," the ideologues say. "Even when the text states God 'repents' or 'changes' His mind, all of this is just, well, pure drivel. In fact, God doesn't even suffer."
If God's mutability is an illusion, it may be that God's suffering is an illusion as well (someone bring in the second-century Docetists!).
Of course, the above example is an extreme position, but you see the point. The biblical text doesn't really support an all-consuming immutability that "explains away" God's mutability, suffering, participation in humanity's suffering, et cetera. The immutability of God is something we are almost certainly imposing onto the biblical text. Metaphors matter. If it says God is suffering, maybe He is. And maybe, like human suffering, the suffering is, in fact, changing God.
July 7, 2023
My second time through this one, and I'm glad I came back to it. I think it's important and brilliant. Thank God we're not stuck with only the categories of Systematics any more. (Perhaps that was our theological "first half of life" - providing a container to be critiqued later (ala Rohr). This is an OT God who lives up to the name - a self-emptying redeemer, a lover who won't quit, a God who can be touched by our infirmities - and bears with us in our sins. I thought of N.T. Wright's approach to the gospels, and this fits with that. It's all one big story that makes real sense. We don't have to play Jesus off the OT God, and the NT story is not out of the blue. (Or not, as one writer has argued, really all about Jesus telling us how to be self-actualized.) The story of redemption is unified. The work of Jesus is anticipated. The kenotic, trinitarian God (who refused to be limited by ancient Greek philosophical categories, is described in all God's glory. (I guess you could say I liked the book.) I hope you'll give it a try.
August 28, 2018
I think in The Suffering God we see a good case study of what happens in a clash of truth claims. Many times, it seems to me that there is an element of truth in each side of an argument. Rarely is one position 100% wrong, and most thoughtful people seek to say something meaningful and true. In the debate over God's (im)passibility, both sides tend to react strongly against dangerous problems in the other. In comes Fretheim. I admire his concern that we take the whole counsel of Scripture seriously, and he challenged me greatly on a theological and pastoral level. In that way, his book is excellent. On the other hand, as I said, most reactionary literature can only display one side of the issue. So in the end, I think Fretheim's case is exaggerated, yes, but a useful part of the dialectic in this debate
April 8, 2025
There was not a whole lot that was new in this book. Reading the Bible cover to cover will reveal a God who suffers. His great power irrespective. Since to love deeply exposes to a great deal of suffering related to uncertainty, vulnerability etc. However, the book structure is illuminating, easy to follow and it is thrilling that he stuck to the OT where God has been traditionally seen as vengeful, wrathful ' as the one who is to blame for not doing anything about all the ills in the world'. He has language for concepts that are understood but hardly articulated. It's an insightful companion to scripture.
February 6, 2017
Talking about the suffering of God, especially from an Old Testament perspective, is much more common now than it was when this book was written in 1984. The book, while a little dry and written for a primarily academic audience, does make some excellent points about how the metaphors and narratives throughout the Old Testament actually portray God and how the philosophical lenses that most theology was done through at that point prevented interpreters from seeing God's suffering in those texts.
October 16, 2021
“… virtually all of the language used in the Bible to refer to God is metaphorical” (5). Fretheim examines the “reality depicting” aspects of those metaphors and their limits.
Fretheim’s careful exegesis of the Old Testament offers a view of God who is affected by humans (e.g., he is grieved by our sins), compassionate beyond belief, and has an “eagerness for intimacy” (118).
For me, this is another of those books to be “chewed and digested.”
Fretheim’s careful exegesis of the Old Testament offers a view of God who is affected by humans (e.g., he is grieved by our sins), compassionate beyond belief, and has an “eagerness for intimacy” (118).
For me, this is another of those books to be “chewed and digested.”
February 13, 2026
7/10.
Great look at the immanence and vulnerability of God in the Old Testament, with some truly remarkable insights into the divine messengers of the earlier biblical tradition and the prophets of the late.
This book convincingly establishes God as more immanent than transcendent, more immersed in the world than apart from it.
Great look at the immanence and vulnerability of God in the Old Testament, with some truly remarkable insights into the divine messengers of the earlier biblical tradition and the prophets of the late.
This book convincingly establishes God as more immanent than transcendent, more immersed in the world than apart from it.
December 13, 2024
PLEASE. This was so good!!!!!
September 2, 2020
This is a very moving theological vision of the character of God. Fretheim gives a picture of the God of the Old Testament that has a very dynamic relationship with His people. In this vision, God's people have something to give to the relationship. His people are not people to control, but to be in intimate relationship with. And in any intimate relationship there is a deep partnership. God listens to his people, he speaks with his people, God is changed by his people, his people are changed by God. In order to keep the integrity of this intimate relationship, God has put limits on his own power. He refuses to control. He can not always come in and just change everything. And he refuses to know the exact outcome of people's decisions. God does know all the possible decisions one could make and knows how to work for redemption in all cases, but God does not know exactly the paths that will be chosen. This is to give as much freedom to his people as he can to keep the integrity of the relationship. God has a deep desire to be present with her people. (Fretheim uses both male and female pronouns for God as he explores the father and mother roles of God.)
And because of the freedom that God gives her people, her great love for her people, and her desire to be with her people, God suffers. God suffers because of the people's rejection of him. God suffers with the people because of the oppression they sustain often because of their rejection of God. God suffers for his people in order to bring about their redemption.
This is a beautiful and challenging read.
And because of the freedom that God gives her people, her great love for her people, and her desire to be with her people, God suffers. God suffers because of the people's rejection of him. God suffers with the people because of the oppression they sustain often because of their rejection of God. God suffers for his people in order to bring about their redemption.
This is a beautiful and challenging read.
December 20, 2013
This book is poorly written. The author presents a theological view that he holds, but he could have and should have written it in a way that is more conducive to people actually understanding what he wrote. When a college professor (who holds a Ph.D.) admits that it took him reading each chapter through TWICE in order to understand the author, then it is obvious that the book was poorly written. If Terrence Fretheim is half as serious about helping others learn about his theological views, then he needs to rewrite this book in a way that is more conducive for better understanding and learning.
March 24, 2011
This book started out so well for me, but about halfway through became less engaging. What seemed fresh and intriguing at the beginning devolved into the same answers I've heard before. I liked the book overall and think it might warrant a second read - there is a lot to consider here - but I'm forced to remember that this book is part of what started the Open Theology discussion and is not the epitome of that discussion. Consequently, it is not surprising that the book looks a little new and a little old. It stands between something traditional and something less so.
August 15, 2014
Just re-read this book after Seminary in order to lead a women's retreat on the subject of "The Suffering of God." Again, I was reminded how helpful this book has been in my own faith but was also pleased to see how helpful and thought-provoking this subject matter was for the retreat attendees. Most had never thought of the possibility that God might suffer...because of the people, with the people and for the people. I love how this book helps paint a different picture of the God of the Old Testament than usually gets made in Christian circles.
May 13, 2013
No book has shaped my theology regarding God's relation to the world than this. I would recommend something lighter like Greg Boyd's "God of the Possible" for an introduction to open theology. As this will probably touch on some of the same points and take it further, to a nearly process theism sort of view.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews