Channels, Fall 2016

Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 11 this point later when he states, “Either they are gods, then, and neither would they yield to gold . . . (for the divine needs nothing and is above all desire 63 ), nor would they die. Or they are men, and wicked because of their ignorance and incapable of resisting money.” 64 Here again we find that denying passions is directly concerned with denying some created thing exerting control over the self-sufficient divine nature. Athenagoras’ uses his strongest language when he is contrasting the Biblical God with the Homeric gods. His statement that God does not possess anger or desire is set against the backdrop of a pantheon that will murder and commit adultery to satisfy their twisted desires. Athenagoras’ seems to have a narrower view of what emotionally colored terms can be ascribed to God than Justin does. However, he clearly posits the impassibility of God with the goal of describing him in a way that preserves his incorruptibility and ensures that the sovereign creator will not be overwhelmed by impulses arising from an external state. This is distinct from a detached, uncaring view of God. 65 We must conclude our study of Athenagoras by noting that he also applies the descriptor “impassible” to Christians after death. He states that we shall live a heavenly life in which we will “remain changeless and impassible in soul as though we were not body, even if we have one, but heavenly spirit.” 66 While he clearly does not attribute impassibility to created humans in the same way as he attributes it to the uncreated God, this use of απαθης cannot be ignored. In this context, Athenagoras is likely focusing on the “free from suffering” aspect of απαθης. This interpretation is substantiated by the context: he immediately follows this description of the blessed eternal life of the Christian with a description of the punished life suffered by unbelievers in the realms of fire. 67 This appears to be significantly narrower than, and distinct from, Athenagoras’ concept of divine impassibility. This is to be expected; Athenagoras ties divine impassibility to the uncreated nature of God, which implies that human impassibility is something that must be distinct from that. However, an interesting note is that Athenagoras continues the trend of connecting immutability to impassibility even in this distinct usage of the term. 63 The word for desire here επιθυμια is a strong word that can also mean lust and is translated by Weinandy as “carnal desire” in his treatment of this passage. See Weinandy, Does God Suffer? 88. 64 Athenagoras, Legatio , 29, 3. 65 This nuanced understanding of Athenagoras can be further substantiated by a comparison between him and Theophilus of Antioch. Theophilus does not directly describe God as impassible, but he does describe God with apophatic clusters of terms that are strikingly similar to Athenagoras. (On this point, see Weinandy, Does God Suffer? 89). Mozley notes that his description of God’s impassibility would have allowed him to describe God as απαθης (See Mozley, The Impassibility of God, 14). However, Theophilus also states that God is active, and even describes him as angry. This correlation of similar apophatic qualifiers with emotionally colored terms indicates that our interpretation of Athenagoras is plausible and consistent with the use of language among the apologists. 66 Athenagoras, Legatio, 31, 3. 67 This can be further substantiated by the fact that he describes resurrection bodies specifically as impassible in Athenagoras, On the Resurrection, 9. Incapable of or free from suffering seems to best fit both of these instances. This understanding of απαθης in these instances appears to be supported by Lambe’s A Patristic Greek English Lexicon, 171.