IS GOD LIMITED IN ANY WAY?

When we talk about God's attributes, theological terms such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence come to mind as well as similar words describing his character. To some that seems to indicate that He has no limitations whatsoever. But that is not quite true since every one of those absolute terms excludes its opposite. With that in mind, let me quote below from the internet source PreachItTeachIt:

“First, God is limited by his character. His character, that is, his moral attributes are unchangeable. God cannot become bad or evil, or unfaithful, or untrustworthy. He does not have the ability to be bad in any sense.”

“Second, God is limited by his power. This might seem illogical. If God is all-powerful then surely he is unlimited. But, on the contrary, God’s all-powerful nature limits him to do things that are only consistent with his power.”

“Third, God is limited by his nature. It is impossible for him not to be everywhere at every time. It is impossible for him to limit his sight, or hearing, or understanding, or perceptions. You cannot surprise God or have him be unaware of your sufferings or troubles. He knows them all and it is impossible for him not to know them all.”

“Fourth, God is limited by his love. Remember that the scripture says that God is love (I John 4:16). His love is an all encompassing attribute...God’s love forbids him from doing his people harm—those whom he has chosen for himself.”

“Fifth, God is limited by his words. The scripture tells us that it is impossible for God to lie (Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 6:18). He is unable to go back on his promises. Once he has said something in the way of a promise then you can bank on it—forever. It will not change because his words do not change. What he speaks once he speaks forever.”

“God is limited by his eternality. This means that God does not exist in linear time as we understand it. God is eternal. The past, present, and future are the same to him. For God, all that will happen has happened and is happening and never ends. Therefore, for God to change would change his eternality, his very nature, which the scripture says is unchangeable. Thus, if such a thing were to happen God would cease to be God. Such a thing cannot happen.”

Omnipotence

One of the first challenges to my faith came when I was in high school and a friend asked me, “Is God powerful enough to make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?” I was a little surprised to see that same example quoted recently in PreachItTeachIt. It must be found somewhere in an atheist's handbook for it to have lasted so long. I couldn't come up with an adequate answer at the time, but now I realize that it is a good example of the limitation on an Omnipotent Being. He cannot do anything to limit His own omnipotence. Ryrie says, “Omnipotence means that God is all-powerful and able to do anything consistent with His own nature.”

Another example of God's inability in an area is the question, “Can God make 2 + 2 = 6?” Ryrie responds by saying, “That particular question is in the realm of arithmetic, not power.” I am not really satisfied with that response myself and would prefer to put it, “God cannot do anything that cannot be done,” i.e. anything that is contradictory to what is logically possible.

In general, the doctrine of God's omnipotence appears throughout the Bible.

“Ah Lord God! It is you who made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by our outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.” (Jeremiah 32:17) And God confirms the prophet's comment in verse 27: “See, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too hard for me?”

Omniscience

One can certainly point to a number of passages in the Bible which appear to indicate that God is unaware of something, and this begins right in the first chapters of Genesis. In 3:9, Adam and Eve are “hiding” from God and He asks, “Where are you?” The closest parallel I can think of is when a parent plays hide-and-seek with his small child and the child hides his head under a blanket, thinking that it can't then be seen. The parent, of course, goes around the house acting as if he hasn't the slightest idea where the child, who is giggling by now, is hiding.

Then we come to the Tower of Babel episode (Genesis 11) in which God goes down to look at the tower. As Ross says, “The description, written very anthropomorphically, describes the Lord's close interest and participation in human affairs. He did not need to come down to look at their work – in fact, his coming down implies prior knowledge.” He and other commentators note the irony intended in the statement. “And as for its vaunted height, so far short of heaven did this so-called skyscraper fall that God could hardly see it; he had to come down to look at it!” (Wenham)

Or we could cite the time in Genesis 18 when God “goes down to earth” to see for himself what is happening at Sodom and Gomorrah. Wenham explains it by stating, “It is not that God needs to go down to confirm what he knows, but that he is visiting it with a view to judgment.”

Then in Genesis 22:12, God waits to see if Abraham will go ahead and sacrifice his son Isaac. “The point here is that the Lord's judgment is based on full and accurate information.” (Ross)

Habakkuk 1:13a (“Your eyes are too pure to behold evil, and you cannot look on wrongdoing”) seemingly poses another challenge to the doctrine of omniscience. But that is only because one needs to read the rest of the verse to get its full meaning: “Why do you look on the treacherous, and are silent when the wicked swallow those more righteous than they?” In other words, it isn't that God needs to turn his eyes away from any evil activity on earth, but that God cannot merely look on while refusing to do anything about it.

As Robertson says, “Obviously God does in some sense 'see' evil. His omniscience extends to all the affairs of his creation. But he never looks to condone or tolerate evil.” and NEB translates “look on” as “countenance.” Similarly, Chisholm and Bruckner both use the word “tolerate.”

Omnipresence

Psalms 139:7-10 is one of the clearest expressions of this key doctrine.

However, there are a number of places in the Bible where God appears in a given place; these are called theophanies and they appear to challenge the doctrine of omnipresence. Here is how some commentators attempt to deal with this problem:

“...OT theophany...can only be defined here tentatively as a localized, immanent manifestation in time and space of God's transcendent and invisible omnipresence for a specific purpose.” (Hague)

Niehaus: “Yahweh's appearance in theophany is temporary. This fact does not contradict God's omnipresence, which is clearly asserted elsewhere...Rather it distinguishes theophanies from the continuous revelation of God in all nature.

Immutability

This doctrine of God is amply stated in the OT:

“God is not a human being that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind.” (Numbers 23:19) Ashley comments on this verse as follows: “Although the translation lie is common, the context shows that the primary thought is not that God does not utter untruths (although that is true), but that his purposes are utterly true and reliable, and that his nature does not disappoint or fail, as is the case with human creatures.”

The same idea is repeated in I Samuel 15:29: “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent.”

“I the LORD do not change.” (Malachi 3:6)

Psalm 102:25-27 is alluded to by the author of Hebrews in 1:11-12 with its statement “but thou art the same” applied to God. As a corollary of that statement, it means that He will never lie or go back on His word (as expressed in II Timothy 2:13; Titus 1:2). That could be interpreted as a limitation on God's part.

But there is a caveat to this doctrine that Kaiser points out: “The point is that unchangeableness must not be thought of as it it were some type of frozen immobility. God is not some impervious being who cannot respond when circumstances or individuals change. Rather he is a living person, and as such he can and does change when the occasion demands it. He does not change in his character, person or plan. But he can and does respond to our changes.”

Murray similarly comments on the idea of God repenting: “When repentance is predicated of God, either in the direction of judgment or of mercy, there is reference to the change that takes place in His relations to men. God is immutable in His being, perfections, and purposes. But He changes His relationship and attitude...”

Stubbs: “Scripture sometimes speaks of God changing his mind [or 'repenting'] (cf. Jer 18:7-10) but this is God's 'unmovedness while others move and change. The divine finger ever points to the same spot but man have moved from it to the opposite pole' (A. Edersheim).”

Alter says, “God's purposes are always entrammeled in history, dependent on the acts of individual men and women for their continuing realization.”

Satterthwaite adds, “Certainly there is no oversimplification here or any attempt to present humans as mere cogs in a divine plan; rather there is a respect for human personality...”

Then we have Hebrews 6:18, which states, “It is impossible that God would prove false.” And as Kittredge says, “The promise made to Abraham applies to all Christians.” Bruce adds, “The 'two immutable things' from which this encouragement is derived are (a) the promise of God (for 'it is impossible for God to lie'), and (b) the oath by which His promise is confirmed.” “God's promise itself would be 'unchangeable' without the oath, but the two together gave covenanters confidence.” (Buchanan)

A related NT passage is II Timothy 2:13 – “If we are faithless, he remains faithful – for he cannot deny himself.” Ward says that there is “a widely held theory that Paul was quoting from a hymn...It is not impossible that the hymn may have been composed by Paul himself...He [God] is loyal to his pledged word (Heb. 10:23; 11:11)...Though transgression be committed God will not violate his covenant...”

Similarly, Lea adds, “The statement that 'he will remain faithful to mete out punishment to the guilty. However, in keeping with Paul's statement in Rom 3:3-4 and 8:35-39, he seems to have suggested that 'however wayward and faithless men may be, God's love continues unalterable and he remains true to his promises.' [quoting from Kelly].”

If it is impossible for God to change, then as James 1:13 puts it, “God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one.” Concentrating on the first phrase only, Davids explains that the Greek can be interpreted in three possible ways: (1) God cannot be solicited to evil, (2) God is inexperienced in evil, or (3) God ought not to be tested by evil persons. Davids opts for the last option as making the most sense in this context as well as being a restatement of Deuteronomy 6:16. If he is correct, then this verse really says nothing regarding God's limitations.

However, not all scholars agree with Davids on this issue. For example, L.T. Johnson comments on this verse as follows: “The basic point is clear enough: God has nothing to do with evil. The sentiment here is crisply stated by Sentences of Sextus 30: God is 'the wise light that has no room for its opposite.'” If this view is correct, then God's goodness excludes the possibility of Him associating with sin and evil.

There is one thing to note in conjunction with the idea of the possible and impossible for God. Human beings have the unfortunate tendency to judge God's behavior by our own limited standards. Thus, Zechariah 8:6 contains these words: “Thus says the LORD of hosts: Even though it seems impossible to the remnant of this people in these days [to ever return to Jerusalem], should it also seem impossible to me, says the LORD of hosts?” As Petersen notes, “The Zechariah oracle seems concerned...with the problem of assessing the deity's character on the basis of human expectation...”

Moving to the New Testament, we have the same idea expressed in Matthew 19:26 and parallels in Mark and Luke when Jesus' apostles are astounded at his famous saying regarding the rich man and the eye of the needle and ask, “But who then can be saved?” Jesus answers, “With men this impossible, but with God all things are possible.” This is not necessarily to be taken as a blanket statement for, as Fitzmyer comments, “Actually, the saying is somewhat proverbial [and thus expressing a general truth applicable in many, but not all, cases] and more generic than the question posed; its emphasis is that salvation comes ultimately from God...”

And France points out, “The specific subject is salvation, but the maxim...of course has much broader application: where humanity is helpless, God can.”

There is another famous passage in the NT which bears on the subject, namely, Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane. R.E. Brown points out, “Even though all three Synoptics report Jesus' prayer about removal of the cup, the way in which they preface it shows increasing softening of the demand:

“Abba, Father, all things are possible to you.” (Mark 14:36)

“My Father, if it is possible.” (Matthew 26:39)

“Father, if you desire.” (Luke 22:42)

Ultimately, Jesus says in Mark, “But not what I will, but what you will.” Thus all three accounts agree that even though all things might be possible for God, not all are necessarily in line with his will and plan.

But what about Jesus Christ? The Jehovah Witnesses have memorized every NT passage that shows Jesus' limitations and will be glad to point them out to you to prove that therefore Jesus can't be God. One such passage is Mark 13:32 in which Jesus specifically denied being omniscient. Colin Brown says that “the doctrine of kenosis [explains that] Christ emptied himself or did not make use of some at least of his divine attributes during the period of his earthly life. Thus he was not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient or omnipotent in his incarnate state...he deliberately accommodated himself to the common conditions of mankind.” See Philippians 2:7.

On the other hand, the author of Hebrews claims immutability to Jesus in 13:8 in parallel with God's identical characteristic in 1:11-12.

Then regarding omnipotence, we have the comment in Mark 6:5a that Jesus could do no deed of power in his hometown. As Mann says, “This is the strongest statement in the gospels on the limitations of Jesus though it is mitigated slightly in the second part of the verse.” Thus, 6:5b does state that Jesus healed a few sick people there. This passage has prompted comments from scholars, such as quoted below.

“The powers that work through such a prophet are dependent on people's positive response with faith.” (Horsley)

“There was no limitation on His power, but His purpose was to perform miracles in the presence of faith.” (Grassmick)

“Because of the unbelief of the people of Nazareth, Jesus was unable, consistently with the principle on which he acted to do miracles among them, apart from His healing a few sick people, who, presumably, did display a modicum of faith in Him.” (Short)

“Matthew (13:58) modifies the statement to read 'he did not do', instead of Mark's could do no mighty work there. Mark's statement, however, does not imply that Jesus was in any sense powerless, but that He could not proceed in accordance with His purpose where faith was absent.” (Swift)