Does God Need or Require Humanity?

 The question of whether God "needs" humanity involves a deep tension between classical Christian dogmatics and modern relational or process theologies. Traditionally, the consensus of theistic philosophy—rooted in the works of Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas—is that God is "a se" (of Himself), possessing the attribute of aseity. This means God is entirely self-sufficient, underived, and independent of the created order. However, certain modern theological movements and specific interpretations of the Incarnation suggest a "voluntary need" or a "divine vulnerability" that complicates this absolute independence.

The Doctrine of Divine Aseity and Self-Sufficiency

The primary reason most theologians argue that God does not need us is the attribute of aseity. Derived from the Latin a se ("from himself"), aseity dictates that God contains the reason for His own existence within His own nature. In his seminal work None Greater: The Undomesticated Attributes of God, Matthew Barrett argues that if God were dependent on anything outside of Himself for His happiness, power, or existence, He would cease to be the Supreme Being. If God created the world because He was "lonely," it would imply a deficiency in the divine nature that only a creature could fill, effectively making the creature the "completer" of the Creator.

Historically, the Westminster Shorter Catechism and other Reformed standards emphasize that God is "infinite, eternal, and unchangeable" in His being, implying that His glory is intrinsic and not augmented by human worship. St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, posits that God is Actus Purus (Pure Act), meaning there is no "potentiality" in Him to be improved or fulfilled by external factors. From this perspective, creation is an act of sheer grace and "overflowing" bounty rather than a response to a divine void.

Why Some Believe God "Needs" Us: The Argument from Love

Despite the classical position, many contemporary believers and some theologians argue for a form of divine need based on the nature of love. The core of this argument is that "to love is to be vulnerable." If God is defined essentially as Love (1 John 4:8), then a relationship with humanity cannot be a mere one-sided performance.

1. The Vulnerability of the Incarnation: Proponents of this view, such as Sarah Otto, point to the Nativity as evidence. A baby is "utterly dependent" on caregivers. In the person of Jesus, God chose to need Mary for nourishment and Joseph for protection. This "voluntary dependence" suggests that God values human agency so highly that He allows His plans to be contingent upon a human "yes."
2. Co-Laboring and Participation: Ignatian spirituality and "Process Theology" emphasize that God is not a static observer but a "co-laborer." In this framework, God "needs" us to be His hands and feet in the world to achieve justice and mercy. While God may have the power to act alone, He has "bound" Himself to work through human instruments.
3. The Relational Necessity: Some argue that while God does not have an ontological need (a need to exist), He has a teleological or relational need. C.S. Lewis explored this in The Four Loves, suggesting that while God is "Love Himself," the creation of "Need-pleasures" in humans allows for a specific type of glory that God desires to share.

The Complex Ideology of "Voluntary Need"

The belief that God needs us often stems from a desire to emphasize human dignity and the seriousness of the "Great Commission." If God can do everything without us, human effort can feel redundant. By stating "God needs you," preachers often attempt to instill a sense of urgency and purpose.

However, scholars like Michael Horton warn that this can lead to a "pathetic" view of God—a deity who is "weak" and "needy" like a pagan idol. Isaiah 40 and 44 mock gods that must be carried or fashioned by human hands, contrasting them with the Lord who "gives to all mankind life and breath and everything" (Acts 17:25). The "need" felt by humans is often a projection of human psychology onto the divine. As Scott Hubbard notes, humans are "spirits fastened to flesh and bone" and are designed to need food, sleep, and friendship; we often mistake our design for God's nature.

Synthesis: Desire vs. Necessity

The most balanced theological approach distinguishes between necessity and desire. Most authoritative texts conclude that God has no essential need for humanity but possesses a profound desire for fellowship. This distinction preserves God's sovereignty (He is not forced to love us) while upholding the intimacy of the relationship (He chooses to love us). As Asaph writes in Psalm 73:25, "Earth has nothing I desire besides you," reflecting that while humans find their sum in God, God finds His fullness in Himself.

Because of this last statement, Let Us Visit God:

“God is infinite in relation to time. We can call this God’s eternity. He is without beginning and without end (Psalm 90:2; 1 Tim. 1:17). Unlike all created things, God has no origin and no starting point. There was never a time when God was not. God has always been God and has always been, even before there was matter, a universe, or time as we understand it. Our God is Jehovan El Olam, the Everlasting God (Gen. 21:33).” (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/theological-primer-divine-infinity/)

Just for a second, let us suppose we can ever comprehend what eternity past even means; I mean, think about this when you say eternity means 'forever'. Let me ask you a less complicated question; If I put you 20 feet from a concrete wall that will never move, and I tell you to mathematically move half the distance (to 10 feet, right?) then move half that distance again, (5 feet right?) and keep doing that over and over again, will you ever mathematically reach that wall? The obvious answer is NO. It is one of those infinite questions, for even if you halve that distance forever, you will never reach that wall, within the truth of the question.

So, in fact, God has existed absolutely forever, which is a concept no human can actually understand! So we try, no, strive, to make God more understandable in our eyes, we try to make Him more human and in need of the same things we need. But, then most of you most likely don't even grasp the so-called “Three O's of God”: Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent. And even these words can not help my mind, or yours, to fully comprehend God.

My thought is this; and it is quite simple really, if we have been in this universe for roughly the 6000 years of the Bible, or we have been here the roughly 8 to 12 billion years of science, and we say God was here infinitely before all of this took place, and we ascribe a number such as small as 1x10 to the 32 power; 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 before creation even occurred then we have to ask ourselves if God really needed anything, or anybody, or love, or any of the human garbage that makes no sense to an Infinite God, then why did He not do it before the time that He did?

Folks, this is God's Business and not ours, exactly that simple.

Also, remember the number event above? An infinite number is 1x10 to the sign of infinity, a sideways eight. And if it were written down, the number of zeros needed would fill this entire universe and still never end. Think about an Infinite God now?