Athanasius and His Doctrine of Divinization
By Michael D. Morrison
Copyright 1993 Michael D. Morrison
Smashwords Edition
Thank you for downloading this free e-book. Although there is no charge for this document, it remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download their own copy at smashwords.com, where they can also discover other works by this author. Thank you for your support.
Table of Contents
Athanasius's Doctrine of Divinization
Appendix 1: The Theological Legacy of Athanasius
Appendix 2: Fact Sheet on Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria
Appendix 3: The Teachings of Arius
Athanasius' Doctrine of Divinization
The Word “was made man so that we might be made God” (Athanasius, De Inc 54.3; Robertson 65). What did Athanasius mean when he used the word theopoieō? Literally, this word means “to make God” or, more politely, “to make divine.” But can humans be made God?
Even though the Arian controversy was, at a fundamental level, about whether a spirit being (in this case, the Logos) could be made divine, Athanasius used the word theopoieō casually, seemingly with little thought for the potential it had to contradict his main argument. If mortal humans can be made God, why couldn’t the Word himself be made a God? “For Arius, Jesus…becomes God only in the way that every saint may be deified” (Rusch 17).
Despite the potential for confused concepts, Athanasius did not take time or space to explain what he meant by the word theopoieō. He took it for granted that his readers knew what he meant, and that they agreed with this doctrine. The Arians must have agreed with it, too, because Athanasius could use it as the starting point for an argument: “For man had not been deified if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very God” (Orat 2.70; Robertson 386). “If, by a partakability of the Spirit we shall become partakers of the divine nature, it would be madness then afterwards to call the Spirit an originated entity, and not of God; for on account of this also those who are in him are made divine. But then if he makes man divine, it is not dubious to say his nature is of God” (Ad Serap 1.24; Egan 161-162).
Background of Athanasius’s doctrine
Athanasius could use this concept because it was part of his cultural background. The Greek moralists and ancient mysteries taught that a person may be deified by contemplating the eternal and eliminating the sensuous (Harnack 2:10, 337). Since the Greeks considered some of their “gods” to be of human origin, it was not strange to think of a theopoiēsis. Platonists, Stoics, and Cynics all spoke of something divine within humans (ibid., 1:119). Plotinus taught that purification led to deification (González 349).
Since many early Christians were influenced by Plotinus and NeoPlatonism, divinization found its way into Christianity with the support of Psalm 86:6 and 2 Peter 1:4. This was aided by the “elasticity of the concept ‘theos’” (Harnack 1:119) – Origen could speak of many supernatural theoi (Rusch 15). The term theopoieō was simply not well defined. Divinization was never “adequately defined in the creeds and dogmas of the church” (Pelikan 2:34). “Clarification of the term ‘deification’ had to await the resolution of the conflict over the deity of Christ” (ibid. 1:155). [Note: I do not think that the term was ever fully clarified. Athanasius clarified it somewhat, but then the concept was changed by Dionysian mysticism (Pelikan 1:345).] The concept did not “really mean anything, for it was impossible to understand it in any serious sense” (Harnack 4:290).
Pelikan points out a problem: “The church could not specify what it meant to promise that man would become divine until it had specified what it meant to confess that Christ had always been divine” (1:155). In orthodox theology, they cannot be divine in the same way. “The idea of deification in the Greek fathers had run the danger of obscuring the distinction between Creator and creature” (ibid. 1:345). “Some Fathers feel the boldness of the formula; but that is very rare” (Harnack 3:164).
Despite its vagueness, the concept was widely known and used and believed. “The definition of the salvation of man as his deification was a standard element of Eastern theology” (Pelikan 2:46). “After Theophilus, Ireneaeus, Hippolytus, and Origen, it is found in all the Fathers of the ancient Church” (Harnack 3:164 note 2, which also cites passages from Ephraem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Apollonarius, Macarius, Pseudo-Hippolytus, Dionysus the Areopagite, Sophronius, Leo of Russia, and Gennadius. Lampe (631) includes most of the above and Maxentius, Basil, Cyril, and Epiphanius.
Athanasius was working with a widespread but loosely-defined tradition with roots in pre-Christian philosophy. Irenaeus mentioned the concept several times, with only brief explanation (evidence that he assumed that his readers were familiar with the term). He noted that Christians could be called God: “There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption” (Against Heresies, book IV, preface, section 4; AnteNicene Fathers 1:463). We are human in the beginning, but “at length gods” (IV 38.4; ANF 1:522). We are raised up “to the life of God” (V 9.2; ANF 1:535).
In Alexandria, Clement wrote, “the Logos of God had become man so that you might learn from a man how a man may become God” (Prot 1.8.4; Pelikan 1:155). Origen connected the concept with union with God: “From Him [Christ] there began the union of the divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise to be divine” (Cels 3.28; ANF 4:475). “Identification with Christ would lift the believer through the human nature of Christ to union with his divine nature and thus with God and thus to deification” (Pelikan 1:155; Orat 27.13; Cels 3.28).
Athanasius qualifies the doctrine
In his use of this concept, Athanasius is closer to Irenaeus and Clement than to Origen (Robertson 65). In several places, echoing Clement, Athanasius said that Christ became human so that humans might become gods, or divine, or exalted. [Note: “The Word became man so that we might be deified” (De inc 54.3; Kelly 378). “The Word became flesh in order…that we, participating in His Spirit, might be deified” (De Decret 14; Kelly 377). “The Word of God…took a human body for the salvation and well-being of man, that having shared in human birth He might make man partake in the divine and spiritual nature” (Vita Ant 74; Robertson 215). “He himself has made us sons to the Father, and deified man, having become man himself…. Being God, he later became man, that instead he might deify us” (Orat 1.38-39; Rusch 101-102). “Being God, He [the Son] has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh deifies the flesh…. If that He might redeem mankind, the Word did come among us; and that He might hallow and deify them, the Word became flesh” (Orat 3.38-39; Robertson 414-415). “The Son of God became man so as to deify us in Himself” (Ad Adelph 4; Kelly 378; Letter 60.4). ] What did he mean? At least once he felt “the boldness of the formula” and clarified in his third treatise against the Arians: “To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.” “There be one Son by nature…we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, and yet called gods, not as the True God or His Word…. We are sons, not as the Son, as gods, not as He Himself” (Orat 3.19-20; Robertson 404-405). Similarly, in Orat 1.37 he briefly noted that we are children by grace, not by nature. We are like the Son “not in essence but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him” (De Syn 53; Robertson 479).
If we cannot be gods by nature or essence, in what way are we to be like God? “We are as God by imitation, not by nature” (Orat 3.20; Robertson 405). Jesus did not mean “that we might be as God,” but that we should imitate him (Orat 3.19; Robertson 404). “Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God” (Ad Afros 7; Robertson 492).
Immortality, incorruptibility, and impassibility
But imitation or moral virtue is only a minor aspect of theopoiēsis. More frequently Athanasius connects the concept with immortality and, in keeping with 2 Peter 1:4, incorruptibility and impassibility. These three concepts are frequently found together, but we can discuss them one at a time.
Athanasius connected immortality with divinization in several places: “As the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word…and henceforth inherit life everlasting” (Orat 3.34; Robertson 413). Because we partake of the divine nature, we will “reign everlastingly” (Orat 3.40; Robertson 415). After Christ’s resurrection from the dead, his “flesh had risen and put off its mortality and been deified” (Orat 3.48; Robertson 420). “Whereas what is human comes to an end, what is divine does not. For which reason also when we are dead…he raises us up” (Easter letter 29, fragment 2; Robertson 550). Harnack frequently mentions immortality as part of the concept; [Note: “The salvation presented in Christianity consists in the redemption of the human race from the state of mortality and the sin involved in it, that men might attain divine life…. The highest blessing bestowed in Christianity is adoption into the divine sonship, which…is completed in participation in the divine nature, or more accurately, in the deification of man through the gift of immortality… Theopoiēsis and athanasia [immortality] are often expressly combined” (3:164). “The apotheosis of mortal man through his acquisition of immortality (divine life) is the idea of salvation which was taught in the ancient mysteries. It is here adopted as a Christian one” (2:10-11). “The Greeks in the main did not connect any clear conception with the thought of the possession of salvation…further than the idea of imperishableness” (3:165 n. 2). “The highest blessing bestowed in Christianity is the deification of human nature through the gift of immortality” (2:240).] others also mention it. [Note: “The final goal and result of this saving knowledge, this forgiveness, and this rescue from death was ‘deification’ (theōsis)” (Pelikan 1:155). “Jesus can make us like God, which means, for Athanasius, make us immortal and give us eternal knowledge” (Rusch 23). “As the immortality that we have lost consisted in existence according to the Image of God, and was therefore an existence similar to that of God, the salvation that we now need is a sort of divinization (theopoiēsis)” (Gonzalez 297). “Baptism…is the sacrament of regeneration by which the divine image is renewed. The participant becomes an heir of eternal life, and the Father’s adoptive son” (Kelly 431).]
Athanasius also mentions incorruption as a result of divinization. Sometimes this means an incorruptible body, i.e., an immortal one, and sometimes it means one that is free from sin and its corruptions. Sometimes it is not clear which facet he has in mind. Here are passages in which the former seems to be meant: “The flesh, corruptible as it was, should no longer after its own nature remain mortal, but because of the Word who had put it on, should abide incorruptible. For as He, having come in our body, was conformed to our condition, so we, receiving Him, partake of the immortality that is from Him” (Orat 3.57; Robertson 425).
Divinization also produces an incorruptible mind: “By his dwelling in the flesh, sin might perfectly be expelled from the flesh, and we might have a free mind” (Orat 2.56; Robertson 378). “He let his own body suffer…and thenceforth the flesh might be made impassible and immortal…that henceforth men might for ever abide incorruptible, as a temple of the Word” (Orat 3.58; Robertson 425). Jesus Christ calls on humans “to direct their still existing freedom to obedience to the divine commandments, thereby restoring…freedom, so that humanity is thus rendered capable of receiving incorruptibility” (Harnack 2:271).
Closely associated with an incorruptible or sinless mind is the concept of impassibility or not feeling the (sinful) passions of the flesh. This has roots in pre-Christian philosophy. [Note: “The mind that has freed itself from the sensuous and lives in constant contemplation of the eternal is also in the end vouchsafed a view of the invisible and is itself deified” (Harnack 2:337). The Greeks “regarded the Gods as passionless, blessed men living forever” (ibid. 1:119). “The gift of immortality…includes…a blessedness devoid of suffering” (ibid. 3:164). Ascetics supposedly had “a foretaste of the future liberation from the senses and deification” (ibid. 3:166). ] To Origen and Clement, “the ethical and religious ideal is the state without sorrow, the state of insensibility to all evils…. The created spirit attains its likeness God and eternal bliss…by the victory over sensuousness” (ibid., 2:337-238).
Athanasius continued the concept: “The Word…‘carried’ my affections…and so I became free from them…. Men, their passions as if changed and abolished in the Impassible, henceforth become themselves impassible and free from them forever” (Orat 3.34; Robertson 412). “He let his own body suffer…and thenceforth the flesh might be made impassible and immortal” (Orat 3.58; Robertson 425). “The Lord became man…that He might Himself lighten these very sufferings of the flesh and free it from them” (Orat 3.56; Robertson 424). “We by his sufferings might put on freedom from suffering and incorruption, and abide unto life eternal” (Ad Max 4; Letter 61.4; Robertson 579).
Spiritual union with Christ
How is divinization achieved? Athanasius simply attributes it to the incarnation: “He deified men by Himself becoming man” (Orat 1.38; Kelly 378). “He deified that which He put on” (Orat 1.42; Robertson 331). “Being God, He [the Son] has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh deifies the flesh” (Orat 3.38; Robertson 414). Athanasius usually includes a qualifier or a conditional tense, but the above three quotes simply state it as fact that all humanity has been deified by the incarnation. Human identity has been altered by the fact that the Son of God was in union with humanity. The underlying assumption is that there has been some communication of properties, and this assumption is in accordance with Platonic thought. [Note: “Like Athanasius, too, [Gregory of Nyssa] translates the Biblical idea of solidarity into the language of Platonic realism. The whole of human nature, he claims, constitutes at it were a single living being” (Kelly 381, citing Or Cat 16). Cyril’s argument “was influenced by the Platonic realism which affected the thought of Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa. Human nature was treated as a generic whole, so that when the divine Word assumed it at the incarnation it could reasonably be said, ‘by virtue of the flesh united to Him, He has us all in Himself’” (ibid. 397, citing C Nest 1, In Ioh 1.14).]
Athanasius sometimes includes a qualifier on the concept of divinization: Only Christians are divinized. The Word has united himself with humanity, making divinization possible, but it is also necessary for individuals to unite themselves with divinity in a spiritual union. Athanasius’s “doctrine of the deification of the Christian in Christ…implies the mystical body. We are in Christ…for we have been united with God” (Pelikan 1:404, citing Orat 1.39; 2.69-70). Both Irenaeus and Origen discussed union with the divine. [Note: In Irenaeus, “the sole way in which immortality as a physical condition can be obtained is by its possessor uniting himself realiter with human nature, in order to deify it ‘by adoption’” (Harnack 2:241). In Origen, “identification with Christ would lift the believer through the human nature of Christ to union with his divine nature and thus with God and thus to deification” (Pelikan 1:155; citing Orat 27.13; Cels 3.28). “From Him [Christ] there began the union of the divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise to be divine” (Cels 3.28; ANF 4:475). ]
To be divinized, we must be united with Christ. “As the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through his flesh, and henceforth inherit life everlasting” (Orat 3.34; Robertson 413). “They have this grace [you are gods] from the Father only by partaking of the Word through the Spirit” (Orat 1.9; Rusch 70). “Because of the Word in us we are sons and gods” (Orat 3.25; Kelly 378). “I am from the earth, being by nature mortal, but afterwards I have become the Word’s flesh” (Orat 3.34; Robertson 412). “We, receiving Him, partake of the immortality that is from Him” (Orat 3.57; Robertson 425). “Man, being united to Him, may be able to partake…gifts which come from God” (Orat 4.6; Robertson 435). “By partaking of Him, we partake of the Father” (De syn 51; Robertson 477). Psalm 86:8 is said to refer to those who had “become partakers of the Word” (Ad Afros 7; Robertson 492). We are “partakers of the Godhead of the Word” (Ad Epic 6; Robertson 572). “We are deified…by receiving the Body of the Word Himself” (Ad Max 2; Letter 61.2; Robertson 578).
The concept of union is illustrated by the idea that we are made Word because of our union with the Word: “In the Christ we are all quickened; the flesh being no longer earthly, but being henceforth made Word [logōtheisēs], by reason of God’s Word who for our sake ‘became flesh’” (Orat 3.33; Robertson 412). Similarly, we are made God’s children because of our union with the Son. “As an alternative to the idea of divinization (theopoiēsis), Athanasius often uses that of adoption as sons (huiopoiēsis)” (Kelly 378, citing Orat 1.38, 3.25). We are like God “in sonship, which we shall partake from Him” (De Syn 53; Robertson 479).
Our union with the Godhead is through Christ, and that is made effective through the Holy Spirit: “The Word became flesh in order…that we, participating in His Spirit, might be deified” (De Decret 14; Kelly 377). “We are divinized by intimate union with the Holy Spirit, who unites us to the Son of God” (Pelikan 1:379, citing Orat 2.59 and Ad Serap 1.23-24). “By participation of the Spirit, we are knit into the Godhead” (Orat 3.24; Pelikan 1:216). There is “sharing” by the Holy Spirit “‘of the Son with us.’… By a partakability of the Spirit we shall become partakers of the divine nature” (Ad Serap 1.24; Egan 161-162). By the Holy Spirit “the Word makes divine these originated things” (Ad Serap 1.25; Egan 166). All this is done at baptism, which unites us to the Godhead and makes us a child of God (Orat 2.41; 1.34).
Later developments
I have taken the space
to quote Athanasius at length, to demonstrate that his doctrine,
although not specifically defined in any one passage, is described in
enough detail to know what Athanasius meant by the term theopoieō:
through union with Christ via the Holy Spirit, we
1) receive
immortality and 2) we escape the corruption of sin. Since these are
divine attributes, it is described as divinization.
However, later theologians mixed the concept with mysticism. This causes confusion when historians apply 10th-century concepts to Athanasius. [Note: Rusch (23), for example, attributes to Athanasius the idea that divinization gives us “eternal knowledge” – which seems to have little basis in Athanasius’s writings.] Part of the doctrinal change was lexical. Athanasius used the terms theopoieō and theopoiēsis; most other Eastern theologians used not only theopoieō but also theōsis, [Note: Theōsis is not listed in the exhaustive Index Athanasianum compiled by Guido Müller, nor does Lampe list any occurrences. For theōsis, Lampe cites Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, Dionysus the Areopagite, and Maxentius most frequently. Pelikan (1:155) implies that Clement of Alexandria used theōsis, but this may be an anachronism. ] and the latter word especially acquired mystical connotations. The Cappadocians seem closest to Athanasius’s concept, although ascetic concepts may have played a more prominent role. [Note: “Many of Gregory’s [of Nyssa] conceptions remind one of the Enneads of Plotinus, especially his teaching on purification as leading to deification” (Quasten 268).]
Dionysus the Areopagite shifted the concept further into mysticism (Pelikan 1:345, 2:46, 259-260). Maxentius connected it with knowledge and contemplation (ibid. 2:10-12). This was sometimes taken to excess, as when Psellus claimed that a deified person had the power to deify someone else (Pelikan 2:247). The Nestorian Patriarch Timothy had to warn “that this did not mean that ‘we become sons of God by nature or that we are worshiped by all men as [our Lord] is.’ Babai likewise rejected…any suggestion that ‘we are sons of God as he is and are to be worshiped through our union with God the Logos’” (Pelikan 2:46). Gregory Palamas had to argue that deified persons did not become God by nature and essence. These excesses could have been avoided by a careful reading of Athanasius.
Divinization was a common doctrine in the East; it had only a small influence in the West. Irenaeus taught it, as noted above. Hilary taught something similar: “The Word God became flesh in order that…the flesh might be elevated to God the Word…. He…elevates us to the nature of His Godhead” (Trinity 1.11, 13). Harnack gives us an intriguing note: “The idea of deification is also found in Western writers, especially Augustine…. Augustine brought it to an edifying end” (3:165 n. 2).
A note added in 2011: Lampe summarizes how Augustine handled the topic:
Augustine repeats more often, perhaps, than any of the Greek theologians, the theme of the ‘interchange of places’. ‘The Word’, he says, became what we are that we might attain what we are not. For we are not God; but we can see God with the mind and interior eye of the heart…. ‘God hates you as you are, in order to make you what you are not yet. You will be what he is’; but Augustine hastens to add that this means that we shall be God’s image in the sense in which a man’s reflection in a mirror is his image inasmuch as it is like him, not in the sense in which a man’s son is his image inasmuch as he is actually what his father is ‘according to substance’. [Note: Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, “Theology in the Patristic Period,” in A History of Christian Doctrine, ed. Hubert Cunliffe-Jones (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 153-4, cited in Myk Habets, Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance (Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2009), 8-9. Google books shows that the quote occurs on pp. 154-155 of the T&T Clark paperback edition of 1997, 2006.
Habets also mentions some recent books on the subject:
Jules Gross, The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers, trans. Paul A. Onica (Anaheim, CA: A & C Press, 2002)
Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov, eds., Theōsis: Deification in Christian Theology (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2006)
Michael J. Christiansen and Jeffery A. Wittung, eds., Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008).]
That is, we will be like God in the sense of reflecting his glory, but we will not be of the same ousia as God. [Note: The word homoiousia (of similar substance) is tempting, but not helpful, since it does not clarify in what respect the substance is similar, and in what respect it is different.]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Appendix 1: The Theological Legacy of Athanasius
Athanasius dominates the history of theology in the fourth century, especially in the period between the Council of Nicea (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381). During that time, the most important theological issue was the Arian controversy. Athanasius was the most vigorous defender of Nicene orthodoxy and the most outspoken opponent of Arianism in the Eastern empire. “The history of dogma in the fourth century is identical with the history of his life” (Quasten 66).
His writings helped make the erroneous aspects of Arianism more obvious, and his persistence helped keep the Nicene Creed a viable statement of faith even while emperors openly favored Arianism. “His greatest merit remains his defense of traditional Christianity against the dangers of Hellenization hidden in the heresy of Arius” (ibid.). The significance of his doctrine lies “solely in the triumphant tenacity of the faith itself” (Harnack 4:26).
His life
Athanasius was born about 298; he became a deacon in Alexandria, and an influential assistant of bishop Alexander during the Nicene Council. Athanasius was bishop of Alexandria from 328 until his death in 373. Because of the Arian controversy, he was exiled five times—two times in northern Gaul, seven years in Italy, and about six years hiding among the desert monks of Egypt. [Note: His history is given in greatest detail by Robertson; Payne’s version is easier to read but less scholarly. González includes a good chapter on “The Theology of Athanasius.”] Athanasius did not live long enough to see the Council of Constantinople, which supported his major points, but the Synod of Alexandria (362), which Athanasius chaired, gave influential support to his views.
Athanasius had moderate origins. He knew some Greek literature and the basics of neoPlatonic philosophy, but he wrote simply, not with flowery oratory. [Note: “Athanasius wrote directly, always cutting to the heart of a problem. He had no gift of style” (Payne 67; cf. Robertson lxvi). Occasional sections are stylish, however. Portions of his Easter letter of 342 are almost poetic.] He wanted to make his point clear rather than impress his readers with his skill, so he often repeated himself. He lived a humble lifestyle and was loved by humble people.
His theology
Athanasius was not a systematic theologian (González 300). Most of his writings are in reaction to specific heresies, so there are many subjects he mentions only in passing. Scholars sometimes disagree about his position on some issues, such as the procession of the Holy Spirit and the nature of Jesus’ soul. Those were not controversies at the time of Athanasius, so he did not directly address such topics. Most of his writings defended, against the Arians, the divinity of Christ. He rarely argued specifically for the Trinity or the oneness of God, for example—he seems to have assumed them. He focused on the divinity of Christ and, at a different time, on the divinity of the Holy Spirit. [Note: He “made very little use of the doctrine of the Trinity in presenting his defense of the deity of the Son; and the most fully developed formulation of trinitarian teaching anywhere in the Athanasian corpus — still a very brief one — was evoked from him in the course of arguing for the deity of the Holy Spirit [Ad Serap 1.28]” (Pelikan 1:218).]
Athanasius’s primary concerns are evident even in his earliest writings before the Arian controversy began. His first book had two major parts. Against the Gentiles was an apology arguing against polytheism. The second part of his book was On the Incarnation of the Word, which argued that only an incarnate God could bring salvation to humanity—only a being who was inherently immortal could give us immortality—only a divine being could give us communion with God. These two themes—monotheism and salvation—form the basis of Athanasius’s arguments against Arianism (González 293).
His response to Arianism
The central theses of Arianism were that the Logos had been created before anything else, that he was divine by name rather than essence, and that he was an intermediary between God and creation. Athanasius replied that we do not worship a created being, no matter how long ago he was created. If we can worship a created Logos, there is no reason to criticize the polytheists for worshipping created things (Orat 1.8, 2.23, 3.8, De Syn 50 etc.; González 297). He accused Arianism of being latently polytheistic: “By worshipping as divine one whom they refused to call divine, they would `certainly be going on to more gods’” (Pelikan 1:200, citing Orat 3.16; Robertson 402).
Arians were logically inconsistent because they worshipped Christ even while arguing against the reality of his divine nature. They said that Christ was creator and that God was creator, but they didn’t acknowledge that both could be true only if Christ and God were of the same essence (Orat 2.2). Arianism was logically inconsistent.
Why did Arianism last so long? It was supported by Platonic ideas about God’s transcendence and a divine Logos; it was supported by Origen’s (and others’) subordinationist view of Christ [Note: Kelly notes than Arianism was simply an extension of Origen’s subordinationism and “Middle Platonist preconceptions” (231). “Origen understands that the Word is God by derivation” (Rusch 14).] ; it was supported by Proverbs 8:22, which says that God’s Wisdom (which was equated with his Word) was created before the ages (Pelikan 1:193). But mostly it was supported politically. Several emperors supported Arian bishops and exiled Nicene supporters. [Note: Emperors supported Eusebius of Nicomedia (Nicomedia was the summer residence of the emperors) and transferred him to the bishopric of Constantinople. He appointed other Arian bishops and exiled Nicene defenders or forced them to sign Semi-Arian creeds.
The emperors wanted religious unity to support the unity of the empire. Why did some seek unity in Arian theology rather than Nicene theology? Perhaps to elevate the view of the bishop of the capital city; perhaps it was because Arian bishops were more indebted to the Emperor. He had more power over them (González 278). And Arianism was easy for someone trained in pagan philosophy to accept. ]
Unlike the Arians, Athanasius did not start with cosmological presuppositions—he started with the fact that Christ is our Savior (Kelly 243). In salvation, Christ brings us life and restores us to communion with God. He enables us to participate in the divine nature, and he could do that only if he were divine himself. [Note: “If the eternal Son of God did not become man in Jesus, we could not be made like God and be given immortality and eternal knowledge…. Man’s very salvation is at question if the Father-Son relationship is not eternal and unalterable” (Burgess 94, 116).] Only if he were uncreated could he have the power to create new life in us. [Note: Orat 2.15. God created humans in his image, with reason. But when humans sinned, they abandoned that image and doomed themselves to a return to the nothingness from which they had been created (De Inc 6-7; González 296). “Sin is not…a mere mistake that must be corrected; nor is it a debt that it is now necessary to pay; nor is it even that we have forgotten the way that leads to God and must be reminded of it. Sin is rather the introduction within creation of an element of disintegration that leads toward destruction, and that can only be expelled through a new work of creation” (ibid. 296-297).] Only if Jesus were fully divine could he, in his human manifestation, reveal the Father to us (Orat 1.35). Athanasius of course uses exegetical and philosophical arguments, too, but his foundation is soteriology.
God does not need a quasidivine being or demiurge to be an intermediary—the cosmological speculations about God’s transcendence were misleading. The immortal and immutable God is able to interact with his mortal and changeable creations (Orat 2.25; De Decr 7). If God needed an intermediary between himself and his creation, as Arius taught, he would need an intermediary between himself and the (created) Logos, and yet another intermediary between them, ad infinitum (Orat 2.26). Arius’s theology was not logically consistent.
Homo- and Homoi- ousia
At one phase of the Arian controversy, the controversy focused on the word homoousia, and the terminological debate reveals both a strength and a weakness of Athanasius. The Nicene Creed said that Christ was of the same essence as the Father. Some bishops tried to soften this by advocating the word homoiousia, meaning that the Father and Son were of similar essence. Many Eastern [Note: Western bishops did not seem to have as much fear of modalism, and were more able to resist Arianism. Although Arianism had some effect in the West (Nicene bishops were removed, and an ardent Arian was appointed bishop of Milan), the Latin-speaking churches seem to have been comfortable with the trinitarian teaching of Tertullian. Athanasius, who had spent some time in the West, was closer to Western thought than most Eastern bishops were (Robertson xxv).] bishops had signed the Nicene Creed, but did not support the word homoousia. Many bishops felt that this word supported modalism, which denied distinctions within the Godhead. [Note: Paul of Samosata had used the word homoousias and had been condemned (De syn 45; Robertson 474).] Marcellus, a vocal supporter of the Nicene formula, had modalistic tendencies, and this was an embarrassment to other Nicene supporters (Kelly 239, Pelikan 1:207-208).
Athanasius insisted that homoousia was the better word, but he did accept the use of homoiousia if the person also agreed that the Son is of the essence of the Father (De Syn 41). [Note: Athanasius had used the two words homoias ousias in Orat 1.21 (Robertson 318).] Athanasius felt that this combination would inevitably acknowledge the full divinity of the Son. [Note: “Since they say that He is ‘of the essence’ and ‘Like-in-essence,’ what do they signify by these but ‘Consubstantial’? (De syn 41; Quasten 70).] This compromise in terminology helped win the support of most bishops to the Nicene side at the Synod of Alexandria (Kelly 253, González 283), since the term homoiousia argues against both Arianism and modalism. But the word homoousia eventually won out because it gave greater stress to the Son’s deity. Through discussion and time, and the help of Hilary of Potiers (Kelly 269), Eastern bishops were reassured that the Nicene Creed did not support modalism.
Athanasius was willing to compromise on terminology because he focused on meaning. His opposition to Arianism was not based on a stubborn quibbling about terms—it was rooted in sincere conviction about Christ’s divinity and redemption. But terms are important, and Athanasius never found the words to formulate trinitarian doctrine in a positive way. He never found terminology “to express the multiplicity as well as the unity within the Trinity” (González 299). He accepted both “three hypostases” and “one hypostasis,” since the word hypostasis could be used in two senses. It remained for the Cappadocians to assign a more precise meaning to the terms hypostasis and ousia.
Incarnation and salvation
Athanasius’s
Christology was rooted in soteriology. He was willing to endure
persecution for his Christology, and he argued forcefully for it,
because he was convinced that salvation could be given only by a
fully divine being. Even his earliest book argued that salvation was
made possibly only by a divine incarnation. As he put it, “He [the
Word] was made man so that we might be made God” (De Inc
54.3; Robertson 65). Athanasius did not mean it as literally as
Robertson translated it, but he was convinced that Christ had enabled
humanity to share in the divine nature. [Note:
The doctrine of divinization is discussed in greater detail in an
appendix to this paper. In summary, it means that Christians are
restored to the image of God and given immortality. “The dominant
strain in Athanasius’s soteriology is the physical theory that
Christ, by becoming man, restored the divine image in us” (Kelly
377). “The effect of the Fall was that man lost the image of
God…. The prime object of the incarnation was his restoration”
(Pelikan 1:377-378; cf. González 297). The “image of God”
theology, like divinization, has connections to Irenaeus (González
162-3, 167).
This doctrine may be based in part on a Platonic
sense of shared existence: “He conceived of human nature, after the
manner of Platonic realism, as a concrete idea or universal in which
all individual men participate.” He spoke of “the
consubstantiality which exists between all men” (Pelikan 1:378-379,
citing Ad Serap
2.6).
Just as humans share in human nature and are therefore
human, Christians participate in the divine nature and, in a Platonic
sense, become identified with it. Whereas humans once shared in
Adam’s nature and perished with him, now we share in Christ’s
nature and live with him, with his nature. “Men are not only
united, as the Arians suggested, by similarity of nature, but
‘through participation in the same Christ we all become one body,
possessing the one Lord in ourselves’ ‘‘ (ibid. 404, citing
Orat
3.22).] Only One who was divine by nature (not by creation,
acquisition or in name only) could make us divine. He can give only
what is inherently his by nature. [Note: “It
is not possible that He who merely possesses [divinity] from
participation, should impart of that partaking to others, since what
He has is not His own, but the Giver’s; and what He has received,
it barely the grace sufficient for Himself” (De
syn 51; Quasten 72). ]
Soteriology also provided a firm foundation for Athanasius’s doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Some bishops had accepted the divinity of Christ, but were not willing to accept the divinity of the Holy Spirit. [Note: Some said (basing their arguments on Amos 4:13) that the Holy Spirit was a created being like an angel; others refused to take a position whether the Spirit was God or created (Swete 175; Harnack 4:108-110). The Semi-Arian Council at Sirmium (A.D. 351) is the first evidence of the controversy; a council in Rome in 369 declared that the Nicene Creed implied that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all of one Godhead, one essence (Swete 179). Gregory of Nazianzus noted that many were still undecided in 380, but the Cappadocians soon convinced the majority of the now-orthodox view (Harnack 4:115).] Athanasius argued that the Holy Spirit is God, and in this he was a pioneer (Kelly 255). The divinity of the Holy Spirit hadn’t been debated before this. The Nicene Creed had said simply that we believe in the Holy Spirit—without specifying who or what the Spirit is. [Note: The Council of Nicea was concerned with the divinity of the Son, not topics that would only later to be known as controversial. Therefore the Creed did not specifically address modalism or the Holy Spirit. The Creed was trinitarian only in a general sense, in expressing belief in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but the Creed did not specify that these three are One. The Council of Constantinople modified the Creed to note divine attributes of the Holy Spirit, but the Creed was still not specifically trinitarian.
Athanasius, not having developed a trinitarian formula, did not insist on “correct” phraseology. He believed in and mentioned the Trinity, of course (e.g., Orat 3.15), but he is not insistent on the term. He even refers to “two visible beings” (Exp Fid 2), and only a few paragraphs later, to the Trinity. Christians were accused of having “two Gods” (Orat 4.10), and Athanasius replies with one, not three or three-in-one. Soon thereafter (4.13), he mentioned a triad of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He defended the divinity of the Son and the divinity of the Holy Spirit as separate issues, not as a “trinitarian” controversy. Semi-Arian creeds professed belief in a trinity of three persons or hypostases (De syn 26, 28), so the focus of Athanasius’s arguments was on consubstantiality, not specifically trinity. His arguments were based in soteriology, not systematic theology.] Athanasius’s arguments prevailed, and were repeated by the Cappadocians (Kelly 258) and the Council of Constantinople.
Athanasius’s argument was soteriological: The Holy Spirit gives us new life, divine life, life in communion with God. Only God could do that, so the Holy Spirit is God. [Note: “By participation in the Spirit, we are made ‘sharers in the divine nature’ (2 Pet. 1, 4)…. If He makes men divine, it is not to be doubted that His nature is of God” (Ad Serap 1.23-25; Egan 162; Shapland 126; Quasten 76). Harnack (112-113), Kelly (257), Robertson (lvii), and Swete (214-219) summarize Athanasius’s primary writings on the subject, his letters to bishop Serapion.] The Holy Spirit is the presence of God in us; the Spirit sanctifies us. The Spirit does work that only God can do, [Note: “Athanasius’s arguments for the full divinity and Godhead of the Spirit are based primarily on the divine activity of the Spirit…. He performs and exhibits characteristics which only could be ascribed to God” (Burgess 117).] and is given divine titles and is immutable, eternal, and omnipresent. We are baptized into all three, indicating equal status for all three.
Miscellaneous issues
Athanasius wasn’t clear regarding the procession of the Spirit, [Note: “He nowhere states explicitly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son” (Quasten 77). However, “the Word before the incarnation dispensed the Spirit as His own…. The Spirit is given from the Word” (Orat 1.48, 3.25; Swete 212-213). “In Athanasius there is no well-developed doctrine of the Spirit’s procession” (Burgess 120).] but that’s understandable. It wasn’t an issue at the time, and he had his hands full with more important controversies. Even if he had firm opinions on the matter, it would have been counterproductive to vocalize them, for it would have split the coalition he needed to defeat Arianism. Other writers of that time were also unclear on the procession. Athanasius generally phrased the trinitarian economy in this way: “The Father does all things through the Word by the Holy Spirit…. The Spirit…is distributed from the Father through the Word” (e.g., Ad Serap 1.28, 30; Egan 171, 176).
His anthropology seems influenced by Platonism, but it isn’t entirely consistent. He talks not only of immortal souls (Cont Gent 33.1) but also of annihilation (Orat 3.63; De Inc 7.3; Cont Gent 41; Pelikan 1:204-205, 285).
His concept of Jesus’ humanity and divinity isn’t always clear. He frequently made a sharp separation between his divine and human attributes (Orat 3.25; Robertson 413), and he may have held a view about Jesus’ soul that was later declared heretical. [Note: “In Athanasius’ Christology there is no prominent place for the human soul of Christ” (Quasten 73). Quasten notes that Athanasius “never explicitly denies the existence of a human soul in Christ,” but seems to have accepted the common view that the Logos had taken the place of the human soul (ibid.; González 300). “His thought simply allowed no room for a human mind” (Kelly 287). In Ad Antioch (7; Robertson 485; Kelly 288), Athanasius said that Jesus had both body and soul, because salvation is of both body and soul (cf. Ad Epic 7-8). If Athanasius had emphasized this topic, controversy could have jeopardized the coalition he needed to defeat Arianism.]
He acknowledges the substitutionary aspect of the crucifixion (Kelly 379-380), but he emphasizes the incarnation much more than the death of Christ. Humans are divinized by the incarnation. We are saved by participation in Christ’s divine life.
Athanasius is the first to list as canonical the same 27 books as we have in our New Testament (Easter Letter 367; Kelly 60). He promoted the monastic life in both East and West, chiefly by his biography of Antony, one of the earliest Egyptian desert monks. He is vague on ecclesiology and the sacraments. A sermon fragment attributed to him teaches transubstantiation (Quasten 79, Kelly 442).
Summary
Soon after the Council of Nicea, Roman Emperors supported Arian bishops, forced bishops throughout the empire to sign ambiguous creeds acceptable to Arians, and exiled those who did not, including Athanasius. Despite this persecution, Athanasius repeatedly argued against Arianism, exposing its logical weaknesses, arguing for the fully divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Had it not been for Athanasius’s persistence, one of the ambiguous creeds would probably have become the measure of Eastern orthodoxy, thus allowing Arianism to become more entrenched and prolonging the controversy.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Appendix 2: Fact Sheet on Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria
[Note: Primary source for data: Kannengiesser, Charles. “Athanasius.” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Everett Ferguson, ed. New York: Garland, 1990.]
Born: circa 296
Earliest writings: Against the Heathen and On the Incarnation of the Word—date unknown, between 318 and 337.
Primary doctrines: monotheism and salvation through the Incarnation; staunch defender of the Nicene Creed, especially the word homoousias, of the same substance.
Became deacon under bishop Alexander circa 318
Acted as Alexander’s secretary, Council of Nicea, 325
Arius condemned at Council of Nicea, 325
Alexander died and Athanasius became bishop, 328
Constantine permitted Arians to preach again, 328. Through influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishop of Constantinople, Arianism grew in strength.
First exile, 335-337: Athanasius was condemned by an Arian synod in Tyre, and Constantine banished him to Trier, in northern Gaul. From there, he continued to write pastoral letters to Alexandria. · In 337, Constantine died and Constantine II allowed him to return to Alexandria.
Second exile, 339-346: An Arian bishop was appointed for Alexandria and riots ensued. Athanasius fled to escape arrest, and went to Rome. A council of Western bishops recognized him as the bishop of Alexandria; a council of Eastern bishops rejected him. During this exile, he wrote Orations Against the Arians. · In 346, Constans, ruler in the West, urged Constantius to allow Athanasius to return to Alexandria. Constantius needed the support of Constans, so he allowed him to return, and Athanasius was warmly welcomed by the people. In Alexandria, he wrote Apology Against the Arians. Constans died in 350 and Constantius became the sole ruler.
Third exile, 356-361: Constantius attempted to unify the empire with Arianism. An Arian bishop was appointed for Alexandria, and Athanasius fled. A council at Sirmium affirmed an extremely Arian creed. After this extreme, many bishops rejected Arianism and accepted the word homoiousias, which Constantius also accepted. While Athanasius was hiding among the monks in the desert, he wrote Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, Apology to Constantius, Letters to Serapion Concerning the Holy Spirit and other works. His biography of the monk Anthony, which praised the ascetic life, may have been written in this period. · In 361, Constantius died and Julian permitted deposed bishops to return. Athanasius presided over the synod of Alexandria, in which the homoousians made an alliance with the homoiousians against the Arians, and the synod affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Fourth exile, 363: Julian sought to arrest him, and Athanasius fled up the Nile.
Julian died before Athanasius could be captured, and Athanasius returned.
Fifth exile, 365: The Arian emperor Valens exiled him. · Valens revoked the exile because he needed Alexandrian political support to fight the Goths.
Died: 373. Total years as bishop: 46. Years in exile: 16.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Appendix 3: The Teachings of Arius
1) The Son, since he is begotten, had a beginning. There was a “time” before time began, when he was not.
2) The Son was created out of nothing before anything else was created. Proverbs 8:22 says, The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. Acts 2:36 says that God made this Jesus both Lord and Christ. Colossians 1:15 says he is the firstborn of all creation.
3) The Son is changeable, so he cannot be the same essence as the Father. He is called God as a courtesy title, not by essence.
4) Jesus grew in moral virtue as a credible example for us, showing that we can be adopted children of God just as he is. He is the firstborn of many siblings.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Bibliography
Burgess, Stanley M. The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1984.
Egan, George A., translator. The Armenian Version of the Letters of Athanasius to Bishop Serapion Concerning the Holy Spirit. Studies and Documents XXXVII. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1968.
González, Justo L. A History of Christian Thought, Volume 1: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon. Revised edition. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 1970, 1987.
Habets, Myk. Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance. Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2009.
Harnack, Adolph. History of Dogma. Translated by Neil Buchanan from the third German edition, circa 1900. Reprinted in New York: Dover.
Kannengiesser, Charles. “Athanasius.” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Everett Ferguson, ed. New York: Garland, 1990.
Kelly, John Norman Davidson. Early Christian Doctrines. Revised edition. New York: Harper & Row, 1960, 1978.
Lampe, G.W.H. A Patristic Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961.
Payne, Robert. The Holy Fire: The Story of the Fathers of the Eastern Church. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary, 1957, 1980.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago: University of Chicago, 1971.
———. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Volume 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974.
Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Volume 3: The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature From the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon. Utrecht, Holland: Spectrum, 1950; reprinted in Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1986.
Robertson, Archibald, editor. Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second series, volume IV. 1891. Reprinted in Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1957.
Rusch, William G., translator and editor. The Trinitarian Controversy. Sources of Early Christian Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Shapland, C.R.B., translator and commentator. The Letters of Saint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit. New York: Philosophical Library, 1951.
Swete, Henry Barclay. The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church. London: MacMillan, 1912.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
About the Author
Michael
Morrison received a PhD from Fuller Theological Seminary in 2006. He
is a Senior Editor at Grace
Communion International, Managing Editor for Christian
Odyssey magazine,
a regular contributor to that magazine, adjunct instructor at Azusa
Pacific Graduate
School of Theology, and Dean of Faculty and instructor
in New Testament for Grace
Communion Seminary. He and his wife live in Arcadia,
California; their two children are now adults. He is also associate
pastor of NewLife
Fellowship in Pasadena, California. He is the author
of numerous publications, including:
Sabbath, Circumcision and Tithing (available in print and as an e-book)
Who Needs a New Covenant? The Rhetorical Function of the Covenant Motif in the Argument of Hebrews. (print only)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~