Channels, Fall 2016
Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 3 emotions to a more specific denial of strong passions or lusts. The emphasis upon strong passions or lusts suggested by παθος is of particular significance for this article. This understanding of the term’s range is supported by the lexical definition of απαθεια, which is described by Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon as including the ideas of insensibility, freedom from emotion, and mastery over the passions. 11 These considerations clearly cross-apply to the adjectival form of the word απαθης and allow us to understand απαθης as a qualifier indicating a negation of παθος in the noun it is modifying. The term’s flexibility is further supported by its probable origin as a specialized term in the early Grecian fathers’ works. The usage of απαθεια as a technical term mostly likely arose from Stoic moral philosophy. 12 Scholars then and now debate whether this term was used by the Stoics to indicate the elimination of the passions, mastery over the passions, or some mixture of the two. 13 This picture is further complicated by the fact that many Stoics also recognized the existence of ευρηθεια: good or “‘rational emotions’ such as joy, wishfulness, and a sense of precaution.” 14 This indicates that even the Stoics did not necessarily intend to advocate complete emotionlessness when they used the term απαθεια. If scholars are correct in tracing this term back to a Stoic root, this ambiguity should cause us to expand the range of meanings we consider when examine the fathers’ views of impassibility. This conclusion of flexibility is enhanced by the way the fathers tended to use philosophical terminology. As noted by Gerald Bray, “abstract theoretical terms were interpreted to suit the requirements of the biblical revelation.” 15 Thus, we must be careful not to assume a direct, one-to-one correspondence between the patristic usage of the term and philosophical Greek usage of the term. Furthermore, we must recognize the difference between the concept and the terms involved. The lexical flex and philosophical background of the terms involved are important, but a faithful and honest reading of their texts must shape our understanding of impassibility in the fathers’ works. A valid specific understanding of the larger concept cannot be assumed; it must be established by studying the fathers’ specific comments and the related concepts. The lexical dimensions of the term provide basic boundaries for the concept of impassibility and indicate that impassibility is not immediately synonymous with emotionlessness. Philosophical Backgrounds While the contemporary theological community has had a tendency to discount many patristic theologians as mere philosophical Hellenizers, current patristic scholarship forces us to take a much more nuanced view. Scholars have come to respect many of these early theologians as faithful Christians using existing philosophical terminology, and we will see 11 Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon , 170-171. 12 On this point, see Castelo The Apatheic God, 44-46 and Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God, 27-29; specifically in Justin, see Thorsteinsson, “Justin and Stoic Cosmo-Theology,” 544-545. It is also important to note that while the technical term came from Stoicism, conceptual influences can come from a variety of sources. 13 Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God, 27. He further notes that Rist has argued that the definition of παθη is not always entirely clear as well, as noted above. 14 Castelo, The Apathetic God, 45. 15 Bray, God Has Spoken, 986
Made with FlippingBook
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=