Channels, Fall 2016

Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 17 Conclusion G. L. Prestige, in his book God in Patristic Thought, has summarized the early fathers’ understanding of impassibility as follows: “It is clear that impassibility means not that God is inactive or uninterested, . . . but that his will is determined from within instead of being swayed from without.” 102 Our study seems to have demonstrated this to be correct. But we are now in a position to expand upon this statement. Our studies of impassibility lead us to five generally shared concepts among Irenaeus and the Greek apologists. 103 First, in all of the thinkers we have examined, divine impassibility has been asserted as an apophatic statement. It has been declared primarily as what God is not rather than what God is. Furthermore, most of these apophatic statements have occurred in similar contexts. They have been made primarily when these theologians demonstrate the large difference between the Christian God and the gods of either the Homeric deities or the heretics. The apologists strongly declared that God is not overmastered by shameful lusts or led astray by debilitating desires. This element is a strong feature of all the thinkers we have discussed, but it is most pronounced in the writings of Justin Martyr. Second, God’s impassibility was used to defend his virtuousness. This is most obvious in Justin Martyr and Athenagoras’ assertion of impassibility contra the Greek gods, but it also comes through in Irenaeus’ connection between perfection and impassibility. The Christian God is not a God who rapes or murders; he is not a God who is consumed by lust or greed. He is above these sensual and corrupt passions, and he calls his followers to abandon such corrupt passions as well. Third, these assertions of impassibility have been concerned with distinguishing the creator God from his creation. This aspect of impassibility can be discerned in all of the thinkers we have examined, but it is clearer in Athenagoras’ writing and is most pronounced in Irenaeus’. These thinkers hold that the creator of all cannot be directly described in purely anthropomorphic terms. The creator of changing matter cannot be subject to the same shifting emotions experienced by his creation. This concern has also been tied to God’s self-sufficiency and simplicity. The self-sufficient God does not feel anxious or struggle with fulfilling his purposes. Fourth, this understanding of impassibility is closely tied to a belief in God’s immutability. The Scriptures made it clear to these thinkers that God was immutable. He does not change his mind or fluctuate in the face of changing passions. This can be seen in both Athenagoras’ and Irenaeus’ writings, but it reaches its fullest understanding in Irenaeus’ writing. The unchanging God cannot be subject to the fickleness of ordinary human 102 Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 7. 103 This is not meant to imply that the fathers we have studied have all held to the same position. However, our study of impassibility has made it clear that there are significant similarities between these thinkers and it these similarities that shall conclude our discussion. As noted at the beginning of the paper, these conclusions are provisional. Our understanding of the early conception of impassibility would benefit from further in-depth study of each of these thinkers and an examination of impassibility in related influential Greek fathers.