‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14). Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (c.296–373) took this verse from the Gospel of John in order to unpack his Christology of the incarnation. In this essay I will examine the work of Athanasius in order to study the claim that ‘The Word became flesh.’ Athanasius argued that God ‘became man, and did not come into man.’[1] The implications of his conviction are firstly, only God could save humanity and secondly, the Word was fully divine. I will assess the implications of Athanasius’ arguments in his treatise ‘On the Incarnation’ with reference to some of his other works.
Athanasius of Alexandria
Athanasius was probably born between the years 296 and 298 in Alexandria, the intellectually and geopolitically significant city at the heart of the Greco-Roman world in the third and fourth centuries. [2] He came to be known as the Father of Orthodoxy, a reputation he earned in particular for his teaching on the incarnation and his opposition to Arius and Arianism.[3] He wrote the treatises Contra Gentes (Against Heathens) and De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (On the Incarnation of the Word of God) around 318 while still in his twenties.[4] He succeeded his mentor Alexander as bishop of Alexandria in 328 and spent seventeen years of his forty-five year episcopacy in exile, having fallen out of favour with four emperors.[5] Arius (c.250–c.336) had begun teaching a form of subordination by the year 320.[6] Arianism, as it became known, contended that the Son and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia), that the Son was a created being and that there was a time when the Son was not.[7] Athanasius was a prominent opponent of Arius and Arianism and he argued strongly for the orthodox understanding of the incarnation, which is the belief that God assumed human nature in the person of Jesus Christ.[8] Athanasius wrote many other treatises and epistles including Orationes contra Arianos (Orations against the Arians) and Apologia contra Arianos (Defence against the Arians). In his earlier work, Contra Gentes, Athanasius argued that the Word was divine, calling him ‘the living and powerful Word of the good God, the God of the Universe, the very Word which is God.’[9] Athanasius thus articulated a high Christology. His determination and independence is summed up by the phrase Athanasius contra mundum, et mundus contra Athanasium (Athanasius against the world and the world against Athanasius).[10]
The Word became flesh
‘The Word became flesh’ is a defining statement by the gospel writer that the Word of God (Logos) was both God and human. Athanasius affirms this statement in his writing. As has already been noted, Athanasius argues that the Word was fully divine, and that the Word became a man as opposed to entering into a man. In his Epistula ad Epictetum (Letter to Epictetus), he asks the question, ‘How can they wish to be called Christians who say that the Word has descended upon a holy man as upon one of the prophets?’[11] In the Old Testament, God’s Spirit would enter a leader or a prophet. However, Athanasius argues that this is not what is happening here. That would have been the heresy of Ebionitism. He states that the Word and Jesus are not two persons but one. Neither does he agree with Docetism with its belief that the divine Word veiled himself in humanity,[12] but states that Jesus’ body was born from Mary.[13] He writes, ‘He formed His own body from the virgin.’[14] The concept of the hypostatic union, the union between Christ’s humanity and divinity, developed later, although Athanasius’ thinking is consistent with this doctrine. Athanasius used the image of the Word dwelling in a temple. This is also suggested by the verb ‘dwelt’ (John 1:14) that can be translated as ‘tabernacled’ (cf. John 2:19f.)[15] Kelly calls it ‘true incarnation’ when Athanasius describes, ‘The Word Himself was not changed into bones and flesh, but came in the flesh.’[16]
However a problem with Athanasius’ Christology concerns whether or not he believed that Jesus had a human soul.[17] Kelly calls Athanasian anthropology Platonic, in that the soul was not necessarily regarded as being connected to the body.[18] Thus the Word becoming flesh could be taken to mean only the body and not body and soul. Athanasius’ writing does not make this clear, however it does suggest that he equates ‘flesh’ with ‘body’ in common with New Testament usage.[19] In his defence, his writing does not specifically exclude the possibility of Christ having a human soul so he may have presupposed one, although Kelly feels this is unlikely.[20] At the synod of 362 held in Alexandria and chaired by Athanasius, it was agreed that to be fully human Christ had a body and soul, and so it can be inferred that he accepted this position by that point.
Implications of Athanasian Christology
As has been demonstrated, Athanasius’ claim that ‘The Word became flesh’ is broadly in line with classical Christology, and indeed he was instrumental in helping to define it. I will now go on to examine two implications that follow on from his claim.
A. Implication 1 – Only God can save humanity
Athanasius argued that it was only God who could save humanity by breaking the power of sin and restoring humanity to eternal life.[21] He writes that God did this out of love and the goodness of the Father in order to save humanity.[22] Athanasius begins De Incarnatione with the creation and fall, offering an orthodox understanding of both. He says creation was ex nihilo by God in contrast to the Platonic model of creation from pre-existent material and the Gnostic view that held the cosmos was created by an evil or ignorant ‘Artificer’.[23] He explained that because of sin, humanity was corrupted and no longer lived in paradise, instead ‘remain[ing] in the state of death and corruption.’[24] Athanasius argued that, ‘It is we who were the cause of His taking human form, and for our salvation that in His great love He was both born and manifested in a human body.’[25] Humanity was created in God’s image and it was impossible for God to leave humanity in its fallen state.[26] So God entered the world in a new way, ‘stooping to our level in His love.’[27] Athanasius stated that it was necessary for God to have a human body, a perfect sinless body, so that he could surrender it to death and thereby take the penalty of death upon himself, ‘so that in His death all might die’ and render it void for the rest of humanity through his resurrection.[28] His soteriology is along the lines of Christus Victor – the traditional classical position of the victory of the cross. This view has largely been replaced in the West by Anselm’s satisfaction theory, although continues to be held in the East.[29]
Athanasius provided two images to illustrate his position. Firstly, when a king enters a house in a city, that city is honoured by his presence and any enemies or robbers cease attacking it.[30] Secondly, if a portrait that was painted on a panel has become obliterated, it is necessary for the subject of the portrait to sit again and the portrait to be redrawn.[31] In the second illustration, it is the perfect image of the Father that is required to restore the marred image in humanity. The Word of God is the image of the Father and so only he could recreate humanity after the image.[32] John Meyer argues that Athanasius displayed four tenets of Pauline soteriology in his writing.[33] Firstly, it was ‘God in Christ,’ who died for us; secondly, reconciliation was an act of the divine Word of God; thirdly, a Christian dies ‘with Christ’ in baptism; and fourthly, a Christian lives ‘in Christ’ by grace and ascetical struggle.[34] This combined Paul’s theme of ‘New Adam’ with reconciliation as a work of God ‘in Christ.’[35] In his seventh Festal Letter (335), Athanasius draws on the language of the Passover sacrifice of a lamb to describe Christ’s sacrifice which he claims is the greater (cf. 1 Cor 5:7).[36] In this way, Athanasius agreed with Paul that Christ’s death was atonement rather than punishment and transformed the Old Testament sacrifice into a perfect sacrifice.[37] The Athanasian view was that only the creator could save creation. McGrath gives this summary, ‘If Christ is not God, he is part of the problem, not its solution.’[38] Athanasius thus affirmed orthodox Christology that the Word was God because it was necessary for God to save humanity.
B. Implication 2 – The Word was fully divine
This leads us to the second implication of Athanasian Christology, that the Word was fully divine. Christians have worshipped and prayed to Jesus from New Testament times. If Arianism were true then, argued Athanasius, Christians would have been guilty of idolatry for Jesus would be a creature and not divine. In his letter to Adelphius, Athanasius states, ‘We do not worship a creature . . . But we worship the Lord of Creation, Incarnate the Word of God.’[39] I have already provided further examples from his writing which demonstrate Athanasius’ high Christology in affirming that the Word is God. There are a number of Christological implications that follow on from this belief. Firstly, what does it mean for monotheism if Christ is God? Secondly, what does this mean for the impassibility God if God died on a cross? Thirdly, what does this mean for the immutability of God, if humanity is now part of the Godhead? Athanasius is a Trinitarian in common with the doctrine that was being developed at this time. In response to Arianism he wrote, ‘There is an eternal and one Godhead in a Triad.’[40] He viewed the persons of God in an eternal relationship, describing it in the language of Father and Son: ‘For the Son is in the Father . . . because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Father’s essence, . . . so that whoever sees the Son, sees what is proper to the Father, and knows that the Son’s Being, because from the Father, is therefore in the Father.’[41] With regards to impassibility, Athanasius drew a distinction between what belonged to the eternal being of the Word and what belonged to the incarnate Word.[42] He specifically stated that God was impassable.[43] He made reference to Peter who wrote that Christ ‘suffered for us in the flesh’ (1 Pet 4:1).[44] For Athanasius, it was the flesh that suffered not the eternal Word.
In relation to the immutability of God, the incorporation of the humanity of the Word within the Godhead suggests that God changed following the incarnation. Again, Athanasius differentiated between the divine Word and the human Word. The distinction between the human and divine aspects of the Word is related to the question of did Jesus have a human soul discussed earlier. The debate about the paradox suggested by the incarnation to the impassibility and immutability of God was continued later by Cyril, a successor to Athanasius. It is also worth noting that these concepts have been taken from Greek philosophy and were introduced into Christian thought by earlier writers including Philo of Alexandria (c.25 BC–c.AD 50).[45] Athanasius, in common with other Alexandrian Christians of his time, was sometimes influenced by Greek philosophy, not all of which is still considered orthodox by contemporary theologians. A consequence of the fully divine Word becoming flesh is described by Athanasius when he wrote that “[The Word] assumed humanity that we might become God.”[46] Irenaeus wrote something similar over a century earlier in Adversus haereses (Against Heresies).[47] Athanasius did not believe that the Word only assumed the specific human existence of Jesus, but instead that of all humanity in general.[48] This idea of theosis, ‘becoming divine,’ developed into the concept of ‘deification’ and is prevalent in the Eastern church and in the writing of Calvin and Luther.[49]
Conclusion
Athanasius, the Father of Orthodoxy, is perhaps best remembered for his vigorous defence against Arianism. He also played a significant role in shaping classical orthodoxy. His writing articulates a high Christology where he affirms that ‘the Word became flesh.’ By that he meant that the divine Word became human. I have examined two implications of this claim. Firstly, Athanasius argued that only God could save humanity, restoring the image of God in fallen humanity, by breaking the power of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Secondly, he argued that the Word was fully divine, although it is not clear whether or not that meant that Jesus had a human soul, or whether the divine Word took the place of the soul. His doctrine of the incarnation was influenced by his soteriology. His Christology was in part shaped by the time in which he lived and he was influenced by Greek philosophy in some aspects of his teaching, although he taught against it in others. He was also in agreement with the New Testament writers John, Peter and Paul and this is reflected in De Incarnatione and his other works.
Bibliography
Athanasius, Saint. On the Incarnation. Translated by Penelope Lawson. n.d.
Clifford, Cornelius. “Athanasius.” Pages 35-40 in vol. II of The Catholic Encyclopedia. Edited by Charles G. Herbermann, Edward A. Pace, Condé B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan and John J. Wynne. New York: Robert Appleton, 1907.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. London; New York, NY: Continuum, 1977.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
—. Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth. London: SPCK, 2009.
Meyer, John R. “Athanasius’ Use of Paul in His Doctrine of Salvation.” Vigiliae Christianae 52, no. 2 (May 1998): 146-171.
Schaff, Philip. “Athanasius.” Pages 884-893 in vol. III of History of the Christian Church. By Philip Schaff. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891.
Tanner, Kathryn. Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001.
[1] C. Ar. 3:30.
[2] Cornelius Clifford, “Athanasius,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia II (ed. Charles G. Herbermann et al.; New York: Robert Appleton, 1907) vol. II, 35.
[3] Clifford, “Athanasius,” 35.
[4] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 11.
[5] Clifford, “Athanasius,” 38.
[6] Clifford, “Athanasius,” 37.
[7] McGrath, Christian Theology, 274.
[8] McGrath, Christian Theology, 11.
[9] C. Gent. 40.
[10] Philip Schaff, “Athanasius,” in History of the Christian Church III (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891) vol. III, 886.
[11] Ep. Epict. 2.
[12] McGrath, Christian Theology, 273.
[13] Ep. Epict. 2.
[14] Inc. 18.
[15] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London; New York, NY: Continuum, 1977), 285.
[16] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 285; Ep. Epict. 8.
[17] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 287; John R. Meyer, “Athanasius’ Use of Paul in His Doctrine of Salvation,” Vigiliae Christianae 52 (May 1998), 146.
[18] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 287.
[19] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 287; C. Ar. 3:30.
[20] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 288.
[21] McGrath, Christian Theology, 276.
[22] Inc. 1.
[23] Inc. 2; 3; Alister E. McGrath, Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth (London: SPCK, 2009), 119.
[24] Inc. 3.
[25] Inc. 4.
[26] Inc. 6.
[27] Inc. 8.
[28] Inc. 8.
[29] McGrath, Christian Theology, 326.
[30] Inc. 9.
[31] Inc. 14.
[32] Inc. 13; 20.
[33] Meyer, “Athanasius’ Use of Paul in His Doctrine of Salvation,” 146.
[34] Meyer, “Athanasius’ Use of Paul in His Doctrine of Salvation,” 146.
[35] Meyer, “Athanasius’ Use of Paul in His Doctrine of Salvation,” 169.
[36] Ep. fest. VII; McGrath, Christian Theology, 320.
[37] Meyer, “Athanasius’ Use of Paul in His Doctrine of Salvation,” 170.
[38] McGrath, Christian Theology, 276.
[39] Ep. Adelph. 3.
[40] C. Ar. 1:18.
[41] C. Ar. 3:3; Kathryn Tanner, Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 39.
[42] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 286.
[43] Inc. 54.
[44] C. Ar. 3:34.
[45] McGrath, Christian Theology, 204.
[46] Inc. 54.
[47] Haer. 5.
[48] McGrath, Christian Theology, 339.
[49] McGrath, Christian Theology, 339.
Leave a Reply