Does God have emotions? - Cheung

The IMMUTABILITY of God follows from his eternity. Since there is no "before" or "after" with God, he remains the same in his being and character. This attribute is also associated with his perfection. If God is perfect in every way, then any change in him must be for the worse. But since he is immutable, he cannot change for the worse. And since he is already perfect in every way, he has no need to change or develop.

Psalm 102:25-27 says that, although the physical universe undergoes decay and will perish, God remains the same:

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

God says in Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change." And he says in Isaiah 46:11, "What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do," and Psalm 33:11 says, "the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations." Numbers 23:19 says, "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" And James writes that God does not "change like shifting shadows" (James 1:17). God remains the same not only in his being and character, but all his thoughts and decrees stay the same.

The immutability of God implies the IMPASSIBILITY of God. This means that God is without "passions" – emotions or feelings. Less thoughtful believers protest against the doctrine, since they misapply biblical passages that seem to describe a God who experiences emotions such as grief, joy, and wrath (Psalm 78:40; Isaiah 62:5; Revelation 19:15).

Passages that appear to ascribe emotions to God are anthropopathisms. Opponents of divine impassibility argue that this is to avoid the obvious teaching of Scripture. It dismisses as anthropopathism what we do not wish to associate with God. However, these same people would agree that those biblical references that ascribe to God bodily parts such as hands and eyes are anthropomorphisms. Those who think that God really has a physical body should not even be considered Christians. Therefore, one must not reject anthropopathism as an explanation without good reason.

Since the Bible teaches that God is spirit and that he has no form (John 4:24 and Deuteronomy 4:12, 15), any passage that speaks about God as if he has a body is obviously figurative. When they are understood this way, both kinds of passages make good sense, whereas to interpret them in the opposite direction would not. That is, if it is thought that God has a physical body, then those passages that say he is spirit and that he has no form would generate confusion, if not outright contradiction. And this problem would arise because they are not supposed to be interpreted this way.

The Bible is consistent in this. When it talks about God's being, it teaches that he is spirit and that he has no form. When it talks about his ability and his work, it sometimes uses anthropomorphisms, so that it refers to his hands, arms, eyes, ears, and so on. The former refers to what he is, and the latter refers to what he does. The difference is very definite and easy to perceive. In fact, given those passages that tell us about the being of God, it would be heretical to interpret the other passages as teaching that God has a body. Likewise, given what the Bible tells us about the being of God, it would be heretical to say that he has emotions that resemble human feelings and fluctuations.

The view that God experiences emotions like men appear to entail a number of contradictions:

A man may become angry against his will in the sense that he does not choose to become angry, and he does not choose to experience whatever causes the anger, but that the "trigger" incites this emotion in him against his preference. This applies to human experiences of joy, fear, grief, and so on. Although one may develop a remarkable level of self-control by the power of the Scripture and the Holy Spirit, it remains that a person's volition and emotion do not maintain an exact relationship. His emotional state is not always exactly the way he wishes or decides it to be. However, this cannot be true with God even if he were to experience emotions, because such lack of self-control contradicts his omniscience, sovereignty, and immutability.

Since God is omniscient, he cannot be surprised, and this at least eliminates certain ways of experiencing emotions. Suppose I become angry because a man insults me at this very moment. It is unlikely that I would still be angry two thousand years in the future. And if I had known two thousand years in the past that he would insult me today, it is unlikely that I would become angry by the time he does it. In fact, if I have had two thousand years to consider his insult, by the time he actually does it, I might not react at all.

Perhaps the reply is that all facts are simultaneously present to God, so that the insult that angers him is always happening "now." But this would imply that God must be angry about this one insult throughout eternity, and not just when it happens. If so, then God's emotions would not offer us the kind of interactivity that proponents of divine emotions are after. In any case, suppose something happens that alleviates this anger. Of course, the only way is forgiveness through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But since God knows Christ's sacrifice just as well as the man's insult, we are at a loss as to whether he is ever angry or not. The mental experiment results in absurdity, because the truth is that God is not like man, because he is not a man.

Then, if an action of mine can cause anger in God in a similar way that I can cause anger in a man, then this means that I can cause anger in God by my power. To the degree that he lacks self-control, he is helpless against my efforts to cause anger in him. Likewise, if an action of mine can produce joy in God in a similar way that I can produce joy in a man, then this means that I have the ability to produce joy in God at will. In this manner, I would exercise a significant measure of control over God. But this contradicts his sovereignty and immutability.

The matter becomes much more complex when we take into account that he knows all the thoughts and actions of his creatures in all of history simultaneously. But it is enough to consider all the billions of people who anger him at any point in time, and the thousands or at least hundreds of people who please him at the same time. How is it possible for him to be angry with two billion people in a sense like man's anger and pleased with two hundred people, also in the human sense, at the same time? If the answer is that God's mind is immense, so that he is not subject to human limitations, then our point is also established. There is no warrant to say that God is extremely similar to man in some ways, as if bound by many of man's limitations, but that he is completely superior to man in other ways, as if he has none of man's limitations.

Therefore, some form of divine impassibility is necessary. If God is angered by our sins, it is only because he wills to be angered by them, and not because his mental state is subject to our will or beyond his control. Even if God has emotions, they are under his control, and they will never compromise his divine attributes. And since they cannot compromise the divine attributes, this also means that even if he has emotions, he does not have them in a way that is similar to man. But then we wonder why we would still call them emotions. Thus at least in this sense and to this extent, we must affirm that God is without passions.

Christians who have been influenced by modern psychology and philosophy are eager to defend emotions, both in man and in God. Although they might acknowledge that those biblical passages that refer to God as if he has a physical body are instances of anthropomorphism, they refuse to admit that those passages that refer to God as if he has emotions are instances of anthropopathism. However, they have been unable to offer an excuse for this hypocrisy.

The dictionary defines "emotion" as "disturbance, excitement; the affective aspect of consciousness; a state of feeling; a psychic and physical reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling and physiologically involving changes that prepare the body for immediate vigorous action." The word originally refers to a disturbance of the mind. Although this meaning is now obsolete in colloquial speech, even in common usage, it remains a "psychic and physical reaction." In my view, a definition of emotion should include the idea of a disturbance of the mind that may interfere with the normal process of rational thought. The disturbance itself does not carry a negative connotation, but it is a description of what happens, although a disturbance of the mind would, of course, often produce negative consequences.

Contrary to popular teaching, the Bible never says that the mind consists of the will, intellect, and emotion. This division originates from secular psychology, not biblical psychology. Under this scheme, the will, intellect, and emotion are distinct parts of the mind, so that the mind is only real as the aggregate of the three. Since they are related but independent, there is no necessary relationship between the development of each part. Thus Christians who assume this framework would often say that a person must not only develop his intellect, but that he must also develop his emotion. But if this framework is false, then the recommendation tells us to do something that cannot be done, since it assumes a division in the mind that does not exist. The result is a perverted spiritual development.

The Bible teaches that the inward part of man is the mind. The will and emotion are not things in themselves, but merely functions of the mind. To illustrate, digestion is not an organ apart from or within the stomach, but the stomach is the physical organ, and digestion is the function of this organ. Likewise, the mind is the inward and incorporeal part of man. Sometimes it becomes disturbed, and a disturbance of the mind affects how it thinks, often in a negative way. Therefore, the emotion is not good in itself. Although the Bible does not call all emotions sinful, many emotions can indeed be sinful, and sinful emotions often lead to other sins:

Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." (Genesis 4:6-7)

Christians do not need more emotions; they need more self-control. The Bible contains not nearly as many emotional words or phrases as people want to believe. Some people may even misinterpret the contentment in Philippians 4:12 as an emotional satisfaction, that is, before they realize that it is a Stoic word denoting indifference. And is "happy" even an emotion in the Bible? Love is not an emotion in the Bible, but a volition. The spiritual man is marked by self-control, and has achieved mastery over his emotions. The mind of God is so integrated that he does only what he wills. As we increase in faith and holiness, our emotion should increasingly come under our conscious control, so that we become excited because we decide to become excited, become angry because we decide to become angry, and we can stop when we decide to stop.

Jesus experienced emotions, but what can we infer from this? He also experienced hunger and fatigue (Matthew 21:18; Luke 4:2; John 4:6), but this only proves that the Son of God took upon himself a human nature. Just as Jesus in his divine nature did not experience hunger or fatigue, he in his divine nature did not experience emotions. Only his human nature experienced hunger, fatigue, and emotions. Those instances when he experienced emotions were indeed disturbances of the mind (Mark 14:34), and since Hebrews 4:15 says that he never sinned, we conclude that not every disturbance of the mind is sinful. However, it is invalid to infer from this that emotions are good, or that it should not be restrained or suppressed. Therefore, the fact that Jesus experienced emotions only proves that he possessed a human nature and that not every disturbance of the mind is sinful.

On the other hand, the Gospels show that Jesus was always in full control of himself. He was so disturbed before his arrest that he bled through his skin, but he never lost control. He was able to pray to God, to resolve to fulfill his will, and to rebuke his disciples for falling asleep. He was under intense pressure, but he retained full control of his mental and physical functions. Sometimes things happen that disturb us, but to be disturbed in the mind is not part of sanctification. A person is not holy or spiritual just because his mind fluctuates like the waves of the ocean. Rather, Christ's self-control in the face of the most disturbing circumstances – his faith to walk on the stormy waters – is what his followers ought to emulate.

Cheung, Vincent (2011). Systematic Theology (p. 58-62).

Calvin on God's Repentance

What, therefore, does the word "repentance" mean? Surely its meaning is like that of all other modes of speaking that describe God for us in human terms. For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us. Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion in him, but rather to consider that this expression has been taken from our own human experience; because God, whenever he is exercising judgment, exhibits the appearance of one kindled and angered. So we ought not to understand anything else under the word "repentance" than change of action, because men are wont by changing their action to testify that they are displeased with themselves. Therefore, since every change among men is a correction of what displeases them, but that correction arises out of repentance, then by the word "repentance" is meant the fact that God changes with respect to his actions. Meanwhile neither God's plan nor his will is reversed, nor his volition altered; but what he had from eternity foreseen, approved, and decreed, he pursues in uninterrupted tenor, however sudden the variation may appear in men's eyes.

Calvin, John. (1960). Institutes of the Christian Religion (1:17:13). The Westminster Press.

The Anthropomorphites, also, who imagined a corporeal God from the fact that Scripture often ascribes to him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are easily refuted. For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to "lisp" in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.

Calvin, John. (1960). Institutes of the Christian Religion (1:13:1). The Westminster Press.

To Be a Pilgrim - Bunyan

Who would true valour see,
Let him come hither;
One here will constant be,
Come wind, come weather.
There's no discouragement
Shall make him once relent
His first avowed intent,
To be a pilgrim.

Whoso beset him round
With dismal stories
Do but themselves confound;
His strength the more is.
No lion can him fright,
He'll with a giant fight,
But he will have a right
To be a pilgrim.

Hobgoblin, nor foul fiend,
Can daunt his spirit:
He knows, he at the end
Shall life inherit.
Then fancies fly away,
He'll fear not what men say,
He'll labour night and day
To be a pilgrim.

John Bunyan

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge

Believers themselves have not chosen the Christian position because they are wiser than others. What they have they have by grace alone. But this does not mean that they accept the problematics of fallen man as right... Fallen man does in principle seek to be a law unto himself. But he cannot carry out his own principle to its full degree. He is restrained from doing so... In spite of what he does against God, he can and must work for God; thus he is able to make a “positive contribution” to human culture. (Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969, pp. 43, 44).

It appears dogmatic and absolutistic because, it is dogmatic and absolutistic. The Christian should not be ashamed of this fact. He ought to have the humble boldness to tell a lost world that the Christian message is unconditionally true and the necessary presupposition of all thought (absolutistic), that Christ’s gospel demands repentance (including a “change of mind”), and that God’s word has definite doctrinal content which is authoritatively revealed “directly from above” (dogmatic). Of course the biblical outlook is not “dogmatic and absolutistic” in the derisive sense often attributed to these words. The Christian’s claim that all thought requires the presupposition of Christ’s word is not arrogant, unreasoning, or unfounded...

Not only must the non-presuppositionalist receive the correction and reproof of God’s word (namely, that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord), but the Christian scholar who presupposes the truth of Scripture in his intellectual endeavors must be fully aware that his wisdom is not inherently his own but rests completely upon the fear of the Lord. Without that reverence, the Christian scholar would be as foolish as all other men. His wisdom is not due to superior mental ability and profundity of insight; instead it has been given by God. We noted above that repentance and faith are requisite for knowledge. The Christian, who possesses a knowledge of the truth, does so only because faith has been given him as a gift (Eph. 2:8-9) and repentance has been granted from the Lord (Acts 5:31; 11:18). In order to have faith you must be born of God (1 John 5:1) who gives repentance unto a genuine knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25). The Christian is in a position of knowledge only because of the grace of God. His spiritual rebirth is not of himself but solely the result of God’s mercy (Ezek. 11:19-20; John 1:13; Rom. 9:16). This gracious regeneration has brought him a new mind...

For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959).

Bahnsen, Greg (2011). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (p. 149). Covenant Media Press. Kindle Edition.

Proverbs 15:32-33, He that refuseth correction despiseth his own soul: But he that hearkeneth to reproof getteth understanding. The fear of Jehovah is the instruction of wisdom. And before honor goeth humility.

A glimpse at Islamic Paradise

From the Qur'an:

Reclining upon the couches lined with silk brocade, and the fruits of the two Gardens will be near at hand. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinns and men) deny? Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse)before them. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinns and men) deny? (In beauty) they are like rubies and coral. -S. 55:54-58 Hilali-Khan

Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling breasts, like of age, and a cup overflowing. Therein they shall hear no idle talk, no cry of lies, for a recompense from thy Lord, a gift, a reckoning. -S. 78:31-36 Arberry

From the Sunnah:

4337. It was narrated from Abu Umamah that the Messenger of Allah said: “There is no one whom Allah will admit to Paradise but Allah will marry him to seventy-two wives, two from houris and seventy from his inheritance from the people of Hell, all of whom will have desirable front passages and he will have a male member that never becomes flaccid (i.e., soft and limp).” (Da‘if) Hisham bin Khalid said: “From his inheritance from the people of Hell” means: “Men who enter Hell, and the people of Paradise will inherit their wives, just as the wife of Pharaoh will be inherited.” [So, the wives of Jews and Christians]

-English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah - Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, From Hadith No. 3657 to 4341, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair 'Ali Za'i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA) [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], Volume 5, Chapter 39. Description Of Paradise, pp. 423-424; Source

...and made them virgins, immaculate - every time their spouses enter them they find them virgins, nor is there any pain [of defloration]. -Tafsir al-Jalalayn on S. 56:36

We derive our English word for "whore" from the Arabic "houri," in case anyone was wondering. This is only a small snippet of what "gits done" in Islamic Paradise. The pesky Jews and Christians are tormented in Hell while the righteous Muslims are busily deflowering virgins and wives of Jewish and Christian men.

Do you know Him? - S.M. Lockridge

Bleed The Gospel! Paul Washer

The world's winning, people are sinning, and evils grinning, but its only Friday - S.M. Lockridge

Sermon performed by Rev. Shadrach Meshach Lockridge.

Amen, I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the Day of Judgment than for that town. - Matthew 10:15

Luther on Romans 9:3

Thus the words "I could wish, etc." are a most excellent and entirely apostolic way of speaking here of love both toward Christ as well as toward the Jews. For from the great love for Christ he hopes for great glory from the Jews for Christ. And in order that He might have this, he himself is glad and willing to be separated from Him, but without hating Him. For this love based on its opposite is the strongest and highest love, where the highest sign of hatred for oneself shows the great love for someone else.

Thus he wishes the greatest salvation also for the Jews, and in order that they might have this, he freely is willing to lose his own salvation. He does this also in another place, in 2 Cor. 12:15, where he says: "I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls."

But we must note that these words seem strange and foolish to those who think that they are righteous and love God with a covetous love, that is, because of their salvation and eternal rest or because of their escape from hell, and not for the sake of God Himself, but for their own sakes, men who babble that ordered love begins with itself and that each person must first desire salvation for himself and then his neighbor's salvation as his own. They have this kind of wisdom because they do not know what it is to be blessed and saved, unless of course it means to be happy and to do well according to their own imagination. Although this is what it means to be blessed, to will to do the will of God and glorify Him in all things and not at all to want one's own interests, neither here nor in eternity.

But to those who truly love God with a filial love and friendship, which does not arise out of nature but only from the Holy Spirit, these words are most beautiful and testimonies of a perfect example. For such men freely offer themselves to the entire will of God, even to hell and eternal death, if that is what God wills, so that His will may be fully done. Therefore they seek absolutely nothing for themselves. But just as they thus conform themselves purely to the will of God, so also it is impossible that they should remain in hell. For it is impossible that the man should remain outside of God who has so completely thrown himself upon the will of God. For he wills what God wills; therefore he pleases God. And if he pleases God, he is loved by Him; and if loved, then saved.

But you ask whether God has ever willed or may ever will that a man should resign himself to hell and damnation or give himself to the anathema from Christ for the sake of His will. I reply that it happens in many cases and especially in those who are imperfect in charity or pure love for God. For in their case the love of concupiscence which is so deeply rooted in them must necessarily be torn out. But it is not torn out except through a superabundant infusion of grace or through this very harsh resignation. For "nothing unclean shall enter into the kingdom of God" (Rev. 21:27). But now no one knows whether he loves God with a pure heart unless he has experienced in himself that if it should please God he would not desire even to be saved nor would he refuse to be damned. For the damned suffer so severely because they are unwilling to be damned and do not resign themselves to the will of God, which they cannot do without the grace of God...

But those who are truly righteous in that they abound in love achieve this resignation without great sadness. For because of their abounding love for God they make all things possible, even enduring hell. And by reason of this facility they immediately escape the penalty of this kind. Indeed they have no need to fear being damned, for they willingly and happily submit to damnation for the sake of God. Rather it is they who are damned who try to escape damnation.

For even Christ suffered damnation and desertion more than all the saints. And it was not easy for Him to suffer, as some imagine. For He really and truly offered Himself to God the Father for the condemnation for us. And in His human nature He acted in no way different than a man to be eternally damned to hell. And on account of this love of His toward God, God immediately raised Him from death and hell and thus devoured hell. This all His saints should imitate, some to a less and some to a greater degree, for the more perfect they have been in their love, the more readily and easily they can do this. But Christ underwent this with the greatest difficulty of all. Hence in many passages He complains about the agonies of hell.

Those who shrink from this interpretation are still being ruled by the imaginings of their flesh, thinking that to love oneself is to hope first of all for something good for oneself; but they do not understand what this kind of good is, and thus they do not know what it is to love. For to love is to hate oneself, to condemn oneself, and to wish the worst, in accord with the statement of Christ: "He who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life" (John 12:25). But if someone says: "I do not love my life in this world because I am seeking what is good for it in the life to come," I reply: "You are doing this out of love for yourself, which is a worldly love, and therefore you still love your life in this world. He who loves himself in this way truly loves himself. For he loves himself not in himself but in God, that is, in accord with the will of God, who hates, damns, and wills evil to all sinners, that is, to all of us. For what is good for us is hidden, and that so deeply that it is hidden under its opposite. Thus our life is hidden under death, love for ourselves under hate for ourselves, glory under ignominy, salvation under damnation, our kingship under exile, heaven under hell, wisdom under foolishness, righteousness under sin, power under weakness. And universally our every assertion of anything good is hidden under the denial of it, so that faith may have its place in God, who is a negative essence and goodness and wisdom and righteousness, who cannot be possessed or touched except by the negation of all of our affirmatives. Thus "the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field" (Matt. 13:44). The field is dirty in contrast to the treasure; while the one is trodden underfoot, the other is picked up. And yet the field hides the treasure. So also "our life is hid with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3), that is, in the negation of all things which can be felt, held, and comprehended by our reason. So also our wisdom and righteousness are not at all apparent to us but are hidden with Christ in God. But what does appear is that which is contrary to these things, namely, sin and foolishness, as the apostle says: "If anyone among you thinks that he is wise, let him become a fool that he may become wise" (1 Cor. 3:18), that is, let him become wise and rich in God, not in himself; let all his own wisdom disappear and nothing but foolishness remain. And thus it is in all other matters too. Thus these are the good things which we should wish for ourselves (that is, every kind of evil). For in this way we conform ourselves to God, who does not regard or consider anything in us as good. And in this way we are already good as long as we recognize nothing as good except God's good and our own good as evil, for he who is wise in this way with God is truly a wise and good man. For he knows that nothing is good outside of God in that in God everything is good. As Christ says: "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). It is as if He were saying: "Outside of you is exile. Outside of you is everything which is seen and touched, but within you is everything which is believed only by faith."

Therefore these people are arguing in a very dangerous manner about the good which can be deduced from philosophy, since God has turned this good into evil. For even though all things are very good (Gen. 1:31), yet they are not good for us, and even if there are no things which are in any way evil, yet everything is evil for us; and all of this is the case because we have sin. Therefore it becomes necessary to flee the good things and take on the evil things. And we must do this not only with our voice and with a deceitful heart, but with our whole mind we must confess and wish that we might be damned and destroyed. For we must act toward ourselves in the same way that a man does who hates another man. For he does not hate him in imagination, but he sincerely desires to destroy and kill and damn the person whom he hates. Therefore if we so sincerely want to destroy ourselves that we offer ourselves to hell for the sake of God and His righteousness, and He will be merciful and free us. "If we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged by the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:31). For such people seek only this one thing, that they may wash away their sin and win the grace of an offended God; they do not seek the kingdom; they are prepared to lose their salvation, they are ready and willing to be damned, but under the grace of God who has already been placated, they do not fear punishment but only their offense against God.

Luther, Martin. Luther's Works vol. 25, Lectures on Romans. Saint Louis Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1972. pp. 379-384.

The Fourth Crusade and the Conquest of Constantinople

This article will examine the fourth Crusade leading up to the conquest of Constantinople and shortly thereafter from the perspective of Geoffrey de Villehardouin, a thirteenth-century Frankish knight. The source used in assessing the fourth crusade will be the Conquest of Constantinople written by Geoffrey de Villehardouin and translated by Caroline Smith, Penguin Classic edition published in 2008. All page references given hereafter come from this work.

There have been many modern attempts to re-write history or paint a revisionist picture of this highly controversial subject. Using an eye witness account of the events that transpired the researcher can be sure to gather information from a primary source that presents the ‘bare bones’ of what occurred. Of course, the researcher has to take into account that Geoffrey de Villehardouin is by no means an objective source of information; after all he was one of the pilgrims sent on a crusade to Egypt which later became routed by the siege of Constantinople. The researcher needs to be aware of this fact and examine what Villehardouin records in comparison with other contemporary chroniclers of his time. Due to length considerations only Geoffrey’s view of the conquest will be examined in this article.

The fourth Crusade did not originally begin as a crusade against Constantinople but was rather a crusade preached by a priest known as Fulk of Neuilly, and later on given Papal authority by Innocent III as a pilgrimage to restore Jerusalem (p. 1). The indulgence offered by Innocent and described by Geoffrey as very generous was that all those who take the cross and serve the army for a year would be absolved from any sins they had committed and confessed (p. 1). During a conference in Compiegne, where a great deal of barons and counts who had taken up the cross met, a decision was made to send out six of their best envoys (which Geoffrey was a part of) in an attempt at planning the pilgrimage, namely the route they would take and a date the operation would begin (p. 7). These envoys were given full authority on behalf of the barons and counts binding them to whatever agreements the envoys arrived at (p. 7). The place Geoffrey and the rest of the envoys had agreed to visit in search of resources was Venice and rightly so as Geoffrey points out since the Venetians apparently had an abundance of ships and vessels, more than any other port (p.8).

Venice is where the envoys met Enrico Dandolo, the dodge of Venice, and struck up what can be viewed as one of the most important deals in the history of crusading. The envoys asked the dodge for ships and a fleet in order to conquer the Holy Land, and after about a week of consideration and some debate with the envoys and fellow statesmen the dodge set down his conditions for the deal: “We will build horse transports to carry 4,500 horses and 9,000 squires, with 4,500 knights and 20,000 foot sergeants travelling in ships. And we will agree to provide food for all these horses and people for nine months. This is the minimum we would provide in return for a payment of four marks per horse and two marks per man. All the terms we are offering you would be valid for one year from the day of our departure from the port of Venice…The total cost of what has just been outlined would amount to 94,000 marks….we will provide, for the love of God, fifty armed galleys, on condition that for as long as our association lasts we will have one half of everything we capture on land or at sea, and you will have the other” (p. 8,9).

The envoys confirmed this arrangement financially binding the barons of France to the Venetians and in return giving the Venetians a sweet deal of expanding their territorial prospects, from this point forward the Venetians and pilgrims literally have to work as a single cooperative body or the whole pilgrimage would become a disaster. A destination of Cairo Egypt had been chosen by the heads of the expedition but it was kept under wraps, instead it was said simply that the pilgrims were going overseas (p.11). Oaths were made to uphold the terms laid out by both parties and messengers were sent to Innocent III for confirmation of the deal, as Geoffrey puts it, the pope confirmed most willingly (p.11). The pilgrims borrowed 2,000 marks and made a down payment in order so that work on the fleet might begin, then they left to their homelands and began to recruit others for the pilgrimage (p.11).

The Venetians had assembled a massive and most impressive fleet and it was now time for the barons to return and pay their half of the deal. Unfortunately for the pilgrims and Venetians, many of the barons and counts did not come to Venice and thus could not pay what they owed (p.18). According to Geoffrey many of the preudommes were scared of the voyage undertaken at Venice and wanted the army to break up (p.16, 19), or the large numbers of pilgrims had simply taken different routes and ended up in other ports than Venice (p.17). This caused a great discord to both the pilgrims and the Venetians who rightfully wanted their money. The army was now in danger of disbanding and bringing failure to the whole expedition, the pilgrims simply did not have enough people to provide the money due the Venetians, thus the Venetians were under no obligation to provide the pilgrims with a fleet – in all Geoffrey records that the pilgrims were 34,000 silver marks short of what they owed (p.19).

The pilgrim leaders paid the Venetians what they had and asked to be taken if the Venetians were so willing (p.19). Enrico and the Venetians had a different deal in mind; they proposed that they would keep whatever was paid them and suspend the debt of 34,000 marks until a later time in return for help in retaking the city of Zara, which was captured from the Venetians by the king of Hungary (p. 19). The pilgrims agreed to this deal with some opposition from their people and Enrico Dandolo took up the cross in a great show of passion along with many other Venetians who followed his example (p.20).

On the tenth of November 1202 the expedition arrived before the city of Zara in Slovenia and took the city by force breaking the harbor chain and laying siege the next day (p.22). According to Geoffrey there had been messengers who came out of Zara and offered to surrender the city along with all its possessions if the pilgrims just spared the lives of the inhabitants (p.23). This offer was short lived as some of the pilgrims who wanted to see the army disband secretly told the messengers from Zara that the pilgrims would not dare to attack their city and the inhabitants had nothing to fear, having this insider information the messengers went back to the city and no deal was struck (p.23).

Apparently there had been much conflict among the pilgrims, some of which wanted to proceed with the siege, and some that wanted to end it on account of it being against fellow Christians (p.24). The argument as presented by Geoffrey went something along the lines of Christian fighting Christian (which would go against everything the crusading movement stood for) versus being shamed for a failed expedition. The abbot of Vaux announced on behalf of the Roman Pope that he forbids pilgrims campaigning against Christians, but he was quickly silenced and the barons proceeded with the siege (p.24). After five days of fighting the town of Zara was surrendered under the same conditions asked previously, the town was now under Venetian authority and split up in two sections, one side French the other Venetian, until after winter passed and the pilgrims could make their next move (p.24).

While in Zara envoys had arrived from Germany on behalf of King Philip and the prince of Constantinople who was King Philips brother by marriage. These envoys came bearing news that the Emperor of Constantinople (Isaac II Angelus) had been wrongly usurped of his throne being blinded and imprisoned by his own brother Alexius III Angelus (p.20, 26). Isaac’s son, or young Alexius (who would later be crowned Alexius IV Angelus), was also imprisoned by Alexius III but later managed to escape and now came seeking help from the pilgrims in order to restore him and his father as the rightful emperors. Young Alexius had promised to place the entire Romanian realm under the authority of Rome, to pay 200,000 silver marks and give provisions to the whole army, to personally accompany the crusade to Egypt with 10,000 of his own men for an entire year, and to maintain 500 knights in the Holy Land supported by his own money throughout his entire life – in return for the pilgrims help in restoring the young Alexius and his father as the rightful emperors (p.26).

Again there was discord among the pilgrims with many men, such as the abbot of Vaux, protesting on account of campaigning against more Christians. At this time the pilgrims were divided, with some in support of the treaty with the Greeks that had agreed to help young Alexius, some deciding rather to go to Syria and start their expedition there, and some even resorted to flight; this way a lot of pilgrims abandoned the quest and the army lost many useful knights (p. 27, 28). As Geoffrey puts it, the pope was not too happy with the capture of Zara so the pilgrims sent envoys to Rome begging the popes forgiveness and explaining their side of the story, for the most part they had no other option but to attack the mainly Christian city as their own men had defected and the army was now in danger of being lost (p.29). Geoffrey states the pope absolved all of the pilgrims from their sins and begged to keep the army together (p. 29).

The pilgrims had departed Zara to Constantinople and the Venetians were joined by young Alexius later before departing themselves (p. 30). After sailing around southern Greece and stopping at numerous ports and islands the pilgrims arrived at Chalcedon, one of the Byzantine Emperors palaces situated across Constantinople on the other side of the Straights of Saint George. From there they sailed closer to Constantinople reaching a palace called Scutari where they spent the next nine days while Alexius fortified his defense (p. 33, 36). The pilgrims announced why they had come and that the Emperor should surrender himself to the authority of young Alexius in exchange for a pardon, this offer was declined by the Greeks and so the pilgrims started organizing battalions for the attack (p.38).

There were a few skirmishes between the Greeks and the pilgrims prior to the main attack in which Geoffrey recount the great deeds of the frugal blind doge and the Venetians. The dodge had leapt out of his galley before any of his men could come ashore and had placed the banner of Saint Mark in the ground; this act compelled the Venetians to fight strongly, eventually capturing twenty five towers by themselves and setting fire between them and the enemy (p. 46).The Franks also fought bravely and undermanned, taking on sixty of the Greek battalions with their six, but when the dodge decided to help the pilgrim camp the Emperors forces withdrew ending the first siege of Constantinople (p. 47-48).

A great fortune befell the pilgrims during that night, the Emperor Alexius decide to sneak out and abandon his kingdom and thus the Greeks were left with no emperor. Their only choice was the imprisoned one, Isaac, and so the Greeks released him from prison and swore their obedience (p. 48). Isaac agreed to his son’s deal with the pilgrims and soon after Alexius was crowned co-emperor of the empire (p. 50-51).

As Geoffrey tells it the newly crowned emperor Alexius paid off some of the money promised to the pilgrims and then left Constantinople in order to further secure his lands after which time he would finish paying the debt (p.54). While Alexius was away a brawl had broken out between the Greek and Latin inhabitants of Constantinople in which one of the parties set the town ablaze, Geoffrey writes that he does not know who started the fire which ravaged for a week taking much of the city with it, but after it had passed none of the Latin residents wanted to stay inside of the city and crossed to the pilgrims camp. This marks a decline in relations between the Greeks and the pilgrims, according to Geoffrey, since there was nobody to blame but each-other(p.55).

When Alexius returned to Constantinople he decided that his debt had been paid and he owed nothing more to the pilgrims. The pilgrims recognized the emperors actions as wicked ‘Greek treachery’ sending out envoys to the emperor, among which Geoffrey was part, stating they would be very pleased if the emperor decided to pay back but “if you do not do so you should know that from this time forward they [the pilgrims] will not regard you as their lord or as their friend. Instead they will recover what is owed them by whatever means necessary” (p. 56-57). The Emperor was outraged and the envoys barely made it out of the palace alive, so war began anew.

Geoffrey once again mentions the Venetians grand victories on the sea, their ability to divert Greek attacks and use them against their enemy as they had done by sending burning galleys back up stream at the Greeks. This fighting apparently went on for a long time into winter (p. 58). A Greek highly regarded by the Emperor, named Mourtzouphlus, decided to betray Alexius by sneaking into his bedchamber at night to imprison him. When the emperor Isaac heard about this he fell ill and died. Mourtzouphlus took the crown for himself and shortly after he strangled Alexius spreading word that the emperor died of natural causes, following with an honorable burial and display of grief (p. 59).

The barons decided to besiege Constantinople nonetheless since the new ruler was in no position to hold lands as he acquired them through murder, and more so the Greeks were no longer under Roman authority (p. 60). Thus the second siege of Constantinople was under way. On the twelfth of April 1204, after many battles with Mourtzouphlus and with much help from the Venetian ships, the pilgrims succeeded in taking the city of Constantinople (p. 66). Mourtzouphlus fled the city and once more fire lit the skies of Constantinople, again with nobody around to blame; as noted by Geoffrey this being the third time Constantinople was on fire since the arrival of the Franks (p. 66).

Agreements had been made prior to the siege of how the new emperor was to be elected and any booty acquired distributed. The agreement between the Venetians and the Franks was that if they were successful in entering the city, “all the booty seized should be gathered together and then shared among the entire force, as was fitting….six Frenchmen and six Venetians would be chosen who would…elect as emperor the man they believed would be of greatest benefit to the land. The man made emperor…would receive one quarter of all their conquests both inside and outside the city, and would have the palaces of Bocoleon and Blachernae. The remaining three-quarters of their conquest would be divided equally, half going to the Venetians and half to the people of the army. Twelve of the wisest men from the pilgrim army and twelve from the Venetians would be chosen who would then distribute fiefs and possessions among the men, determining what service each of them owed to the emperor” (p. 62-63).

It was also agreed that anyone who wished to leave the service after one year was free to do so (p. 63). This seems fair since the Venetians played as big a role in the crusade as did the pilgrims. After the siege a council met and chose Count Baldwin and Marquis Boniface as the candidates for new emperor, in order not to arouse the jealousy of either one the council decided that whoever was elected should give the other all the lands located on the other side of the straights as well as the island of Greece (p. 69). Baldwin was elected emperor and the marquis became the emperor’s vassal.

During this time the pilgrims struggled to keep the army alive and continued to sack Greek cities. The pilgrims were not in a good position as they were surrounded on all sides by bitter Greeks and were fighting among themselves for possession of land. Even the marquis, who had received a great deal of land, had to be persuaded into staying by being granted the city of Salonika which he wanted in exchange for the lands agreed to previously (p. 71). This Baldwin did grant, but later on did not listen to the marquis when asked to stay behind, letting the marquis arrive in his lands unaccompanied by the emperor (p. 74). This resulted in the marquis defying the emperor and taking some of the emperor’s lands including Demotika and Adrianople, over which the emperor was enraged (p. 74-78). In turn the marquis was put in a bad position along with all the pilgrims causing discord and the ‘taking of sides’ among the army. Already there are factions forming based on loyalty to the immediate lord and one’s own homeland, or monetary and geographical gain.

Overall there were many problems for the new Latin Empire, among which was disagreement and infighting within the pilgrim ranks, and opposition and betrayal by the apparently loyal Greeks. Many Greeks defied their new lord rebelling and fighting back such as Sgouros, Michael of Arta, Theodore Lascarus , as well as Johanista, the king of Vlachia, setting out on campaigns into the new empire (p. 81, 84, 90). The pilgrims faced staunch opposition with dwindling resources from the ravaged towns, they simply did not have the manpower to run the new empire, and to the Greeks who looked for every opportunity to rebel they were unwelcomed trespassers.

A great weakness of the Latin Empire was its unpopularity with the Greeks which evoked many betrayals. The first instance of this was the rise of Greek strongmen after the fall of Constantinople. These included Sgouros (p. 81), holder of Corinth and Nauplia, Michael (p. 81), who held the city of Arta, and Theodore Lascarus (p. 84), who, out of all, had the best claim by being married to a daughter in the royal line and held the lands beyond the straights. All these strongmen contributed to the problem of stretching the manpower of the new empire beyond breaking point, thus any defeat suffered by them could lead to disaster for the Latin Empire. Another instance of Latin unpopularity with the Greeks was the Greeks betrayal by involvement with the Johanista, king of Vlachia and Bulgaria. The Greeks made a pact with king Johanista that they would make him emperor if he would help regain lands that were lost from the conquests made by the pilgrims and the Venetians (p. 90). The new empire now faced enemies on almost all of its fronts.

The Latin Empire, which although had a good organizational structure, proved to be impractical when trying to rule the territories of Constantinople and the surrounding areas. Problems of man power and a large opposition force compounded to make the Empire very weak and based on shaky ground. While trying to control the provinces that surrounded Constantinople, the armies of crusaders were faced with one enemy after another, sometimes striking at the same time, thus contributing to the many losses of territory. Yet it should be noted that many battles were won by the Latin armies and despite such opposition, the Latin Empire still held out for a number of years. This could be contributed to the unity of the crusaders and the fragmentation of their opposition, because of the number of Greek strongmen and the opposition of local natives, such as the Armenians, who wanted freedom from Greek control. Thus, even with the odds staked against them, the crusaders were not only able to take control of Constantinople, but also remain an Empire for a number of years.

It seems from Geoffrey’s account of the conquest that nothing would be possible if not for the Venetian ships and Enrico Dandolo. The Venetians were the life blood of the whole crusade dutifully helping their brothers in Christ while the pilgrims were rightly justified in the siege both times, each time because the emperor did not deserve the throne. Alexius had come to them for help, which they most graciously provided, and afterword expected nothing more than to be repaid for their exemplary service on which the emperor defaulted. The pilgrims were simply taking the only opportunity to go ahead with their expedition, in which after all Geoffrey had himself secured the plans for and no doubt hoped everything would go smoothly. In other words, there was no other choice for the pilgrims, according to Geoffrey.