Folia Theologica et Canonica 4. 26/18 (2015)
SACRA THEOLOGIA - László Perendy, God’s impassibility and His compassio in Chrisin the patristic tradition
GOD S IMPASSIBILITY AND HIS COMPASSICI IN CHRIST... 63 As to Hellenism in general, we should not forget the mystery cults, either, which also belonged to the environment of early Christianity. We can find in them several narratives about the sufferings of gods, e.g., in the myths about Osiris, Kore, Dionysus, and Orpheus. Christian authors had to take into account also these myths when they were inteipreting the Christian revelation to the contemporary world.5 In connection with the statements of Harnack and his followers we have to examine thoroughly the biblical passages where we read about God’s emotional manifestations. It can take us as a surprise that the Bible attributes much more sorts of emotions to God than what we can find in the philosophical reflections about divine beings in the Hellenized world. Some of them are the following: charity, compassion, mercy, endurance, anger, hatred, envy, sadness, and joy. All of these expressions, however, serve the purpose to demonstrate in what personal way God concerns himself about his creatures. For example his loving kindness never means that he would become dependent on the person whom he loves. His anger manifests itself in connection with the sins and the revolt of human beings, and it is connected closely to his judgement. However, his anger never overcomes him. All of his emotions are tightly under his control. The Bible always emphasizes that God’s emotions never endanger his holiness and his rule over history. In several cases he acts through mediators, which also stresses his transcendence. The Bible always lays particular stress on the statement that the God of Israel is a living God, but the idols are dead. He is not subject to death, in contrast e.g. to the Western Semitic god of fertility, Tammuz, who is said to suffer, die, and rise again periodically. There are numerous biblical passages which formulate seemingly inconsistent statements about God’s immutability and his immunity from suffering. For example God sometimes regrets what he has done (e.g., Gen. 6:5-7, Exod. 32:12-14, etc.), in other passages he is said to be unable to do so (e.g., Num. 23:19, Ps. 90:13 etc.). Gavrilyuk lists also other passages which seem to be inconsistent, but at the same time he calls our attention also to the fact that all of these should be interpreted inside the framework of the narrative in question. It is also important to see that these passages have nothing to do with the tensions between the Hebrew and Greek ways of thinking.6 It is also obvious that the Bible itself is struggling against the manifestations of anthropomorphism, especially when it forbids God’s visual representation. In the case of the translators this tendency can be observed even to a larger extent. In a contribution by Charles Theodore Fritsch7 numerous examples are 5 Gavrilyuk, P. L., The Suffering of the Impassible God, 23-36. 6 Gavrilyuk, P. L., The Suffering of the Impassible God, 37-38. 7 Fritsch. C. T., The Anti-anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch, Princeton 1943.
