Channels, Fall 2016

Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 7 Christians transcends the torments of lust. Furthermore, the Christian God is not subject to anxiety or in need of help from another. This contrast is given more clarity and force when one perceives that these desires are spoken of as something almost external to a person and thus something that can override a person. This contrast indicates that God’s impassibility is implicitly tied to the idea that he cannot be forced into acting by anything other than himself. God will not and cannot be overridden by external forces. Justin’s connection between the impassibility of God and his freedom from the “external forces” of lust and anxiety points to the self-sufficiency of God. The Christian God is fully capable of accomplishing his purposes and is self-directed in his actions and concerns. He is the transcendent creator of all, and indictments against his self-mastery and complete sovereignty must be rejected. Justin thus defends the transcendence of God by denying what he is not and implicitly asserting God’s self-sufficiency. This apophatic defense of God’s transcendence and self-sufficiency is a far cry from describing God as static and emotionlessness, especially in the context of Justin’s larger apophatic tendencies. He has simply denied that God can be mastered by lusts, but he has not denied the use of any emotionally colored terms to describe God. 37 This assessment is supported by other passages that indicate that he does “not wish to deny . . . God’s providential goodness and love.” 38 Only a couple of chapters after describing God as impassible, Justin insists that God does care for men, matters of salvation, and vice and virtue. 39 He explicitly rejects a concept of God as static or uncaring by denying that God can exist “like a stone.” 40 In Chapter 37 of The First Apology , Justin cites (without qualification) a passage describing God as hating something. Thus, while describing God as impassible, he allows for emotionally colored descriptions such as love, caring, and hatred. These mitigating passages make it clear that while God is transcendent and in some ways distant from us, he is still aware of and involved in the world he created. Justin seems to be describing God in a way that prohibits domineering lusts while allowing for God to have real, emotionally colored dispositions towards certain things or people. Justin also utilizes the concept of impassibility as a moral qualifier. God is not simply ontologically superior to the Greek gods because of his independence from lustful passions; he is morally superior because of his perfect righteousness. God’s righteousness is something that Justin repeatedly declares throughout his works. He describes God as “the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity.” 41 This emphasis seems to carry over into his previously quoted ascription of impassibility. God is distinguished from the pagan deities by not falling prey to foul lusts. This tie between righteousness and control over the passions is not merely limited to God; this is a description given to the righteous followers of God as well, although with a slightly different nuance. Justin describes those who understand the import of the prophecies of Christ and believe in him as “those who embrace the truth, and are not bigoted in their 37 This fits with our earlier assessment of the emphasis on strong lusts or passions inherent in the term απαθης. 38 Weinandy, Does God Suffer? 86. 39 Justin Martyr, The First Apology, 28 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid, 6.