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... 67 De morte Peregrini by Lucian of Samosata32), and also by the Christian writers themselves (e.g., Minucius Felix33 34). However, various groups of Docetism tried to deny or make mannerly the scandal of the Cross. In a narrow sense we name this heretic movement Docetism, according to which Jesus was subject to birth, tiredness, thirst, hunger, suffering or death only seemingly. Consequently, his body was not a real one, but only a form of apparition of a phantom-like being. In a wider sense it is also a kind of Docetism which said that only the earthly Jesus was subject to suffering, but the heavenly Christ, who descended on him, was not. Some version of Docetism is characteristic of almost all Gnostic groups. One of their typical narratives can be found in Acta IohannisM. In this peculiar story Apostle John is unable to tolerate the sight of crucifixion; he flees to the Mount of Olives and hides in a cave. Here the voice of the invisible Lord talks to him and enlightens him that the mob in Jerusalem is badly mistaken because they think that a real crucifixion is taking place in front of them. Another representative of Docetism, Cerinthus35 held the opinion that the heavenly Christ, who had descended in a form of dove on Jesus while he was being baptized in the Jordan, abandoned him when he was hanging on the cross. Consequently, only the person of Jesus was suffering, and not the heavenly Christ himself. Actually, Cerinthus says that Christ could not have been touched by earthly suffering, because his pneumatic character guaranteed his impassibility. The Ophites had a similar opinion. In the account of Irenaeus, some Valentinians were talking about not two persons in connection with the Savour, but four entities, and this way they tried to keep the divine component of Ztmf\p even more distant from suffering.36 Irenaeus proves the inner inconsistencies of the Gnostic systems; while they professed the impassibility of the divine nature of Christ, they nevertheless maintained that the aeons, which were regarded also divine by them, were subject to passions.37 The bishop of Lyons38 found particularly inconsistent the Va- lentinian idea that the ‘Father of AH’, who is living in the divine nArjpmpa, was free of passions, but at the same time Xocpia, who is an equally divine aeon, is subject to an irresistible passion which compels her to become united to him.39 The result of the struggle against Docetism was that the function of God’s impassibility became clearer. In the opinion of the followers of Docetism it rendered any kind of divine intervention in the created world impossible. The Or32 De morte Peregrini, 11-16. 33 Octavius, 9, 3. 34 Acta Iohannis, 97-99. 35 Cf. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, I. 26, I. 36 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, I. 1,7-8. 37 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, II. 13, 3. 38 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, II. 17, 6-7. 39 Cf. Gavrilyuk, P. L., The Suffering of the Impassible God, 64-87.
