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... 71 vinity. However, this does not mean that he would have distanced himself from Christ’s human experiences. Actually, exactly that made it possible that human nature participated freely from experiences to which otherwise he would have been subject against his own will. It was in this way that Aôyoç destroyed the nádri of the body, among them sin and death, and he restored the original incorruptibility of human nature.60 There is one more heresy that we are going to discuss: Nestorianism. In modern age it is often treated in a biased way. However, we can try to approach Nestorianism also from the perspective of God’s impassibility. The sources quite clearly demonstrate that the most important effort of Theodoras of Mop- suestia and Nestorius was to preserve God’s impassibility. Nestorius maintained the existence of two npóocona in Christ and their loose connectedness (ovvá- cpeicc), denying unification (ëvœcnç) between them, because he wanted to ‘defend’ God’s impassibility. Against him Cyril of Alexandria based his own Christo- logy on the concept of Kévœcnç of St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. The Divine Aôyoç is one single person, who with his free choice took upon himself the barriers of human existence. Several writings of Nestorius and his followers (e.g., Ad Cyrillum, Liber Heraclidis) prove that the most important charge against Cyril was that of deonádeia. Referring to Athanasius61, Cyril explained that the Divine Verb took upon himself our human nature, and he made our sufferings, our ignorance, our fears, and our death his own ( iSia). For Athanasius the key concepts are iSiononjcnç and oîkeîcooiç. If this act of the Aôyoç had failed to materialize, Saint Paul's concept of Kévcooiç would have become empty.62 Distancing himself from Apollinarianism sharply, Cyril emphasizes that without a human soul Christ would not have been able to experience fear and pain, which demonstrate the barriers of our human existence in an eminent way. The lack of this experience would have made our redemption impossible. Like Gregory of Nyssa, and unlike the Stoics, who regarded all the nádri as the diseases of the soul, Cyril distinguishes between the not sinful nádri which belong to human soul inseparably and the sinful desires.63 The Aôyoç did not experience the sinful longings, but, as a result of his free decision, he controlled the first ones (e.g., the fear of death), so he did not let them overpower his human nature. God reinforced the body in the time of trial and also taught him how to resist temptations. The presence of the Verb in Christ secured that the nádri which had been tolerated because of the frailty of human nature under compulsion, in Christ became activities undertaken voluntarily. 60 Gavrilyuk, P.L., The Suffering of the Impassible God, 133-134. 61 In this respect Cyril highly appreciates Epistula ad Epictetum of Athanasius. 62 Ad augustas, 8. 63 In loannem, 8
