Athanasius: The Coherence of his Thought (Routledge Early Church Monographs)

ATHANASIUS

HOW C A N WE

U~DERS TA ND

ATHANAS I U S ' S

T H E OLOGY AS i\ WHOLE ?

In this \'olume, Khaled Anamli05 presents a comprehensive study of Saint Athanasius. one of rhe m05 t influential figures in the development of Christian doctrine. He analyzes the coherence of Athanasius's theology by relating the various aspe4 Here we see I~naeus making use of the standard opposition of agm(n)tlol-gm("P;a. in a fairly typical manner, but it is importallt to note thac I~naeus frames this opposition within the context of the positive relation of creation, of God's granting creation itS existence as a gift. Ultimately, for Irenaeus, the relation and distinction becv.'een God and world is not one of sheer opposition or unlikenes.s bUt of the asymmetrical correlation brought about by the act of creation. We sa}' ~correla[ion·· because Irenaeus conceives of Goers creative 3(ri';it}' in terms of a free decision to make his own immutable and perfect being the source of creation's continual growth: God. is different from humanity in this tespect: that God makes while humanity is made. The One who makes is

19

BEFORE ATHAl' ..,SIUS

BEFORE ATHANASJ US

the same, while char which is made necessarily receives beginning and middle and addition and gwwth. God indeed makes rhings well, while humanity is well made. God also is truly perfeer in every way, H imself equal and similar to H imself. He is all light, all mind, all substance, and rhe source of all good things. Bur humanity receives grov.rth and progress towards God. For as God is always the same, humanity, roored in God, always progresses toward God. God wi ll never cease to gram benefits and riches to humanitv; ever cease • nor will humanit\, • ftom being benefited and enriched by God. For the receptacle of God's bene~'olence, and rhe instrument of His glorification, is the human being who is grateful to the One that made him. (Adr: Haer: rVll, 2;SC21I,96)

Once divine rranscendence is conceived not only in terms of the "greatness" by which God is other rhan and inaccessible to creation, bur also equally in terms of the love by which God freely makes himself accessible to crearion, then the positing of imermedfaries between God and creation is no longer seen as safeguarding divine transcendence but even as threatening it. It follows, therefore, that in the context of his struggle against the Gnostics , with their elaborate system of mecliations, Irenaeus emphasizes that the \'ery notion of a God who is distant and uninvolved with creation compromises a fining conception of the divine. As such, ir does not redound ro the majesty of God, but amounts to an insult and a "dishonoring" of God:

alway~

It is not possible to know Goo, as far as his grandeur is

They blaspheme the Creator, who is truly God, and who empowers us to find the truth. And rhey imagine that they have d iscovered another god beyond God, or another Plefoma, or another dispensation. Therefore, the light which is from God does not enlighten them, because they have dishonoured and despised God, considering Him of little worth because, through His love and great beneficence, He has come within reach of human knowledge (knowledge, however, not with regard to His grandeur or according to H is essence - for no one has measured or handled that - but such that we may know that the One who made and fashioned humaniry, and breathed inw it rhe breath of life, and nourishes us through the creation, confirming all things by His Word, and binding them together by His Wisdom - He it is who is rhe onh-• true God). Bur they d ream of a non-existent being above the true God, believing that ther have discovered the great God, whom no one can know, who does nor communicare with human beings, and who exercises no direction over earthly affairs. So it turns Out that they have discovered the god of Epicurus, who take; care neither of himself nor orhers; a god without providence. (Adl'. Haer. Ill, 24, 7; se 34,402)

concerned. For it is impossible to measure the Father. But as to His love (for it is this which leads us to God by his Word), those who obey God always learn that there does exist so great a God, and that it is He who by Himself has established and made and adorned and comains all things, including ourselves and our world. (Ad!( Hda IV, 20, 1; SC lOon, 624)36

I n opposItIon to the Gnostics, Ire-naeus thus posits the immediacy of God's pre;ence to creation as integral to a fining conception of di,'ine rranscendence.~7 This convergence between divine transcendence and immediate presence to creation becomes in fact the vi tal cemer of his whole theology,38 Within such a conception, the mediation of the Son and Spirit becomes itself a

20

21

In this passage, we see a remarkable blending of standard Hellenistic categories with Irenaeus's own unmistakably biblical perspective. Gcx:fs transcendent perfeerions, articulared in qui te Platonic terms, are nevenheless not seen as merely antithetical to creature1y being bur as rhe source for the existence and continual enrichment of human being. Even divine immutability is conceived as somehow correlative with human progress toward the divine. In shon, God is conceived here as "towards creation," and creation is conceived as '"towards God:' This kind of correlation of God and creation is by no means construed by lrenaeus in terms of necessity.35 God remains free in the act of gcatHing creation the gift of exisrence and in his continual presence to his creation. This freedom of God in making himself accessible to finite creation is expre;sed in terms of divine love. Thus if God 's g reatness renders him unknowable to creatures, his love effectively conneHS those crearures with his incomprehensible greatness:

BEFORE AT H ANASiCS

B HO R E. .\ TH A NASi US

funccion of the immediacy of the divine presence to creation, by vin:ue of the emphasis that Son and Spirit are themselves immediately pr~m to the Father, as his "[WO hands":

There is therefore one God, who by the \Vord and Wisdom creared and arranged all things. This is the one who is the (reawr (Demiurge), who has granted chis world [Q the human race. \'o(' ith respeCt [Q His grandeur, He is indeed unknown to all who have been made by Him (for no one has searched Oll[ His heighc, either among the ancients or [hose who are now living). But as ro His love, H e is always known rhrough the One by whom He established all things_ This is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in [he last times was made human among human beings in order [har.He may unite [he end ro the beginning, that is, humanity to God. Therefore the prophets, receiving the charism of prophecy from the same Word, announced His coming according to the flesh, by which the blending and communion of Gexi and humani(]l- took p lace according to the good pleasure of the Father. From the beginning, the Word of God announced beforehand that God would be seen by human beings, and would converse with them upon the earth, and would be present with His own work, saving it, and becoming capable of being perceived by it, and freeing us from the hands of all that hate us, that is, from every spirit of wickedness; and enabling us to serve Him in holiness and rightC'Qusness all OUI days, in order that humanity, having embraced chI" Spirit of God, might attain w the glory of the Father_ (Ad!; Hoer. IV, 20,4; se 100/2, 634, 636)

It was nOt angels, therefore, who made us and formed us. For angels could not make an image of God, nor anyone else, except chI" true Gexi, nor an}' Power rrmMei)' distant from the Facher of all things _ For Gexi did nor need such beings in order ro make what He H imsdf had previously determined within H imself to make _ As if He did not possess His own hands! FM with Him Ulfft alu,t1ys present che Word and Wisdom, chI" Son and Spirit, by whom and in who m, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, and it is to them that He speaks, saying, ·'Let us make humanity aner our image and li keness . ~ He H imself takes from Himself the substance of the creatures, and the pattern of the things that are made, and the form of the things that are adorned. (Adtc Haer. rv, 20, l; se 34, 402 ; my emphasis)

At this point, we can note several trajecrories along which the theme of chI" immediate presence of God to creacion is played OUt in Irenaeus _ We noted, first of all, that such an emphasis implies a conception of divine transcendence which includes a stress on Goers positive relation to the world. It also leads to an emphasis on the immediacy of Son and Spirit to the Father, such that their mediation does not amount to any "distance" be[\veen creation and the Father. We can now add two furthe r points. First, chI" cheme of the immediate presence of God to creation implies an anthropology that conceives human being in terms of receptivi(]l- to this presence of God. WIth regard to divine transcendence, it is the g lory of God to make himself available and preSent EO crearion; and with regard ro anthropolog y, it is the g lory of humanity to be present to this di vine presence. Divine love thus bri ngs about a correlation of di"jne and human g lory, as is expressed in the celebrated dictum, ·The glo(]l' of God is Living humanity, and rhe life of the human being is the vision of Gexi" (A d.·. Haer. IV, 20, 7). The second poim is that this immediacy of relation ber-ween God and creation is the hermeneutical key to lrenaeus's conception of redemption in Christ. The di vine-human communion, broken by sin , is recapitulated in Christ through his incarnation:

22

\Ve can see, therefore, thac the theme of the immediacy of relacion berv,.·een God and creation mar serve as a unifying center for Irenaeus 's theology, tying coget her his doctrine of God, anthropology, and theology of redemption. We hope to show that the same can be said of Athanasius. We shall see [hat Athanasius aLso adopts Irenaeus's emphasis on the convergence between God's transcendent majesty and his benevolem involvemem wi th the world, che stress on the immediacy of divine presence to the world, the conception of hwnani(]l· as fundamentally receptive to the divine, and che understanding of redemption in terms of repairing human recept ivity and re-instituting the union of divine and human. There are rhus strong grounds for considering Athanasius as continuing a distinctl" Irenaean tradition. 39 O ur survey has shown that Irenaeus played ~ significant role in che de\'e1opmenr of the Christian concept ion of the relarion between Gexi and the world, by breaking away from [he

23

BEFORE ATHANASIUS

BEFORE ATHANASJUS

rendency ro dissociate divine transcendence and divine immanence. The work of Athanasius underscores the significance of this lrenaean breakthrough and gives it a full er systematic expression wirh reference to the whole nexus of Christian doctrine. Turning to Athanasius's g reat Alexandrian predecessor, Origen (c. 185--c. 251), we observe that the most significant heritage bequeathed by Origen to Athanasius in relation to our topic is his conception of the Father-Son relation as both prior to and ground for the God- world re1ation :1O Underlying this conception of Origen's is the notion that divine transcendence implies a "containing" of the world by God: God's glory "is in the very faer that He possesses all things."·4 1 And yet, as so often, Origen proves ultimately ambivalent on this point insofar as the Word and Wisdom by which God contains all things are finally considered to be somehow less rranscendent than the Fathu himself. 41 Thus Origen's legacy includes, on the one hand, rhe conception of divine transcendence in terms of "inclusion" of the world and the concomi tam notion of the Father-Son relation as "containing" the God-world relation and, on the other hand, the enduring predil&tion to assign divine involvement with rhe world, in the person of the Son, to a lower degree of transcendence than that accorded to the Father. Both these traj&tories cominued to develop in rhe Alexandrian tradition, the former represented by such figures as Theognostus (head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, c. 265-87),43 Alexandet of Alexandria (Athanasius's immediate episcopal pred&essor, c. 312_28)44 and, of course, Athanasius himself, the latter most notably by the figure of ArillS. Aside from the central datum of the priority of the Father-Son relation and its containment of the God- world relation, Ar hanasius relies hea\'ily on Origen in his pervasive use of the category of participation. That was the fundamental category by which Origen distinguished and related God and world. While Origen could also speak of panicipation within the Trinity, he distinguishes the paniciparion of creamres in God as accidental and not essential. 4' Moreover, Origen also uses the terminology of ~ex(ernalit}''' to contrast the creation-Creator type of panicipation from that within the Trinity;~6 a strategy rhat Athanasius would fully exploit . Also characteristic of Origen's conception is an emphasis on the fragility of hllman participation in the divine, both because this participation is accidental and not essential and because humaniry"s oriemation is alterableY Alterability is thus conceived as a quimessenrially creaturel~' problem in Origen and perhaps even

more so in AthanasillS. On t~ other hand, Athanasius respectfully correcred his illustrious predecessor on such issues as the conception of a graded hierarchy within the Trinity and tht> notion that the world is an eternally necessary correlative to God's almightiness. 4S But what most distinguishes Origen and Athanasius with reference to the rdation between God and creation is precisely Athanasius's continuing of rhe Irenaean emphasis on the immediacy between God and creation. Origen would not deny such immed iacy, but his conception of the universe is much more one of graded hierarchy; it is a universe consritured by mediations. 49 \Vhile stressing divine providence and re~choing lrenaeus's insistence that there is no God beyond the Creator,50 Origen is JUSt nO{ as emphatic about the immediacy of the rdation between God and creation as Irenaeus was or as Athanasius would be. T he convergence berv.'een divine transcendence and immanence - or, to put it another way, the conception of divine transcendence in terms of immanence and immediate presence - is simply not as much of a consciously employed theological tQpOJ in Origen. Athanasius's logic, however, following Irenaeus, is uniformly focused on the immediate relation between God and creation, to the point of consistently de-emphasizing creared mediations. Having thus put this logic in the context of the development of thought on the theme of the rdation between God and creation, we will now proceed ro analpe Athanasius's vision in his own terms.

24

COSTRA GESTES - DE lNCARNATlONE

2

THE RELATION BETWEE N GOD AND C REATION IN THE CO N TRA G EN TES-DE I N CAR NA Tl ON E

Introductioa w~ ~gin our investigation of the theme of the relation between

God and creacion in Achanasius b}' analyzing its significance in his earliest doctrinal Hearise, the CO!lt,:z GmUJ- De InraYnalilmt. In dealing with this double work, che first issue to prest m itself is che controversy regarding its dating. with suggestions varying from as earl~' as t. AD 3 18 1 or as late as the 3505. 2 Traditionall}', it has been presum~ that the apparem lack of reference to the Arian heres\' is sufficiem proof for a dare prior to the condemnation of Ari~> t. 318. However, as early as the late nineteenth century, crus argument was undermined by loofs's observation chat neither do the FtJlal UtlWJ show any reference to the- Arians before 33'5.-' This omission was expl.ai~ed by Charles Kan.nengi~ser, who dates the work during Athanaslus s fi!'i t eXIle, as an Intentional silence motivated by political exped iency.4 Kannengiesser takes Athanasius's wmmenr about nor having "our teachers' works to hand" in Contra GmUJ 1 (hereafter cited as CG) as an allusion to the bishop's exile. and further s~cifies the date by linking a reference in De lncanlatiollf 24 (herea.fter Df) to th~ who wish co divide the Church with a similar p~ase in the Fma/ Uft" of 337, boch caken as alluding to che Arians. Besides accouming for the relative mamrity of rhe work this su~g~tion also has che ad..-antage of helping to explai~ Athanasluss apparent dependence on Eusebius's Praepamlio EUlIlgllira and ThrophartJ. Kannengiesset's suggestion, however, has not been universall}' accepted and is nO( without serious problems. A strong argument has been made for the reference in the Festa/ Lcttm to "chose who

26

rend Christ's runic" being not [0 the Arians but to the Meletians. ~ MortO\'er, E. P. " [eijering has pointed out that Kannengiesser's proposal raises the question of why Athanasius did not drama{i~ his exile by referring to ic in {he treatise, considering chat ~being in e:cik was a IO~J in ancient literarure ~.6 indeed, it has also been stated that che refe rence to nOt having books to hand is misconstrued when it is interpreted as referring to the author rather than the audience of a work. It is nor qu ite logical to say that Athanasius, being in exile, did not have books to hand and therefore wrore a treatise to be read by people who presumably were DOt in exile and rhus did have books to hand!; Probably the most vocal supporrers of che traditional dating among contempor~ry scholars have been E. P. Meijering and his colleague, J. c. M. van Winden. Aside from reiterating the traditional argument I si/mtio, van Winden has contended that a concrete support for an earlier dating can be found in CG 6 and DJ 2, where it is said that che heretics (~ol. aE 0.11:0 aipES. We can now recognize that this convergence has ics source in Athanasius·s doctrine of God. God is beyond all created being, as uncreated, bur his nearness co creation has its basis also in his very nature, as supremely good and loving. In the self-same movement of creation, God asserts his transcendence over chat which he brings into existence from nothing, as well as demonstrating his love which leads him ro generously gtant existence to what was nOL The faCt that God is the uniquely primordial being means that whatever he brings into existence cannot have an intrinsic support for irs own existence, since ItS eXiStenCe is wholly deri ved . However, Athanasius's characterization further indicates that it equally belongs co God's narure, as good and loving, to bridge the difference between uncreated and created natures in such a way that God becomes present ro and acrive in creation. In short, both the difference becween God and creation and the bridging of thar disrance have theif basis in rhe nature of God. It is within this perspenive chat Achanasius can also justify [he incarnarion in terms of [he doctrine of God. He does this, first of all, by reconciling it with the doctrine of creation. for this reason he is concerned to show, in the Contra Genres, thac the fact of creation has its basis in the nature of God who is loving)8 GocI creaces in order co manifest this love, ··ho: Ko:t 1:1 -3}.~

(CG 42; Thomson, pp. 114-16)

At the same eime, che participation model is also serviceable for disringuishing het>lleen che {dations of Soo-Father, and creation-Word. T he Son does noc panicipate in the Fathe r; rather creanon partiCIpates in the Son, and in this v.""2Y has access to che Father: His holy d isciples teach chat evecything was created through hi m and for him, and that the true Son, who is che good offspring of the One who is Good, is che power of the' Fathe r and his wisdom and Word; not so by participacion (ou KCl1"o. jl€'t"O;C"v), nor do these properties come to him from outside W;ro9£v) in the way of those who participace (jl£'rEXOV1"ClC;) in him and are given wisdom in him, and chus bC'come' capable and rational in him. But he is wisdom iC5Clf, Word itself (alxo)"o-{os), light itsdf, trum itsdf, justice' itself, virrue iudf, and the ve'ry power, stamp, effulgence, and image of che Farher. To sum up, he is chI' supremdy pertC'Ct issue of the Father, and is alone Son, the unchanging image of chI' Father. (CG 46; Thomson, p. 130)

Theological anthropology

This passage brings our the Trinicarian background of Athanasius·s cosmology. Ic is because chI' Son is a pC'rtect image and issue ( 1Cap7t"~) of the Fathe r that he contains in himself, and not as someching accidencal or advemicious, the archetypal qualities which give

In our analysis up co this point, we have already found opportunities co commenc on the' place' of theological anthropology in relation co other ehem~s in Athanasius. As we begin a mor~ focused inquiry into this important area of Athanasius's theology, we ha..·e recout"SC' to a significant text, which may justifiably be qUOted at length, since it serves as both a summary of some our p!C'vious points and an entry into a more specialized consideration of our immediate: concern. Straight after the rejection of the notion of a creamr who is distinct from the' true' God, Athanasius continues:

52

53

CO,'·TRA GESTES - DE l!>.·CARNATlONE

CON TRA GEN TE S- DE J.... C.... R ....·ATlONE

Thus do they mythologize. But the godly teaching of the faith in Christ refutes the'ir foolish talk as god.!C'ssness. It teaches that the' world did not come into being arbitraril}', becaUSe' it did not come lO be without divine' forethought. Neithe'r was it made' from pre-existem maner, for God is not weak. Rather, God brought che universe, which previowly did nO{ exist at all, in any way, from non-being into being through the" Word ... For God is good - or rache'r the source of goodness - and the good has no emy Because he does not begrudge che gin of existence, he made all things from nothing through his prope:r Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. And among these creatures, of all eanhly creat u res he was especially me'rciful toward the human race. Seeing that by the logic of its own generation it would be unable to remai n forever, he gramed it a further gin, not simply creat ing humanity like all irrational animals on the' earth, but making them in his own image and granting t hem also a share in the power of his prope:r Word (jl£--CCl301>ee Athanasius striving to demonstrate the inherenr consistency between the structures of creation and redemption to the poim of dramatizing this demonstration by a common vocabulary. In both cases, {he Word acts and manifests himself in a ~body.~ So it is that we find ourselves squarely before the supposed Logos san: CheistOlog}, of Athanasius. But a word of camion is most appropriate at this point, for what we find ourselves squarely before is, to be sure, a Logos-sarx framework, bm perhaps not a Christology at all, in the suict sense. That is, we are noc here presented with a dim:t Christological stuemenr, in the sense of an anal},tic description of the structure of Christ's being. What is crucial fo r interpreting this passage is a proper and properly priori. tized reading of the issues of Christology and cosmoiogr, as well as a sense foc the interests of apologetics, It is actually the apologetic intent that is the key to a correct interpretation of this passage, Athanasius is arguing on behalf of (he ~fittingness" of the incarnation by appealing to divine immanence in the world, in general, While the S(Qic conception of the world as a body funher highlights the consistency between di\'ine immanence in (he incarnation and in (he world in general, we cannot cake Athanasius's use of it as a l','lUrant to speak analytically of a strict Logos--sarx framework, with regard either to cosmology or (Q (he incarnation. Rather than a statement abom the Structure of the cosmos or of rhe Incarnate Word, this passage is concerned, for apologetic purposes, to underscore the consistency between cosmos and incarnation, in terms of divine immanence. In other words, we find here a statement dramatizing the fact of the positive relation between God. and the world and noe an analytical exposition of the strucrure of this relation. 100 A similar situation occurs with rc'gard to the interpretation of Athanasius's descri ption of Christ's body as the instrument, lSpya\'o\', of the Word. This key concept in Athaoasius is also key to GriUmeier's interpretation of his Logos-sarx Christologr: -in che word Opyavov Athanasius sums up the whole significance of the logos-sarx relationship.~ !O I Immediately qualifying his statement by the observarion {hat ~the organon-concepr is [QO indeterminate to provide any information about the Logos-sao: relationship by icself:' \02 he nevenheless inserts this concept into the Logos-san: framework and concludes that ~the flesh becomes an {instrument}

moved direcdy and physically by the Logos. -iO; Such an imerpretation is problematic in more than one wa}', GriUmeier has taken Athanasius's description of the body as instrumem to refer to the mode by which it is moved by che Word: i.e., -directly and physically.~ This again is Grillmeier's analytical perspective, concerned with the relation of parts within the whole, But nowhere in che whole treatise, much less in his use of the -o rganon-concept,~ is Athanasius concerned with the problem of whether the logos mo,·es the body directly or indirectly, which is precisely the distinction that is here implicitly invoked by Grillmeier. This is to say that the problem wich which Grillmeiet is concerned does not arise organically our of the text and can be resoh'ed only by a disrincrion not present to Achanasius. It seems illegitimate therefore to imerpret Athanasius in light of this distinCtion, one that ultimately reduces to rhar berw~ -the mediation of natur31 and supernatural life,which is sucely quite foreign to Athanasius. 104 Secondly, it is "ery hard to understand, in Athanasian terms, what Grillmeier means by interpreting Athanasius as saying that the Logos moves the body "phrsically,- something Achanasius would never say himself, Since the Logos is not a physical entity, it would be JUSt as correct to say that the Logos mOves the body -spirimally.M However, once again, the mode by which the Logos moves the body is not specified by Athanasius. Ultimately, it seems, che problem resides precisely in the fact that GriUmeier is forcing the -organonconcepc of Athanasius into a framework in which it does not belong. As we have said, Grillmeier's preconceived framework is that of analytical Christology; he is concerned w ith the internal composition or structure of the God-man. For Grillmeier, the human soul of Christ is a vital mediating link within thac structure - mediating between the supernarur:tl and natural agency of che Word-madefl esh, So he reviews the development ofChriswlogical dOCtrine with a panicular "iew [Q finding this link or pointing OUt its absence. Within such an analytical framework, Grillmeier confronts Athanasius's conception of ChriSt'S body as - instrument ~ with the question of how this instrument is connected to che Logos as agent. He interprets this notion with a "iew to the composition of Christ, and asks how and by what order it is linked to (he other .. pan;. the Logos. H e then answers his own question by the statement that At hanasius's use of che -organon-concept ~ indicates that the body as instrument is conne na"t"p&; oixria:S). For it is not because of us that he comes into being, as those impious ones say, nor is he OUt of nothing (for not from outside (OWE yap £~roe£v) did Goo find for

122

1'3

THE ANTI-ARIAN WRITIKGS

himself a caust" of rejoicing), buc the words signify what is proper and li ke to him (i.OlO\) Kal 6~oiou). When then was it, when the Father did not rejoice) But if he always rejoiced, then he was always in whom he rejoiced. And in whom does the Father rejoice, except as seeing himself in his own Image, which is his Word? And though he also '"delighted in the sons of humanity~ after finishing the world, as it is written in these same Proverbs, yet this tOO can be undersuxxi consistemlr. For i't'fll (hur He had delight, IW! became jo)' was adtkd to him, but again an suing the uwks made afti"Y his (fU'1/ Image; so that oUATjO£ffi:;). But having come into being, it was fitting (KUAWg that God should redeem creation by a direct imeraction w ith it:

immediacy, from the human point of view_ In the De lliCamafiQl1f, he is able to articulate this kind of immediacy by speaking of it as supplanting the intemality of sin in the fallen human body:

In the beginning, when nothing existed at all, only a nod and an act of will Wl're needed for the creation of the universe. But when humanity had ~n made and what needed healing was not the non-existem, but what had come into being, the healer and Saviour had to come among those who had already been created to cure what existed. (DI 44; Thomson, p. 244)

This also must be known, that the corruption which had taken place was not outside (OUK £~W8EV) the body, but was attached to it (01),,19 n:POOE(£)'o"u). And it was necessary that instead of corruption, life should cling to it (atl't(9 r.:POO1tAUlcfjVU1) so that, as death had been in the body, so life also would be in it (E\, Cd.l't0). If death had been outside (£~r09£v) the body, life would also have had to be outside (Esw8£v) it. But if death was combined (cr-oV£1II.6:K""TJ) with the body and dominated it as something united to it (0).; crtlvrov uut0), it was necessary for life also to be combined (crull1tACl.KfjVat) with the body, 50 that putting on life the body might cast Out corruption. Otherwise, if the Word had been outside the body and not in it (£~co 'tou crtOIlUt~ ... Ked. Ev ui:rrQl), death would still have been conquered by him - since death does not overpower life - but the corruption attached to the body would have remained in the body. For this reason it was fitting that the Saviour put on a body in order that the body, being mingled with life ( O"\)).I.r.:AUKbrt~ ... tfl ~cof1) might no longer remain mortal in death, but having put on immortality, might henceforth rise up and remain immortaL (0144; Thomson, pp. 241 6)

Iln

This is actually an intriguing argument insofar as it suggests that crearion's very being renders inapproptiate a redemption by fial, which is conceived as a redemption ex nihilo. In other words, God's way of redeeming creation takes seriously crearion's being already in existence, and relates to it b)' interacting with it as something already existing, rather than simply "creati ng" its redemption from nothing. Already, we can see here that redemption is conceived by Athanasius in terms of a new kind of relation between God and humanity, a new mode of interaction, rather than in terms of an act of God which "imputes" a certain statUS co humanity. When he tries co describe JUSt what is new about this new relation between ,God and humanity, Athanasius essencially gropes for ways to articulate the notion thar this relation achieves a new level of imemality or

In this way, Athanasius uses the notion of the inhert"nce and inrernality, and even unit)', of sin with the flesh to posit the incarnation as "internal" enough to supplant this combination. Thus the tedemption worked through the incarnation is conceived in terms of che greatest possible unity Ot "'joining" of G od and humanity. Later on, in the Oratio1!tJ ro/11ra Aria1!OJ, Athanasius's characterization remains substantially unchanged. Any mode of redemption thac falls short of that most intimate and internal unit)' of the incarnation would be tOO "external.'" Apart from the incarnation, "we did not have him in oursel\'es but outside of us (OUK ElXOIlEV UU'i:OV £V eomots. ai.A' £sco9£v ElZOIlEv): for instance, as receiving instruction from him as from a teacher. And in that c~ , sin would not have lost its rule over the flesh, being embedded (£IlIlEVOUOU) in it and not cast out of it" (CA 2:56; Bright, p. 125). In fact, in

130

131

----THE ANTI_AR IAN

'X'RITI~GS

something of a development, Achanasius now portrays even the prelapsarian grace en joyed by Adam in paradise as M extemar compared to the model of the incarnation. The internality of the incarnation is COntrasted OOt only with the internalit}' of sin in the flesh but also distinguished from an ~extemal reception ~ of grace, as was the condition of pre-Iapsarian humanity. The incarnation thus repre.. I L .· d I " whose sents a stage be}'ond that 0 f onglna UC"".. nru e, -vulnerability was so tragically demonstrated by Adam's transgresSIOn:

Moreover, [he good reason of what he did may be seen thus: If God had merely spoken, because it was in his power, and che curse undone in [his way, the power of the one who gave the word wou1d have been revealed, but humailjt~' wou1d have become li ke Adam Vi'a; before the transgression, havi ng received g race from outside and nor having it united co the body (£~we£ v l.aj3ffiv titv XcXplV K(lt I·U1 o"'I,)VTJPjlOO'jl£VllV EXCil \, (li>'tr,v 1'0 CfOOjl(1'!l); fo r such was Adam when he was placed in Paradise. In fact, perhaps humanity would have: become worse, because it had learned to transgress. In those circumstances, if humanity were to be seduced again by che serpt'm, there: would arise a new exigency for God to command and undo the curse. And thus the need wou1d become endless, and humanity would remain guilt-ridden no less chan before, as being enslaved to sin. And, aJ\\--ays sinning, it would always be in need of pardon, and would never become free, being in itself of che flesh, and al\\--ays defeated by the Law because of the weakness of the flesh. (CA 2:68; Bright, pp. 138-9)

THE ANTI-ARIAN \"\:' R ITlNGS

and "habitual grace.~ Rather, the specific correlation is thac between che supreme instance of -imemaiity" constituted b}' the unicy of the Word with che body and absolutely e\"Cry other model of interaction between God and humanity. T he poiot of setting up these conuasts is thac they allow Athanasius to drive home his emphasis on the sheer unparalleled immediacy that subsisn io the unity of divine Word and human flesh. All along, Athanasius has emphasized the immediacy in the relation between God and creation. We have tried to show thar bis description of this relation in general is de termined by [his emphasis. Yet precisely in order to empha;ize che altogether superlative immediacy obtaining in the relation of God re humanity in the incarnation, he can ponray all other modes of this rdation a; relat ively -exrernal.- A more positive explication of thi s preeminent immediacy represented by t he incarnation is contained io Athanasius's Chrisrelogical passages. Bur before we mo\'e to consider these, we need to set the stage by analyzing Arhanasius's general charaCterization of the kind of relacion that obtains between God and creation in the contexc of the incarnation.

God and creation in [he incarnation: Athanasius's rhetoric of re"ersai

In a footnote to this passage, Kewman comments that "'Atilanasius here seems to say that Adun in a state of innocence had but an external divine assistance, not an habitual grace; this, however, is contrary w his own statements already referred to, and the general dOCtrine of the fachers. "'IH In chis comment, we have once again a misunderstanding that issues from the imposition of categories foreign to Achanasius's thinking. As we said before, a crucial principle for the correct interpretation of Athanasius is to understand his terms in che context of their mutual correlation. When Athanasius speaks of Adam's "receiving grace from wi thout ,~ he is definitely nOt distinguishing berwee-n -external divine assistance-

One of che more striking rhetorical maneuvers of the Orali~ntJ «J1)t,-o /J.,,-iaflOJ is Athanasius's way of reversing, or drastically modifying, his distincri"'e descriptions of God and creation, in the respeni\'e contexts of creation and incarnation. T he paradigmatic instance of this modification is in reference co the pervasive comrast between what is -proper~ (Hile>;e- nocC"d eariie-r that Athanasius was not ioreresred so much in an analytical Christology - a Christology primarily concernC"d with t he ince-mal constitution of Chrise's person - as he was in sC'C'ing the new relation beCVo'C'C'n God and creation chat is given in Christ. The discinction beCVo'een an analyeical stance and Achanasius's own approach is well·illustratC"d by a S[3teme-nt in his lette-[ to Epictetus. Speaking against those ~iho argue that the body of Chrisc is [onsubstantial with the \X!ord, he [oumers that "chey have- failed to perceive chat the Word is become- flesh, not by rC'aSon of an addicion to the Godhead, but in order that the flesh may rise again. Ml49 W hat is stri king about this state-ment is chat it is

As we SC'C', such a funCtional Chrisrology does DOt at all precludestatements about the- strucrure of Christ . but rather leads to a perce-pcion of the nC'Cessiry of such statemenrs as derivative- of the- logic indicated by the- redemption worked by Christ. The- unity of Christ is rhus unde-fstood as being -of such a kind ~ as ro cohere with che logic of the act of uniting humanity [Q God. The unity of the person of Christ is thus conti nuous wit h the- unity of che act of eC"de-mption, while the aCt of redemption derives its stability and integ rity from the fact that its constituent dements ~ humanity and divinity _ atethemsd,,'e-s united in the being of che Word Incarnate-. Thus we can unde-rstand that, for Athanasius, separating the- humanity from the

146

147

H

For the- union (f) oo" cxcpit) was of this kind, thpt Ht might Imilt u-hP: iJ human by natIlTf fo him U'bolt lIPllln i; that of tht Godhtttd (iva '[0 lCa1'O: q>ixnv '[fjo:; 8EOnrroc; cn)\'a'fln t QV lpOOEt iiv8pwrcov), so that human salvation and deifi· cat ion may be secure-. (CA 2:70; Brigh t , p. 140; my emphasis)

THE ANTI_ ..... RIAK WRiTINGS

THE A':-"TI - ARIAN \'.;?RITiNGS

divinity of Christ amounts to "brcakins up" and so destabilizing the Moneness" and imegrity of Christ's work of redemption: "And they who divide the Word from the flesh do not hold that one redemption from sin has taken place, or one destruction of death ... 150 It is precisely in view of this oneness of redemption that we can answer Olll" previous question of how it is that Christ is both passible and impassible, according to Amanasius. Paradoxical Christological statements of this kind can be dismissed as simply nonsensical and meaningless. While we will nO{ anempt to "explain away" the paradoxical element, what we can do is go beyond glib asserrions that Athanasius simply does not take Christ's humanity seriously and u)' to see how such statements were imelligible for Athanasius himself. It is dear that he C"Onsiders it integral to the notion of God to be impassible. Insofar as the Word continues to be God and is not diminished in his divinity through the incarnation, he also continues to be impassible and his impassibi lity does not diminish. On the other hand, it is also dear that, for Athanasius, when the \\'ord became human he took on our passibitity. Following his own emphasis and terminology, we can say that, for Athanasius, the \X'ord took on our passibility in such a wa}' as to make it "'his own," so that it became his and not another·s.! 51 lt was therefore the Word himself who became passible. Even if it was only in virtue of the flesh that he became passible, it still remains that the flesh was his and not another's, and so rhe passibiLity pertained to the Word as subject and "owner'" of the flesh . And yet again, it was nOt the \Vord qlla \X'ord, by virtue of his di\,ine nature, that became passible. So the question, again, is how we can unify rhe (Wo statements that the \'qord becomes passible yet remains impassible; how can the unity of the \'I?ord Incarnate be conceived in light of rhese contmdicwry attributes and assenions? The answer, insofar as it exists or is intimated in the writings of Athanasius, is found preciselr within the logic of redemption. Once again, we have to insist that it is not such an answer as to do away with the paradoxical element or the dimension of mystery. But it does help us ro see the kind of logic chat is operative in such an affirmation of the unity of passibility and impassibility in Christ, an affirmation which reopens the whole question of how the humanity of Christ is both predicable and not predicable of the Word. Anticipating our conclusions, we can say that the reconciliation of such seemingly contradictory statements has w do with the as.yrnmetrical and teleological character of the unity of humanity and divinity in Christ, according to Arhanasius. By way of setting up a

heuristic counterpoint, we can (1)' to imagine a kind of StatiC model in which the human and divine attributes are simply JUXtaposed in an egalitarian manner, as both belonging to Christ 1j2 This is not Arhanasius's model, bur it is a model where the question of the unity of the human and divine attributes in Christ becomes most problematic. In Athanasius's view, however, the human attributes of Christ are not simply juxtaposed to the divine; they are transformed. And they are transformed precisely intO an orientation tOward the di vine attributes. That is what we mean by speaking of an asymmetrical and teleological unity in Christ. It is clearLy implied by Athanasius that the unity of the human and the divine in Christ is w be conceived in terms of the dynamic by which the human attributes are oriented wand transformed by rhe divine. It is the oneness of [his dynamic of sal'm tion that indicates the oneness of Christ. This means that the unity of Christ in Athanasius is best represented linguistically not as a substamive bur as a verb. If we look closely, we will see that when the question of the uoity of Christ is raised at aB, Athanasius implicitly answers it precisely in terms of action - of this transforming dynamic whereby the humanity is "changed" into a divine state. Thus the unity of the human and di\'ioe in Christ is globally posited in tefms of the one dynamic of Christ deii}'ing humanity. This dynamic necessitates both human and divine qualities, bllt it mutually orients their differences into the one act of deification. In short, the reconciliation of the impassibility and passibility of Christ is achie"",ed within the one process whereby our passibility is rendered. impassible:

148

149

And while he himself, being impassible in nature, remains as he is, [lOt harmed by these passibilities, but rather annulling and destroying them, humanity, having its passions changed and abolished in the Impassible, henceforth becomes also impassible and free from [hem forever ... since the flesh is now able to respond . .. '"I am from earth, being by nature mortal, but afren.... ards I have become the Word's flesh, and he carried my pa5sibi!ities, though He is without them; and 50 I became free from them, being no more abandoned to their service because of the Lord who has made me free from them ... For as the Lord, putting on the body, became human, so we humans are deified by the Word as being taken to him through his flesh , and henceforth inherit everlasting life."' (CA B4)

THE A:-..lTI - ARTAN WRITi::-.JGS

THE ANTI-AR I AN WRrTINGS

should not pass too quickly by the achievement of Athanasius's logic here, bur rather seek to draw out its implicit resources. He is able ro oriem the differences of [he human and the divine coward each other in a way that simultaneously reassens these differences and grounds the possibility of their unity. \':; S£O\) o:\-'epw lto;)~

A 6y~,

).aJ-lIXi\'c)\P eE cOl;

THE AK"TI_AR I AN WRI T INGS

THE ANTI - ARIAX WRITIKGS

COnira Genies-De lnmmarione on God's effort to secure the grace that is given and humaniq's persistem failure [Q hold on ro that grace. But whereas in the Contra Gmter-De InramatioM the resolution of the dilemma of humanity's failure to keep this grace is generally identified with the incarnation of tht' Word, in this section of the Comra Aria1t()j it is the notion of Christ's human receptivity that plays a key role in resolving the dilemma, This role is described in terms of his "secur ing ~ the grace, and allowing us [Q definitively "remain" (jlEVElV) in it. It is Christ's reception of grace - more specifically, Christ's human reception of the Holy Spirit on our behalf - that is seen as the ultimate "securing" of grace for humanity. In fact, Athanasius says categorically that our own reception of the Spirit, on which hinges our salvation and deification, is impossible except as derivative of Christ's human reception of it in the incarnation, Thus, while cominually reiterating the principle that Christ is rhe divine giver of the Spirit, he also goes on to emphasize the importance of Christ's human reception of the Spirit:

grace, which, as the De In(al71(1til)/.'e demonstrated, had been (he block in human--divine communion, The great consts capacit), to recei\'e, and since humanity had already demOllStraced its woeful incapacit)' to receive and keep the gift, che unsurpassable gift of the incarnation is chat we we-re given the very reception of che gife. In the incarnation, God not only gives bue his gi ....iog reaches the point of receiving on our behalf, thus perfecting our capacity co receive, which is our only access to the divine, 10 this way, di ..·ine giving l!.lld human receiving continue to be irreducibly distinct, but they are now united in the uniey of Christ himself, who becomes the source of our receptivity by ~'irtue of his humanity, and che perfector and securer of this receptiviey, as well as the giver of chI' Gift itself, by vierue of his divinit}·, Here, the distinction between ytv(v)l1ta and the Ct:y£v(\,)rrto 'tTt\' tOta\, £\'£p"fElaV 6.n:00100U~) . ''M As these passages bear Out , the characterization of God as "working'· (EvEP"(OI;) in the universe is closely associated in Athanasius with the terminology of divine IXlwer, OUVal.llC;, and, in general, with the vocabulary of movement and life. Accordi ng to his characteristic active--passive framework, God as Ev£pyO; means chat all creation is "enlivened in the Word": 1:0. miv1:Ct un:· CtO'tO-O InVE11:at Ka1 E\, a01:Cil ~(I)On:olEt-tal.64 When he comes to explain rhe doctrine of the incarnation, Athanasius maintains the emphasis on God as EVEp"fOl;. Indeed, the significance of the incarnatio n is arriculated in terms of the extension of the manifestation of primordial di" ine acti,·jty from the

176

177

The co-working of Christ and Antony

THE CONTEXT OF GRACE

THE CONTEXT OF GRAC E

universe in general to the human b<xI.y of Christ in panicuia(, and thence to the disciples of Christ. Through the providence and government of the uruverse, the Word '"moves (l(\\,OUVt O; ) all things in creation and through them makes the Father known, .. 6~ whereas, in the incarnation, chI.' knowledge of God manifested by creation is focused particularly on the "works" of the \Xford in t he b<xI.y, "in order that those who were unwilling ro know him by his providence and government of the uruverse, might yet know the Word of God who was in the lxx:Iy, by the works of the body (EK .(i)v 0\' amou '; nl-l.(i~ Kat i}J.Lwv K1Vitcn:U; Kat Ka,aO""tCto"£1~) . ·'119 We can see, therefore, that although Athanasius does not explicitly use the terminology of ·'internality'· and "externality·' in his comparison of the Psalms with the other scriptures, he nevertheless evokes this framework insofar as he characterizes the Psalms as enabling rhe interioriz.acion and subjective appropriation of the objective commandments and exhonations conta.ined in the other scriptures . 130 The Psalms do this by providing a concrete pattern by which these commandments and counsels may be appropriated by the hearing subject, a pattern of how to feel , act, and speak. ~Ioreo\"er, Arhanasius further emphasizes the ··internalit}''' of rhis pattern by stressing that, in rhe an of prayerfully reading the Psalms, this pattern is nOt encountered as external to the speaker but as internal [0 his or her subjectivity. Again, Arhanasius does nor use the language of internality and externality here, but that framework is evoked by the terminology of identity, otherness, and ownership.B I In essence, the distinCtive grace of the Psalms has [0 do with the claim that their contents are encountered as "not other~ rhan rhe hearer (hence, we can translare: ··not external·· to the

hearer's subjectiv!!}') but as one·s own (so we can say, ··internal'· to the hearer's subjectivity):

Despite Athanasius's pointed exclusion of rhe Chrisrological or ·'}o.-fessianic" Psalms from this applicabili!}' of the Psalms to the hearer's own person, an exclusion meant to safeguard the prophetic witness to Christ, it remains true that what Athanasius says here

196

197

H

There is also this astonis hi ng thing in the Psalms. In t he other books, those who read what the holy ones say, and what they mig ht say concerning certain people, are relating rhe things that were written about those earl ier people. And likewise, those who listen consider themselves to be other than those about whom the passage speaks (or !£ a1(ooovt£~ OJ.I,O"O~ Eau"tous EKEI.VroV it-{O\)Vtal, "Epi ill\' 0:) )"6yo 'Cov £niY£tov Kat Oi>Pi:t.\'10V av9pronov tu1toJ\' £OEt~£v) , so also from the Psalms he who WantS to do SO can learn the emotions and dispositions of the soul, finding in them also the therapy and correction suited for each emotion. 1jS T hus, in the same war in which the Psalms provide a ~ mitror··l}9

198

Of

~image··

199

• THE COl\TEXT OF GRACE

the '\X'ord within the universe, according to which the Word is presemed as the prima;y acting subject who leads and co-ordinates the distinCt parrs of creation imo a coherent and harmoniously ordered whole. 141 At the .>ame time, Athanasius also aniculates the goal of human spiritual stri\'ing in tetlus of achieving an immanent harmony or equanimity, an inner order. Thus in the Epistle to MarrellinuJ. the Psalms are described in terrns of regulating and coordinating the emotions and passions of the soul towards ·'equanimity."' 142 Similarly Antony, as the one in whom "the success of rhe 5avior" is manifest, presents us with a perfect model of "utter equilibrium ;,14, an "unshaken mind," l44 and "stability of charaCter." 145 \VIe can describe such a State as one of divine-human co-subjectivity insofar as it represents the co-working and co-leadership of Christ and the human soul over the passions and emotions. Again, within this perspective, a human person's being self-consistent and "not at variance with himself'" is convergent wi th his or he r submission to the divine ·· leadership." This dynamic is analyzed by Athanasius in his examination of the effect of the singing of the Psalms on the soul:

THE COK TE XT OF GRACE

It is within this oveearching context that we can see that

music there is a plectrum, so the man becoming himself a stringed instrument and devoting himself complerely to the Spirit may obey in all his members and emotions, and serve rhe will of God. 146

Amony's mastery of himself is fully convergent with his allowing himself to be mastered by the Lord. Antony's imernalizacion of the power of the Incarnate Word means that the ordering, harmonizing, and life-giving power which the \X/ord exercises in the uni,:erse becomes immanent to Antony's own constitution. 14 ? Antony is thus a dramatic model of the relationship of "ioremalit}''' berween humaniry and creation through the incarnation, in which the power of the Savior becomes imemal to the human being. At the same time, while [he model of Antony thus illumines and dramatizes certain elementS of Athanasius's understanding of the incarnation of the Word, ic also serves to critique that understanding. Indeed, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that, in cenain respects, Athanasius's Jesus may gain from borrowing some of the features of Athanasius's Amony. For if the criticism of Athanasius's neglect of Christ's human soul may itself be criticized when proceeding ftom a framewo rk that is foreign to Achanasius, such criticism may still be allowed when It arises organically precisely from within Athanasius's own framework. The portrait of Amony represents such an occasion. When we consider Athanasius's emphasis on the equanimiry of Antony, as representing the perfection of spiritual stability, along with his emphasis on the victOry of the incarnation in terms of internalizing the power of the Word into our human condition, we can only conclude that, from Athanasius's own perspective, what is needed is a Jesus who by modeling this equanimiry in his own soul makes it internal co our human souls. The faCt that Athanasius does nOt provide such a model means that, while Antony's bodily asceticism can be seen to derive from the victory of the "flesh-bearing \X/ord'" that has become imemal to our flt'sh, a similar derivation cannOt be traced for Antony's '"equilibrium," which is arguably a more fundamt'mal category for characterizing the latter's spiritual perfeCtion. At the same time, this observation merely underscores our earlier remarks about the lack of an analytical perspective in Athanasius's Christology. '\I;re noted at the time that by an "analytical perspenive" we mean one that focuses on the internal constitution of the Incarnate \'>:/ord. Athanasius is able to focus on the imernal constitution of the Antony who is perfected in Christ, but his spontaneous impulse to conceive Christ himself only in terms of what he effects for US makes him impariem of refleCtion on his internal constitution. Howeyer, his emphasis on the internality of the relation between God and creation logically re
Jl.npublishtd. Old Tesramenr bears testImony to God's absolute tl'3nscendence.... Howt','er, the Bible ncver wearies from announcing that this awesome otherness is never in isolation fwm his redempci'"t mercy," Childs. Biblir41 Tht,,/ogy ()/ lk Old and Nc.. TtS!4mtnl$. TMlogi'1/,1: irtnallll. Ttrtll!1i411. 4114 Origm. New York: Se-ahury Press. 1965, p. 60. 31 Ibid .. p. 67. 32 Bamard , jJl.mn Mar1')'T. HiJ Lift alia Tool/gb;. Cambridge: Cambridge UnlVersLty Press, 1967, pp _83-4_ 33 The problematic nature of this juxtaposition is analyzed b}' Pannenbe rg. -The appropriation of the philosophical conctpt of God as a dogmatic problem of Early Christian theology", in B4JU QI'tJriom i" T!mJlogy. Collected Essays. "01. 2. rfans. ~rge H . Kehm, Philadelphia: Fonress Press, 1971, pp. 11 9-83.

,

,- l '

KQTES

NOT ES

34 lrelUCus, .A.dt'mlls

35 36

37 38

39

H:UrtJtJ (here-airer cited as AI·I) 1lI, 8, 3; Sources Chrttiennes (hereafter SQ 2 11 . 96. In translating the texts of lrenaeus, I ha~'e consulred the translation pro"ided in A"u-Nh'em F:(thm, voL l. Cf. AH 11, S, 4. Cf. i\H IV. 20, 4. For examples of Irenaeus's emphasio; on God as -a.hvays presem~ [0 creation . see ibid. rn, 16,6; rv. 20, I: rv, 28. 2. "The concept of the absol ute cr.l.nscendence of God with respect to his creation and the consequent immediacy of his presence to ie, which lrenaeus elaborates wieh the aid of [his Platonic dIStinction [i_e., between Being and Becommg} underlies the whole of his theological conception," Minns, IrmalllJ. WashingtOn: Georgerown Uni\'ersity Press, 1994, p. 34. It is beyond the scope of this work to ascenain the exacc relationship berween Arhanasian and [renaean texts, though I have ciced in chapter 3 various nocable parallels thac strongly raise the possibility of Alhanasius having direct access to the wrirings of lrenaeus. The rela tionship berll:een rwo figures is certainly a subject requi ring further study. Torrance has also assened thac Arhanasius "stands squarely in the tradition of In:naeus. and develops chI' biblical-thrological understanding of the Gospel which we see reflected in his "'~rks ... : without, ho ...·e"er, elaboraring on precisel y ",·here he places th i... continuity; M:e his kAt hanasius: a study in the foundations of classical theology," in Divinf !oft.aning. Studilf i" Palmli, H('f'11I(1Wttla. Edinburgh: T. &. T. C1ark. 1995, p. li9. &e- Widdicombe, The Falhtrhwd 0/ G~ frrml Orlgen tD A,hlZl1i1sius. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1994, pp . 1-92, 14')- 222. kEI idto i" ro ipJ~, 'i"O ob!inll ~ni;;l, glt.lrla SIIIZ m," Pm !lrr/1.,n I. 2, 10 (SC 2')2.136). flmr.t.f

rne5l:'

40 41

2 Nordberg, kA re:; ri;v E\' Savo:rq> K(;('C(X !j)00t\' 1J16opO: U;rOj.lE\'uv." There seems to be no linguistic exigenq for translating EV 9(;(\'a1:8opO: as referring merely to the corruption of the body. 28 Boure r, L'llUarnatJon eJ t£g!ilr-CorpJ du Christ dam la :hlolQgie de saint ll.thal1ase, Paris: Editions du (;en, 1943 , p. 87, aprl y characterizes :5 The sratement that God is unconrained but rather conuiru; all things is commonplace in early (hrisrim doctrine of God. Prestige rakes it as intended to con~'t)' Ma ,'ery necessarv ",,-arning agaiost Stoic M pantheism (op. cit., p. 5). 56 Prri Archon L 2, 8. 57 "Having such a good Son md creator as his offspring, the Father did not hide him away from created beings, bue re-'eals him to a.l1 e...ery day through che sub!lscence and life of ehe unive~, which he effects. In him and throug h him, chI' Father reveals himself, as the Saviour says:" am in the Father. and the Father is in me: MCG 47. 58 We may noce in passing chac. no(withstanding the ocGlSionai (on"entional remark. Achanasius is noc reaJly much interested in angels. The kind of hierarchical ~chain of being~ world-"iew that is found in Origen, for example. gi" es ~.ray to chI' strict polatity in Athanasius of God and world. We sha.ll remark funher on this poin t in the COntt}:t of his anti· Arian polemic. 59 "L'opposieion entre X(r.P\~ et (jl\xn~ correspond, non a notee couple sumarurel e-c naturel, mais plu t6t 1 la uanscendance de I'Incree divin sur le 6pci:tr..Ol participation 10 and reaction to Adunasius's election. see Amold . Tk £rrl)" Epi~' Ctlrt6 of ArNntlslMJ ~f Af~XI:lndri1twa are to be kept a,,'ay from the Logos. a creared subject of the suffering must be round ... It was Arh.anasius's usk to sho.;l.· that these 'human charac· teristics' of the red~mer did nO( prejudice hili transcendence and immutability. He therefore had to tind th;; subject of all sufferi ng in the manhood. ofChriS[." Cf. Young. op. cit.. pp. 74-5; H anson. op. cit., p, 448, 142 Ad Epil"t. 6; PG 26. I06OC. 143 Grillmeier, op. cit., p. 314; H anson, op. dt., p. 448. 144 Cr. CA 2:55: "Fot as by receiving our mfirmi t ies. he is said to be infirm himself, t hough not himself infirm (ii:y£tUl a mi>; acrEl£\'£lv. Ka l t Ol Jlra c':ta9£v8v o:irr~). for he is t he power of God and he became sin fo, us and j. curse ... " Np,\,TF 4. 378; Bright, p . 125. 14:i CA 3:24: cf. Dt Oar. 14. 146 CA 3::;4; Bright, p. 189. 147 CA 3:35; NP!\"F 4, 413; such a statement makes c1~t how m uch Athanasius's Chrisrological reasoni ng meieipated Crril's. St:e also Dt Srn!. DiM}. 9. 148 Ibid.; cf. CA 3:48: ~ For whatever He does. that he does wholly for our S.1kes, since also for us 'the Word became flesh'." 149 Ad Epm, 9; NPNF 4,573. DO Ad Addph. 5; N PNF 4. S/6. 151 Cn 3:32. D2 It is most like ly that the Alexandrian rejection of Leo's T!Pr~, and Chalcedonim Chrinolog}" generallr, was based on the percep£ion that it pro~'ided just such an -egalitarian," non·teltologia.l. and thus non· uansformatl\'e model. 153 Ad Addph, 8; PG 26, iOS4A-B. 154 Hmson, op. ci t ., p. 448. IS:i Thus Hanson, op. ci t. , p. 451: "We mUSt conclude that ,,·hatever else the UgDS incarnate is in A[hanasius' account of him, he is not a M human being. Cr. Young, op, cit., pp. 74-5, 156 Grillmeier. op. cit.. pp. 314-15; Hanson. op. m .• pp. 448-9. O n the other hand, ~ ehe nuanced neatm;;nt in Peuersen, .A.!hanasifis, Harrisburg. PA: Moreho use, 1995, pp. 113-129. l:i7 Thus Penersen. op. cit., p. 126: "Hence a potentially static "iew gives way to a dynamic view. Ignorance. fesr, suffering and death are admitted, but only to be alleViated. In his dispelling ignorance, light. ening suffering and conquering death, there i5 the divinizing of e....eryone in Ch rist. What superfidally may appear to be- inchoate docetism is in fact pen-"lISi"'e 'IOteriology.158 CG 46ft. 159 'nlV 'mu S£OOlKo-ro; xitpn.·~ (CG 2). 160 See Gregg and Groh, op. ci t. , especially pp. 102-14. Th;;y poim Out that the Arians used for scr'ptural proof·texts pasuges ~whose ,,;;rbs and meanings "II.'ere in the Oi.&ro~H and r.:o:paot&llJlt family~ (p. 6). 161 Again, "II.'e find amicipate-d in Irenaeus this understand in g of the \X!ord's incarnation a.\ effecting our J((r'~( reception of grace. through

238

239

~OTES

Christ's rect'pt:ion of and ~anointing~ by d~ Spirit: "The Word of God ... b«ame the Son of Man, dut He might accustom man to receive God ... ~ (.J\,w. H,"" III, 20. 2; 1t..I>..'F 1, p. 450); ~ And. again, unless it had bttn God ""ho had freely gi~'ef1 S2lvation, we could n"er ha\'e possessed it se=rely . , . For in what way could we be partakers of the adopt ion of son, unl o:ss we had recei~'ed from him through the Son that feJJoVo'Ship which refers to himSol'lf, unless his \X/ord, ha"ing been made flesh, had entered into communion with us?" (ibid., 1II, 18,7: ANF 1, p. 448): "Therefore did [he Spirit of God descend upon him, hhe Spirit} of him Vo'ho had promised by the prophets thu He would anoint him, so that we, receiving from the abundance of his unction, might be saved M(ibid. , Ill, 9, 3; ANF 1, p.

NOTES

15 16 17 18 19

1lI:4:NPNF4,514. V:3. Ibid. V:5. VU:3; NPNF 4,524.

20 VU . 21 V:5; VII:3. 22 V U:\. 23 VIA. 24 VD: referring toMe. 25:14-30. 25 Ufo of IInt~IIJ" In troduction. [tans. Gregg, lilh(lfUlsius. The Uft of Anlo1/) (lnd tbt Lmn-:o J\f8ruiiinus, N~' York: PauliS! Press. 1980, p.

29

423), 162 We ha"e aJ~y referred (0 Irenaeus's similax conception of Christ Msecuring" OUI recepti\'ily through the incarnation. We may also nOte that , for Irenaew too. the hlUI\3Il \'Ocation Call be summed up in terms of Mremaining Min communion with the divine: MFor, as much u God is in want of nothing, so much does humanity stand in need of fello\\'Ship with God_For this is the glory of humanity, to continue and remain permanently in God's sef"ice" (Adv. H,ur. rv, 14, 1; . Gregg. R. and Groh. D. 94, 167 - 77,183,191. 233 n.84. 239 n.6O . Gril1~eier, A. 70-1,79-80,211 n." 224 00.101, 104. 225 nn.104, 106. 238 on.134 135 2390.141 " Gwatkio, H_ M. 93-5, 162, 168 Hanson, R. p_ C. 142,211 n.3, 212 n.9. 226 n.ll1. 227 0.2. 228 n.15. 228-9 n.16. 239 0_155 Harnack. A. 30,93,229 n.30 Holy Spirit (divio;t)· of) 88, 89. 90, 99,100,101, 114-1'),126. 129.158-9,163.231 n.6O "Homoousios~ 85, 89, 90. 91, 96 humanity 32, 53-67,189-91: d;ariJ (grace) and pbyJis (nature) 36.55-6,58,59; divine image in ~umanity 55--61, 65-7; n~/J! (mind) 61-2, 64-5. 67. 73; f'J),(~ (soul) 61. 62. 73: S?ff'.a (bodr) 61 . 62-3,

73

Eudorus of Alexandria 212 n.7 Eunomius 90 E~iusof~ 26. 29, 85. 216 n.19 Eusebius of Kicomedia 85

:dirJ.S 82-3,102-7,119,133,139,

Floro\'Sky, G . 21 8---19 n.43 free will 35, 60. 176

incarnation 37-9, 40, 41-2, 43, 45.57.66-7.67-70,83,104, 130-61. 177-83,190,193-4. 196-202, 203; Set glso Christ doctrine of; redempr;oo . lrenat'us 4, 6-7,19-24,25. '>7, 205,218 n.4O. 221 n.66, 233 n.83, 234 nn.91-2, 235 on.93. 100,236 nn.105, 107, 108.237 nn.ll3. 114, 238 D_130, 239-40 on.161, 162, 166, 244 0.111,246n.3

141-6,206,232 D_68 idolatry 27-8, 29. 35, 39 immediacy and mediation, in Athanasius4 25 96 i09-1, 162 '" .

generation. of the Son 107 122~3 134 " G=rge of Cappadocia 87 Gnostics 16, 18-19,62.205 God, doctrine of 38-47. %-100' divine charjJ (grace) 55-6. 59' 83; d;";ne condescension 40. 46 53,73.75,82,113,208; dh·ine· physir (nature) 40; cssenc~power distinction 46; knowledge of 33 34.48,58, 72,75,164,189; , narure-",'1)cks distinction 46 48. 74-5 . Grace, life of 164-210

Jo.. ian, Emperor 92 Jul!an, Emperor 91, 92 JulIU$, Pope of Rome 88 Justin Mart},r 17-18

257

INDEX

Kaunengiesser, Ch. 26, 222 on.75. 76; 228 n.ll. 232 n.68 Kel1y,]. N . D. 1

Plato 7-10, 17,46, 50, 64, 233 n.86 PIO(inus 11-13 Plutarch 212 on.7.S pra}'er 186--8 Prestige. G. L. 220 n.55 pro\'idence 69

UU