Divine Jealousy as Covenant Concern: Vanhoozer’s Theodramatic Impassibility, Actus Purus, and The Middle East Conflict

Editor’s Note: This article is part of our Biblical Covenants and the Conflict in the Middle East series, in which we bring together scholars with differing views on the relationship between the Biblical covenants and examine how their views affect the current conflict in the Middle East. Be sure to check out the book reviews we will post that align with each view represented.

Introduction

This article will evaluate Kevin Vanhoozer’s claim that “the way forward is to see God’s jealousy as a concern–imbued cognition of something with theodramatic import: specifically, divine jealousy is God’s concern that Israel not turn the drama of redemption into a tragedy by attaching herself to an unworthy rival.” A critique of Vanhoozer’s divine emotion proposal takes issue with his statement that “God feels the force of the human suffering without himself suffering change in his being, will or knowledge,” or without being “overcome or overwhelmed by passion.” The question is asked how God can “feel” the impact of human suffering without himself being moved by an outside force? This line of questioning provides the opportunity to analyze divine emotion in the theological program of Kevin Vanhoozer in comparison to the concept of actus purus in Thomas Aquinas to decide the validity of the complaint and to understand divine impassibility in a deeper and perhaps more meaningful way. Upon analysis of these concepts this article will proceed to outline their means of supporting Covenant Theology and the way connections to the current conflict in the middle east can be drawn.

The attempt to assign emotion to the Godhead is regularly a point of contention in the debate between impassibility and passibility. Often the attempt to assert that the God of the Bible has an emotional life requires the modification or elimination of any meaningful affirmation of divine impassibility. While contemporary theology broadly accepts that God cares about and interacts with his creation, what is at stake in the impassibility discussion is determining if divine emotion constitutes a change that is inflicted upon God that causes damage to him or to have his goodness changed. The position of this article affirms divine impassibility protects the divine essence from harm or change due to pressure or activity from an outside force (creation), and as an apophatic qualifier, impassibility supports the understanding of God’s ability to invoke change and sanctify creation while at the same time remaining himself in all his fullness—without removal or damage to his goodness—God is the same yesterday, today and forever. The following will compare actus purus in the theology of Thomas Aquinas to Kevin Vanhoozer’s appropriation of divine emotion as concern–based construal in his theological program of Communicative Theism. From a position committed to the accuracy of affirming God as impassible and completely actualized, this paper will explore whether Kevin Vanhoozer’s affirmation of “concern-based construal” will successfully allow him to affirm—as he maintains—the impassibility of God and whether a recent critique of his project is legitimate and final.¹

Divine Emotion: Passion and Affection in Patristic and Medieval Theology and Remythologizing Theology

Emotion in Classic Orthodox Theology

The Greek term πάθος with the Latin translation passio, affectio, or affectus is broadly used in patristic and medieval theology to refer to a “movement” or a “motion of the soul.” John Damascene characterizes the conceptual use of the πάθος as “the actualization of potential, or the attainment of the proper end of potential.” Often this term is used in reference to the movement in a corporeal thing that has been acted upon for a transition from potential to actuality or activity—an example of this instance is the application of heat that moves (motion) an object from cold to warm or the activation of a desire. Generally, passio, or a passion, is taken in a negative sense and can be understood overall as the removal of something that is good and its replacement by something that is bad—for example a calm demeanor of a Dad can be replaced with one of distress after being informed of his son’s automobile accident. Augustine used the term passio to describe “a movement of the mind contrary to reason” which is a characteristic that would stand in contrast to the omniscient divine nature, and he described God’s emotional life as in balance and in harmony with his blessedness—passio or passions are characteristics to which the divine nature is not susceptible. Later Thomas Aquinas would develop or refute passio as part of God’s life by way of his immutability and lack of potency (potential).²

Emotion in Remythologizing Theology

Vanhoozer attributes his presentation of divine affection to the thinking of Lactantius and Tertullian. Each of these classic theologians summarize divine anger as a state that is “after his (God’s) own divine fashion”—agreeable with his (God’s) goodness and blessedness—and an element he (God) is “in control of.” Vanhoozer further develops this theme in Remythologizing Theology by way of his interpretation of Augustine and Aquinas who stipulate “affection” in contrast with “passion.” A passion is passive and involuntary—an affection is active and voluntary. While an affection is an inclination traditionally understood in relation to good things, it is still an inclination, or a desire with the character of a movement due to (internal) unfulfilled potential.³ Kevin Vanhoozer carefully stipulates and defines the character of emotions in a way that allows him to affirm that God is impassible, is fully actualized and yet also can entertain emotions without being subject to them.

Impassibility, Actus Purus in Aquinas, and Emotions in Medieval Theology

Actus Purus

The doctrine of actus purus is connected to Thomas Aquinas by way of his Quinque Viae (Latin “Five Ways”)—located in the Summa Theologica in question two, part one of one. Actus purus, the Latin term translated as “pure actuality,” is compiled by the contrast between a being that is in actus, perfect and complete in action or operation, and a being that is in potentia, or incomplete and imperfect. The Scholastics differentiate the two by way of what is real and perfect to what is possible. Thomas’ five ways of proving the existence of God are meant to demonstrate the existence of God as the primary source of life by way of the relationship between the being with potential (creation) and the being that is actualized (God). In order for an existent being with passive potential to have that potential activated, there must be a relationship of influence (motion) between the two entities where the actualized moves the being in potential to a more actualized state—actuality must precede potentiality. Perfection, or the concept of perfect motion, is the essential character of each proof in the Quinque Viae and the property that motivates creaturely and material movement is a series of perfecting actions that move a being in potential to one of greater actualization. Actus purus qualifies the essence of God as a pure substance, there is no ad-mixture available or influence necessary to move him from potential to actuality—he exists in maximum fullness with any property or attribute as a part of his being. God is the purest form of existence.

The intrinsic premise of the Five Ways—individually and collectively—is that there cannot be an infinite number of regressive acts. There must be an end point that is eternal and holds all capacity of existence—for purposes of sustaining the character of incorruptibility—it must be spiritual. The end point is God, fully in act and motion, and his life must be from himself (a se) to maintain himself and give life to creation. In further clarification the Scholastic Theologians use the term in actu to refer to a being in itself and distinct from its operative faculties. It refers to what a being is in essence, distinct from what it does. For God, in actu primo—his state of his being apart from his operations—and in acto secundo—his state of being in operational use of faculties, are a formal or rational distinction. It is not a real distinction because God is his attributes as a unified, simple essence.⁴

Actus purus affirms God as the unmoved mover, which includes a distinction between the being–in–potency and the being–in–act, a distinction that ultimately reinforces the ontological separation between Creator and creature. Charles Rennie contributes support to divine impassibility in his presentation of “act and potency” when he describes God as infinite, simple, and immutable in his attributes—meaning he “has no potential to be otherwise” and he “is pure act, pure being without becoming.” By way of his infinite motion in all that he is, God simply cannot change or be affected by a force outside himself. He is the resource for actualization in all attributes analogical in nature with creation. Humanity, as an example, has the potential to feel (emoting) love but does not have the potential to be love. In contrast, God as the “I AM” in Exod. 3:14—in his simplicity, immutability, and infinity,—is love in his being, and is so without becoming.⁵ He cannot be moved to completion of any attribute that he is because he is purely complete in his existence, and therefore unmovable by any force, activity, or power outside himself. His goodness cannot be contributed to or harmed from the outside.

Impassibility, Actus Purus, and Divine Emotions in Vanhoozer’s Communicative Theism

Being–in–Act: Post–Barthian Thomism

In his proposal of Triune Communicative Theism Kevin Vanhoozer wants to affirm both a dependence on the priority of revelation, as well as an appreciation of the classical scholastic tradition, perhaps pre-eminently represented by Thomas Aquinas, in order to facilitate an understanding of the God–World relation. The essence of God in Communicative Theism is his pure, holy, and non-creaturely existence evidenced by the Father, Son, and Spirit communicating with one another in Love.⁶ Divine communication is at the heart of the divine life and access to an understanding of the living God is made available in Scripture. According to Vanhoozer, “(t)o speak well of God one must first let God present himself.” Remythologizing understands God is a “being–in–act” and his activity communicates who he is (the “I AM” Exod. 3:14) by his self–revelation. God is not reduced to his actions but is understood as the agent of the activity—the metaphysical being (the agent) is known by the self–revealing activity without God being reduced to the activity itself. The mythos informs of the logos and the remythos offers the being to be known. The challenge, according to Vanhoozer, is to deploy the concept of divine authorship in a manner that preserves God’s distinction from his creation while at the same time affirming His relation to other communicative agents and agencies (i.e., transcendence and immanence). In doing this, however, we will see that Vanhoozer has difficulty in adequately incorporating his project with an understanding of actus purus according to classic orthodoxy. We will see he invites entanglement with two horns of the dilemma posed by the necessity to affirm divine simplicity on the one hand and the character of distinguishable triune agency on the other.⁷

Concern–Based Construal:

Vanhoozer provides an informative summary of the Non-cognitive (physicalist) and Cognitive (mentalist) theories of emotion in Remythologizing Theology before settling into presenting the emotion theory developed by Robert Roberts.⁸ Roberts is a Cognitive Theorist, and he describes affections as intentional “mental states”—not physical feelings—that are a “conceptual analysis of everyday emotional life.” Vanhoozer endorses Roberts theory for the way it focuses on “personal action, reaction, and interaction.” The highlights of Roberts position on emotion include—they are intentional mental states that have objects, they are about something, they involve grasping one thing in terms of something else (a construal) which is a way of describing a narrative situation not a physical reaction, and they involve a motive of action as opposed to a cause (a concern). The central important piece to Vanhoozer’s divine emotion project is the construalconcept that Roberts describes as an “impression, or a way things appear to the subject,” and “an experience and not a judgement or thought or belief.” An excellent example of a construal are the contrasting reactions to the military victories David led—they elicited celebration from David’s followers but caused Saul angst.⁹ Ultimately the construal of the military victory is lodged in the narrative of the story and tied to factors outside the immediate context that are either beneficial or detrimental, depending on who is interpreting the story and where they are positioned in relation to the event.

Divine emotions: covenantal concern–based theodramatic construals:

According to Exod. 19:5 the nation of Israel is the “treasured possession” of God and based on his sovereign will he created a relationship of promise—a covenant relationship—between himself and his beloved nation. Vanhoozer characterizes this promised relationship as one of “communicative action by which God unilaterally binds himself to Abraham and his posterity to make him a great nation and bless him (Gen. 12:2; also compare to Gen 15; 17:1-8).” Robert’s theory culminates in his diagnosis of emotion as a “cognitive affection” and to this Vanhoozer adds the influence of the covenant relationship on divine emotion. Vanhoozer states,

As we have seen, many emotions are unintelligible apart from their narrative context. Similarly, God’s emotions are unintelligible apart from his narrative construals of Israel’s history. In particular, God’s emotions are tied up with his judgment as to the fittingness of his hero’s response to his word. We can therefore think of God’s emotions in terms of theodramatic construals. God’s emotions proceed from his construals of the way in which human beings respond to his own words and deeds—to the drama of redemption—especially as these come to a climactic focus in Jesus Christ. Moreover, God’s construals, unlike ours, are always objective, hence his judgments about situations are always right and true.¹⁰

Vanhoozer’s assessment of divine emotion classifies it as a covenantal affection. In the biblical narrative God is aware of the activity of Israel, his covenant partner, and his emotions are the result of his experiencing their actions from a subjective position that is influenced by the fullness—the impassibility—of his attributes and character while in covenant relationship with his beloved. He is “jealous” of Israel (Exod. 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15) because he loves his covenant partner (Israel) and that partner “is in danger of transferring her affections to other gods (i.e., idols).” “The interests and values that underlie God’s theodramatic construals are consistently covenantal,” meaning God is actively working out of his love for his people to “remedy the situation and advance his plan.” In an anthropomorphic sense, God sees his creatures struggling and he acts to support them by way of his perfect love for his children. The compassion of God as a covenantal affection is for the purpose of communicating his goodness, effectual change, consoling creation, and most importantly it is perpetually present in his impassible covenant love. There is nothing Israel can do to change, manipulate, or cause the covenant to diminish because it is impassible. By remythologizing, moving from mythos to logos back to mythos and assuring the biblical narrative is normative, regulative, and final, God’s jealousy is understood as a value perception in relation to the theodramatic activity of Israel. The divine emotion is not a movement in the divine essence, it is a concern related to the threat to, or integrity of, the covenant between God and his people. The sovereign interest of God is the outpouring of his love by way of covenant relationship to advance his divine plan in creation, and that outpouring, and plan is impassible.¹¹

Divine impassibility in Communicative Action

Returning to the critique presented in the opening paragraph of this paper, how can Vanhoozer affirm divine impassibility if “God feels the force of human suffering without himself suffering change in his being, will or knowledge,” or without being “overcome or overwhelmed by passion?” The contrast between divine passibility and impassibility is, God is passible when he is capable of being acted upon from a force outside himself and that such actions bring about emotional changes of state within him. God is passible when he is capable of freely changing his inner emotional state in response to and interaction with the changing human condition and world order. And finally, God is passible when his changing emotional states involve feelings that are analogous to human feelings. In contrast, “God is impassible in that he does not undergo successive and fluctuating emotional states; nor can the created order alter him in such a way so to cause him to suffer any modification or loss.”¹² The support for divine impassibility in Kevin Vanhoozer Communicative Theism lies in his affirmation of God as Being–in–Act, God is a communicative agent and while he is not reduced to his actions, the content of his communicative acts offer his covenantal affections. God’s communication indicates his concern, and his concern is an eternal and unchanging construal.

God communicates his impassible nature in many ways, three of those are by way of his impeccability, his mission in the Incarnate Son, and in what Vanhoozer describes as the “middle-voice of suffering.” The sinlessness of the unfallen humanity of Christ was not a product of his regeneration, it was a result of his personal union of his human nature to his divine nature. The Protestant orthodox traditions explain the result of this union as a sinless humanity—or impeccablehumanity of Christ. The temptations subjected to Christ by Satan were real but “also necessarily predestined to fail” due to his impeccability. Jesus was able to feel the force of temptation without sinning—Vanhoozer equates this to God feeling the force of human suffering without himself suffering.¹³ An important aspect of the divine mission of the Son was to limit the effects sin has on creation as well as bring people into a saving relationship with the Father. He suffered in a passive manner in which the suffering was inflicted upon him, and he was interacting with it for a purpose—he did it in freedom and he did it in obedience.¹⁴ The passion narrative recounts Jesus freely and obediently communicating the concern God has for his people and details his free choice to fulfill his impassible covenant. As Vanhoozer states, “if God suffers, then he suffers in a divine manner, that is, his suffering is an expression of his freedom; suffering does not befall God, rather he freely allows it to touch him. He does not suffer, as creatures do, from a lack of being; if he suffers, he suffers out of love and by reason of his love, which is the overflow of his being.” Vanhoozer details the suffering that takes place in the passion as existing in the character of the “middle voice”—there is an infliction of suffering upon the humanity of Jesus and at the same time he is interacting with the suffering to complete his mission.¹⁵ The humanity of the Incarnation is the medium of the suffering and the Son is using the obedient free choice of entering the passion to express the covenantal affection God has for his creation. There is nothing humanity can do to interrupt this impassible covenantal affection.

Application of concern-based construal to Covenant Theology and the Conflict in the Middle East.

Connection of concern-based construal to Covenant Theology in General

Covenant theology—a hallmark of Reformed and much of evangelical theology—understands the entire biblical storyline as unfolding through a series of divine covenants that reveal God’s faithful, self-binding commitment to his people and his redemptive purposes. The major covenants—especially the Abrahamic (Gen 12; 15; 17), Mosaic (Exod 19–24), and New Covenant in Christ—form the structural backbone of salvation history. God unilaterally initiates these covenants, binds himself by promise, and remains sovereignly faithful even when his covenant partners are unfaithful. The concern-based construal project sits squarely inside this framework and sharpens covenant theology at two key points.

First, the covenant is the context for divine “emotion.” In the presentation above the concern-based construal of divine jealousy—and other affections—is anchored in the covenant relationship itself. Israel is God’s “treasured possession” (Exod. 19:5) and the Abrahamic promises make her the vehicle of blessing to the nations. God’s jealousy (Exod. 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15) is therefore not a volatile passion inflicted on her from outside but a covenantal affection—a theodramatic construal of Israel’s tendency to “transfer her affections to other gods” and thereby turn “the drama of redemption into a tragedy.”¹⁶ This is classic covenant theology language—God’s emotions are covenantalbecause the covenant is the narrative lens through which he views history. Vanhoozer’s remythologizing approach (mythos → logos → remythos) keeps the biblical covenant narrative normative and regulative, exactly as covenant theologians have always insisted.

Second, impassibility protects covenant theology integrity. Covenant theology has always paired God’s relational faithfulness with his metaphysical transcendence. This is demonstrated above through integrating Vanhoozer’s communicative theism with Aquinas’s actus purus. Because God is pure act with no potency and no external causation, his covenant love cannot be damaged or modified by the action and emotions of his creation. The covenant is impassible—eternally secure in God’s being—yet it generates real, covenant-shaped concern and action toward Israel. This solves a classic tension in covenant theology—how can a transcendent, unchanging God be genuinely for His people in history? The answer is that divine jealousy is a concern-imbued cognition internal to the covenant drama, not a creaturely passion that could alter or overwhelm God. In short, the research defends and deepens covenant theology’s core claim that God’s covenant commitments are as immutable as his essence. Thus, the proposal does not invent a new theology of the covenant—it equips covenant theology with a philosophically rigorous account of how God can have real covenantal affections without compromising classical theism.¹⁷

Interaction of Covenant Theology and concern-based construal with the Middle East Conflict, Spring 2026 Context

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East—centered on Israel’s security, the land promises, Hamas/Hezbollah/Iranian-backed hostilities, and the resulting human suffering—has long been theologized by Christians through the lens of covenant. The paper and covenant theology together offer a coherent, non-sensationalist framework for interpreting these events without reducing God to a changeable, passionate actor in the headlines. Here is how they interact.

First, the conflict can be understood as a theodramatic construal. Vanhoozer—and the theme of this article—insists God’s emotions are “tied up with his judgment as to the fittingness of his hero’s response to his word” within “the drama of redemption.” The biblical covenant narrative positions Israel as the central “hero” in that drama, climaxing in Jesus Christ. Current events in the Middle East are therefore not outside the theodrama. They are part of the ongoing narrative in which God’s covenant partner—historical Israel, and by extension the church as grafted-in heirs (Rom. 11) is tested, attacked, and called to fidelity. God’s “jealousy” is his impassible concern that Israel and the nations not attach herself to “unworthy rivals”—whether ancient idols or modern ideological and political alliances that would derail redemptive history. The point of the construal is that God feels the force of the suffering and conflict in the Middle East without being overwhelmed by it or changed in his being, will, or knowledge. This preserves both divine sovereignty, genuine covenantal engagement, and the path to redemption that may be operational in the conflict.¹⁸

Second, impassible covenant love exists during suffering. Covenant theology has always taught that God’s promises to Abraham in the form of land, seed, blessing to the nations, etc., remain operative even amid Israel’s unfaithfulness or external pressure. Actus purus supplies the covenant with the crucial qualifier of divine impassibility, ensuring that the covenant remains unbreakable and its blessings irrevocable in the face of any creaturely action, whether war, terrorism, or geopolitical maneuvering. God’s concern-based construal drives Him to act redemptively—protecting, judging, and ultimately advancing His plan—yet he does so as the Unmoved Mover who suffers in the incarnate Son only in a “divine manner,” freely and out of love. Applied to 2026 realities, this means Christians can affirm God’s special covenantal regard for the Jewish people and the land without imagining that the conflict “forces” God to change his mind or that his goodness is diminished by the tragedy. The covenant remains the steady anchor.¹⁹

Third, there are pastoral and missional implications. Rather than speculative end-times timetables or political partisanship, the combined perspective calls the church to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Ps. 122:6) while recognizing that ultimate peace comes only when the drama reaches its climax in Christ. View the suffering on all sides through the lens of God’s impartial justice and covenant mercy. Proclaim the New Covenant gospel as the fulfillment—not cancellation of the older covenants—inviting both Jew and Gentile into the one people of God. Rest in divine impassibility—the conflict does not threaten God’s plan or character—it is the very arena in which his covenant faithfulness is displayed.²⁰

Conclusion

The research presented here has offered two perspectives on divine impassibility. Actus purus in the theology of Thomas Aquinas has identified impassibility with act and potency—a being such as God that is purely actualized is not capable of entering accidental relations and therefore not susceptible to being changed or harmed by an outside force or having goodness removed. The concern–based construal which corresponds to covenantal affection provides support for divine impassibility by way of communicative acts that are impervious to the actions and non–actions of creation—the covenant love God has for his creation cannot be damaged or modified by the action and emotions of his creation. While actus purus operates at a metaphysical level, concerned–based construal is supported by moving from mythos to logosand then remythologizing and allowing the narrative of the Bible to remain normative and regulative.

In summary, concern-based theodramtic construal does not directly address 2026 headlines, however it supplies covenant theology with a robust metaphysical and hermeneutical backbone. It lets believers acknowledge God is jealously concerned for the integrity of his covenant with Israel in the midst of this conflict—yet he “remains the same yesterday, today, and forever,” pure act, unmoved in his essence, advancing the drama of redemption without tragedy. This is a deeply stabilizing theological posture for a region defined by tragedy, fear, and competing claims.

Author

Chris J. Gibson
Chris Gibson holds a Ph.D. in Christian Theology from Gateway Seminary, with a minor in New Testament. He serves as an adjunct professor at Gateway Seminary and Jos Reformed Theological College (Nigeria), and as professor and provost at Henderson Training Institute. His research focuses on the doctrine of God, Trinity and pneumatology, divine impassibility, and the integration of classical Christian theology with counseling and recovery. He is also an ordained minister and serves in pastoral counseling and recovery ministry in Oklahoma.
View all posts
Recent Posts
Divine Jealousy as Covenant Concern: Vanhoozer’s Theodramatic Impassibility, Actus Purus, and The Middle East Conflict
Book Review: Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives Edited by Waters, Reid, and Muether (Part 3)
Book Review: Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives Edited by Waters, Reid, and Muether (Part 2)
Book Review: Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives Edited by Waters, Reid, and Muether (Part 1)