Channels, Fall 2016

Page 14 Little • Emotions and the Divine Nature erred by applying human descriptions to God far too readily. God is above the thoughts of men. 86 For Irenaeus, God is above the thoughts of men in two ways. First, God’s affections, thoughts, and experiences are simply different from ours. He is the uncreated, transcendent God and the source of all other things. We do him and ourselves a great disservice to straightforwardly anthropomorphize him. This distance between man and God is increased by the understanding that God is a simple whole and not a conglomeration or list of attributes. His character and powers cannot be truly divided. Second, God is above the thoughts of men in a more linguistic sense: our understanding of him transcends the expressions we use to describe him. The language and descriptors that men apply to God cannot completely capture who he is. We should note that Irenaeus does allow for meaningful descriptions of God, but he qualifies such description as helpful but incomplete. Converting the divine being into a conglomeration of mental properties and affections is abhorrent to Irenaeus, and he responds with a strong apophatic statement cautioning against such descriptions of God. Irenaeus’ first statement of God’s impassibility is thus a highly apophatic statement and is grounded in the conviction that the Gnostics have erred by applying overly human descriptors to God. Irenaeus expands upon these points (and adds new considerations) as he continues to wrestle with the Gnostic tendency to attribute passions to some of the younger Aeons. 87 Irenaeus further insists upon the impassibility of God in two primary ways. First, he ties impassibility directly to the uncreated nature of God, stating, “For the Father of all ought not to be counted with other productions; He who was not produced with that which was produced; He who was unbegotten with that which was born; He whom no one comprehends with that which is comprehended by Him, and who is on this account [Himself] incomprehensible; and He who is without figure with that which has a definite shape. For inasmuch as He is superior to the rest, He ought not to be numbered with them, and that so that He is impassible and not in error should be reckoned with an Aeon subject to passion, and actually in error.” 88 Within this passage, Irenaeus repeatedly makes a marked distinction between God the Father and the Aeons, who the Gnostics claimed proceed from Him. He contends that the Aeons should not be counted as divine. The creator God cannot be conflated with the things that are created; a pleroma of beings temporally proceeding from each other cannot all be God. Irenaeus then moves to reaffirming the impassibility of the uncreated God. The unbegotten, uncreated God who comprehends all but is not fully comprehended by his creation cannot be described with merely human passions, especially not passions which 86 The claim that they would know God is above men specifically if they had looked to the Scriptures provides another interesting counterpoint to the claim that impassibility is driven by the over-reach of Greek influence. 87 These assessments of anthropomorphisms are not a direct commentary upon Biblical anthropomorphisms. However, Irenaeus’ remarks in this passage seems to suggest that Biblical anthropomorphisms should be taken as telling us something about God while not necessarily being interpreted in a literal manner. 88 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.12.1