Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word

ATHANASIUS ON THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD OKECHUKWU. P. ONYENURU Undergraduate Student of Department of Theology, Dominican Institute, Ibadan, Nigeria. pauloke24@gmail.com INTRODUCTION. The coming of God as man is the bedrock of the Christianity. It the primordial stage of the elevation of man from grass to grace; from mortality to immortality; from corruptible to incorruptible. It is a mystery that eludes the comprehension of the rational mind considering that its fundamental principles of knowledge (faith) an principle of origin proceeds from a source higher than human reason. Athanasius, one of the Church Fathers and a key figure in the Council of Nicaea, in his book-Against the Greeks: On the incarnation- tries to expound the doctrine of the Incarnation to his audience with great emphasis on its necessity and end on one hand, and the consistency of its details and congruity with history. In this essay, I shall expose the arguments of Athanasius in an order that will present the heart of his discussion in the lines of creation, humanization and redemption. In some places, I will use the term “man” in the generic sense to mean humans without prejudice to genders. BACKGROUND TO HIS WRITTING Athanasius was born ca. 295-299AD of Egyptian blood and Greek education1. In addition to receiving liberal education as the son of an eminent pagan worshiper, he also received Christian education at the famous Alexandrian Catechetical School after his mother became converted to Christianity. Upon the death of his mother, Athanasius remained in the courts of Alexander, Bishop of Alexander, who educated him with gentleness in every art. He memorized the gospels and read the divine scriptures and when he was mature, Alexander ordained him a deacon and made him his scribe in his court, with the responsibility of speaking in his stead and a competent minister of the Word. 2 1 2 Khaled Anatholios, Athanasius (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 2 Ibid., p. 3 The heading of the work-Against the Greeks, seems to suggest that Athanasius wrote it to refute Greek religious attacks against Christianity which was predominant in the first three centuries of Christianity. In addition, he mentions Macarius, a presbyter whom he ordered when he was a Bishop (Athanasius was ordained Bishop of Alexander in at the age of 31) 3 to break the chalice and overturn the altar of a Melitian Priest, Isychras.4 This is an indication that there were mild crisis of faith that was largely evangelical rather than theological, and the language of the work suggests that paganism was contending strongly with Christianity in Alexander (we recall that Alexander was a city with ports and a conglomerate of all kinds of religions), necessitating a clarification of the Christian faith to foster conversion of the pagans. Although the incident mentioned above happened when Athanasius was a bishop, the tone of the work under study does not suggest that it was written during his episcopate. Unlike his later works that bear the marks of the Nicene struggle in that they were highly theological, exegetical, and preoccupied with interpreting text in the light of the Nicene doctrine, the Against Greeks was largely soteriological and anthropological, putting the date of this work around AD318 when he was yet a deacon.5 He employed common sense argument and the scriptures and without much rigour, to the establishment of a framework that has the incarnation embedded in a closely knit connection between God and creation.6 It has the character of a polemic. Thus what we see is Athanasius trying to present to an average Greek, either pagan or convert to Christianity, reasonable arguments for belief in the incarnation which can be verified in nature, scripture, history and everyday experience. CREATION AND THE FALL OF MAN Among the Greeks, there are many theories that explain the origin of the universe. The Epicureans say that everything has come into being by themselves and by chance, while Plato says that God created things from what pre-existed. But why is the creator called God if He cannot create out of nothing, ex nihilo? Following Greek philosophy, God would be a 3 V. C. De Clercq, Athanasius, St., Thomas Carson and Joann Cerrito (ed.), The New Catholic Encyclopedia. vol. 1, 2003 edition. Washington DC: Gale, p. 817. 4 Cf. Khaled Anatholios, p. 10 5 Ibid., p. 819 6 Cf. Khaled Anatholios, p. 32 1 mechanic and not a creator.7 The implication would be that God will owe his existence to another superior being that is sui generis. But this is a false doctrine. The truth is that God made all things, not by compulsion or spontaneously, nor out of anything that was, but out of nothing by His own Word, Jesus Christ.8 God made the terrestrial and heavenly bodies including the non-corporeal beings- Angels. Among all that he has made, God singled out man, making him a special partaker of Himself. God did not barely create man, as He did all the irrational creatures on the earth, but made them after His own image, giving them a portion even of the power of His own Word; so that having as it were a kind of reflexion of the Word, and being made rational, they might be able to abide ever in blessedness, living the true life which belongs to the saints in paradise9 According to the Scriptures, God put humans in a beautiful Garden where they would live in eternity.10 Being an image of God, humans had the Word dwelling within them so that they would have knowledge of God, and the corruption of their mortal nature would not have an effect on their existence.11 With this also came the gift of free will which will, like God, enable human to make free choices. Yet knowing that human could sway, God did put a compass that would serve as guide to human actions. Irrespective of these preventive measures wrought by the immeasurable love of God, human, like pigs, rejected the friendship of Love when Adam transgressed the law by a single act of disobedience. Man, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves , received the condemnation of death with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they were made, but were being corrupted according to their devices; and death had the mastery over them as king… For if, out of a former normal state of non-existence, they were called into being by the Presence and loving-kindness of the Word, it followed naturally that when men were bereft of the knowledge of God and were turned back to what was not (for what is evil is not, but what is good is), they should, since they derive their being from God who IS, be everlastingly bereft even of being; 7 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 2 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 3 9 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a 3 10 Gen. 2: 8 New Jerusalem Bible. 11 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a.11 8 2 in other words, that they should be disintegrated and abide in death and corruption12 It is not clear how to interpret Athanasius’ anthropological position. It seems that Athanasius is arguing that sin brings disintegration of the human nature, sending man to oblivion or complete annihilation: from existence to non-existence. However, at the end of the statement, he presents milder terms-death and corruption- which does not mean complete annihilation. We see an anthropological dialectic between nature and grace. Human nature (ψ ) by itself is corruptible, mortal, non self-sustaining and so far removed from the absolute beingness of God. Humans, whose nature is created ex nihilo, lack the ability to contemplate God due to the gap between “absolute nothingness” and “absolute beingness”. For human beings to actually exist, human nature must be radically complemented by the dynamics of “grace”, α , which corresponds to the divine ψ αν οπ α (love) of God. The implication of this position is that any who is not redeemed will go into annihilation or nothingness or die. This grace given to man is specifically to have knowledge of God. So that after the fall man had no knowledge of God because he had lost his rationality whose actual principle flows from the indwelling of the Word ( α ). For Athanasius, rationality lies not in the ability to move from the known to the unknown, but to contemplate God, meaning that at the Fall, man lost the ability to contemplate God, or come to knowledge of God. For he says “what profit to the creatures if they knew not their Maker? or how could they be rational without knowing the Word (and Reason) of the Father, in Whom they received their very being? For there would be nothing to distinguish them even from brute creatures if they had knowledge of nothing but earthly things”.13 He seems to stress the complete fragility of the human ψ . Man by his very nature can do nothing to save himself, not even to come to a barest minimum knowledge of God. This contrasts with the Medieval conception of man's ability to know. For the School Men, man by his rationality can come to knowledge of God, but whereas some will arrive at this knowledge, and some will miss him altogether, others will get only a caricature of Him. Copleston, explaining Augustine’s view on this issue say: 12 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a.4 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 11 13 3 such is the power of true Godhead that it cannot be altogether and utterly hidden from the rational creature, once it (man) makes use of its reason. For with the exception of a few in whom nature is excessively depraved, the whole human race confesses God to be the author of the world. Even if a man thinks that a plurality of gods exists, he still attempts to conceive „the one God of gods…14 For St. Thomas, man can by things in the world come to knowledge of God: Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God "whether He exists," and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him.15 According to Anatolios, Athanasius should not be seen as holding a pessimistic view about human nature. His conclusion stems from his concept of man's anthropology. For him, man was a composite ψ and a α at creation. The α is an intrinsic participation in the Word, and it is the rationality of man.16 At the fall, man lost the grace, lost his rationality and so could not perceive God even in the things created by God. INCARNATION Following the Fall, man became blinded by a multiplicity of sins that he indulged himself in. Man could not save himself, because being made of body and soul, even though he could see his mortal frame, little or nothing could be done because the form (Soul) was beyond his vision. Concupiscence, evil, deceit had enveloped that part, which makes it impossible for man to redeem himself and also the rest of the universe considering that he is the highest of all beings. No part of creation could be redeemed because man could not clearly see in them (creatures) marks of the creator, the Word of God, due to loss of his rationality. How could man discover the good in what he does not see? Rather, man used other creature in ways not directed to their proper end since he was ignorant of their good end. Thus, in order that creation would not become a futile venture, sanity, order and harmony had to be restored. 14 Frederick, Copleston. A History of Philosophy, Vol II. (New York:, Doubleday, 1962). p. 70 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1. q. 12 a. 12 16 Cf. Khaled Anatolios p. 34 15 4 When by man’s fall he incurred universal wrath of death, it was clear that the Evil One had won the battle. The Devil had thwarted the creative plan of God, putting to disrepute the love of God for humanity. But what was God to do? Keep silent or abandon His creation as some contemporary philosophers hold? God had to redeem His creation. Why? Firstly, it was a defeat to God if creatures once made rational as partakers of His Word, should by sin go into non-existence. It would have been better if they did not from the onset partake of this Divine love. Secondly, it was against the goodness of God to neglect what he had created. Thirdly, it would be an act of weakness on the part of the Eternal God to abandon His project. Is it possible that the omnipotent would be powerless in the face of the actions of the Devil whose existence is rooted in God? Since both goodness and strength are essential to God, it behoves on Him to setup a mechanism that would save man from corruption.17 Could this salvation not come about by putting into man the sense of remorse or repentance for his numerous sins? Athanasius discredits this path to salvation by positing that repentance does not guarantee redemption on two grounds. First, since man had lost the grace, if repentance restored incorruptibility, then immortality would be gained without the presence of the Grace of the Word of God who created man at the beginning. Thus, God's word that immortality comes by having His Word would be a lie. Second, repentance does not “call men back from what is their nature-it merely stays them from acts of sin”18 Therefore, it was pertinent that there be once more a union of man and the eternal Word of God for immortality to be restored. Man could not save himself; neither could the angels since they are not even images of the Word.19 If from the beginning the Word dwelt in the nature of men, it was pertinent that he performs the same act in order to restore man to former glory.20 Out of the love of the Word of the Father for creation, He (The Word) took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the mastery—lest the creature should perish, and His Father‟s handiwork in men be spent for nought—He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear.21 17 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 6 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 7 19 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 13 20 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 10 21 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 8 18 5 The eternal and most powerful Word of God could simply have come down from heaven to destroy death, give a command and the status quo would change, or dwell forcefully in the hearts of men again. But all these would not satisfy the price of redemption. Death and mortality had a grip on humanity, such that it required a special kind of death to rescue man from this incarceration. Due to this requirement, and since no man was pure enough to undergo this perfect sacrifice, the Word had to come in the form of man. Yet he could have appeared suddenly and died but it was necessary for him to be born, grow among a people and die a death resulting from his good acts. To satisfy all the requirements, the Word had to be born like all other men considering the fact that if he suddenly appeared, he could not have taken the form of man completely, but would be a seeming or an apparent replica of man, and so would not be true man. The implication is that not being true man, he would not have died because God cannot die. Finally, in taking up human flesh, he might turn the corrupt human nature back to incorruption by rising from death in his humanity by the power of his divinity. Thus, the eternal Word takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men”,22 so that “seeing a body proceeding forth from a Virgin alone without man, (who could) fail to infer that He Who appears in it is Maker and Lord of other bodies also?23 The Word took upon himself human nature formed of a virgin. The body which Christ moved and lived with while on earth was formed from that of human being, a virgin. He took human nature from a human, so that the action of condescension may be complete. Considering that the soteriological intention was to die, he needed to take up human nature in order that the immortal one could for a while be mortal, and then upon his crucifixion die with all that are mortal and upon his resurrection give immortality to all mortals. But so that he would not be the product of human desire, he chose not to be born of a father, lest we reduce him to a human being. Because he was formed of a human being, it was 22 23 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 8 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 18 6 subject to corruption. But because he was divine, his human nature could be saved from corruption.24 As Scriptures say: Since all the children share the same human nature, he too shared equally in it, so that by his death he could set aside him who held the power of death, namely the devil, and set free all those who had been held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death. For it was not the angels that he took to himself; he took to himself the line of Abraham. It was essential that he should in this way be made completely like his brothers so that he could become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship to God, able to expiate the sins of the people25 The Word did not perform magic by instantly coming from the clouds, dying and rising from death. If salvation took this form, the world would not have known him. But he came in flesh and blood, eating, drinking and working marvels among the human race in order that those whom he had come to save would recognize him. However, not for a second did he detach himself from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and being the sustainer of life, he did not cease to be what he has been from eternity when he took upon himself the human nature. So at the incarnation, the Word was both God and man. Athanasius captures this condescending act of the Word of God when he says that This was the wonderful thing that He (the Word) was at once walking as man, and as the Word was quickening all things, and as the Son was dwelling with His Father. So that not even when the Virgin bore Him did He suffer any change, nor by being in the body was [His glory] dulled: but, on the contrary, He sanctified the body also. For not even by being in the universe does He share in its nature, but all things, on the contrary, are quickened and sustained by Him.26 Irrespective of the choice of the Word to take flesh, Christ was always God. Athanasius seems to have anticipated the Arian controversy, for in no place does he present the thought of subordinations of the Son. He makes clear the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. Furthermore, Christ did not come in an exulted form because was not coming to make a show of his power but to heal and teach those who were suffering. He took human nature so that men would recognize in one like themselves the true God once again. 24 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 8 Heb 2:14-17 (New Jerusalem Bible) 26 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 17 25 7 For, men as they are, they will be able to know His Father more quickly and directly by a body of like nature and by the divine works wrought through it, judging by comparison that they are not human, but the works of God, which are done by Him… For just as He is in creation, and yet does not partake of its nature in the least degree, but rather all things partake of His power; so while He used the body as His instrument He partook of no corporeal property, but, on the contrary, Himself sanctified the body 27 THE FINALITY OF THE INCARNATION The incarnation of the Word had a soteriological end. It was geared towards salvaging the creation of the Word from destruction. Since the principal salvific act is death, the Word could have simply lived on earth and died like most good men do. But this is not how Christ’s sojourn on earth took. The Word died a public and shameful death. If the Word had lived till his grey days and died, it would have been said that he was like all men in all things including the weakness and fragility peculiar to men which normally leads them to sickness and death. Knowing that he could not succumb to the mortality due to his human nature because his divine nature was life and strength, he had to receive death from the hands of others so as to consummate the sacrificial act that precedes redemption. It would seem that while Christ was still with his disciplines, he often spoke of the kind of death that he would die. Is it the case that he chose a particular kind of death that suited him in a bid to enhance his publicity, or was he afraid of some kind of death? If Christ had died in secret, no one would have believed the resurrection. There would have been no evidence to prove the authenticity and originality of the resurrection. But we know that even outside the Scriptures, history records the death of Christ and no historical account of the crucifixion of Christ would exclude a claim to his resurrection. Secondly, Christ did not make a choice of the kind of death to die. By this act he would have shown his weakness in the face of death. But he was open to any manner of death that his adversaries would prepare for him. The most dishonourable for any human being would best serve his purpose of condescending to save, stooping to raise up. The scorn which his detractors had for him made them request the most grisly and shameful death. A kind of death not even deserving of a Roman citizen-death by hanging on a tree. 27 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 43 8 Cursed was man after the fall and only that person who is ready to bear the curse could save man from corruption. Now, death on the cross was the most gruesome and shameful kind of death because the person was laid naked on a tree, nailed to it and allowed to die slowly. Also, it is believed that “cursed is he that hangeth on a tree”.28 Furthermore, only the one who hangs on the tree accomplishes a two-fold act of destroying the celestial stronghold of the Satan and his angels by hanging in the air, and also drawing all men and women with outstretched arms, for Christ says “when I am lifted up, I shall draw all men to myself".29 Christ’s resurrection was also not a haphazard event. It had to take place on the third day for several reasons. If it had taken place immediately after his death, it would have been said that death had not fully taken over his mortal body, meaning that he pretended to be dead when he was on the tree. If he had allowed it to linger for long, the body would have been completely corrupted and the news will be that he exchanged his body for another. But it was timely to serve as experiential evidence that the Word, once dead was alive again. His resurrection made a fool of death. It brought death to nothing by removing the fear that men had for it. Man after the Fall could not fully express the inherent principle of selfpreservation. Man feared death as it brought to futility this inherent principle, representing non-existence. But upon Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection, men and women spoke aloud “death where is thy victory, oh grave where is thy sting?” Athanasius ascribes the willingness of Christians to embrace martyrdom to the event of the resurrection when he says Before men believe Christ, they see in death an object of terror, and play the coward before him. But when they are gone over to Christ‟s faith and teaching, their contempt for death is so great that they even eagerly rush upon it, and become witnesses for the Resurrection the Saviour has accomplished against it. For while still tender in years they make haste to die, and not men only, but women also, exercise themselves by bodily discipline against it. So weak has he become, that even women who were formerly deceived by him, now mock at him as dead and paralyzed.30 The resurrection is a reality because it comes with a lot of evidences. If Christ was still in the tomb, how is it that Christians are at war with demons and evil spirits? We know that evil spirits have existence, but how will a name that is dead be a terror to one that has being? The 28 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 25 Jh. 11: 32 (New Jerusalem Bible) 30 Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 27 29 9 sick get healed, the lame work, the blind see, the deaf hear at the mention of the name of Jesus Christ. These are evidences to anyone who is honest and reasonable to accept the resurrection as an event that occurred in history, and also changed history. If this is accepted, then the incarnation which its starting point should not be a hard teaching. CONCLUSION Creation, sin and redemption are words that best capture Athanasius’ approach to the mystery of the Incarnation in his work De Incarnatione. He communicates it in a dramatic manner that seems to present the incarnation of Christ primarily with reference to its endRedemption and Salvation of the human race. Much emphasis is laid on the final end of incarnation served by personification of the Word. Athanasius pursues a soteriology in his treatment of the incarnation by the way of anthropology. By his incarnation, the Word reconciled man back to God by abolishing corruption that was intrinsic to human nature. He comes to heal the wounds of sin that makes man ignorant of God and make man disobey the will of God. The pedagogical implication of the mystery lies in the humanity of Christ. He lived, moved and related with humans on earth without picking up sin. His life is a path towards transformation of human life in all spheres-Moral, social, spiritual. As those who accept the person of Christ at baptism, we have been cloth again, like at creation, with the garment of immortality by being born in the Grace of the Word. Athanasius charges Christians to live the life of the incarnation, shunning evil and idolatry. It is in doing so that the incarnation of Christ leads to a death like unto his own and ultimately to a resurrection into life incorruptible, eternal and immortal. 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Benziger Bros edition. London: Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1947. Anatholios Khaled, Athanasius. London: Routledge, 2004 Athanasius. Against the Greeks-On the incarnation. Tranl. by Philip Schaff. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1891. Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy, Vol II. New York:, Doubleday, 1962. De Clercq V. C. “Athanasius. St.”, Thomas Carson and Joann Cerrito (ed.), The New Catholic Encyclopedia. vol.1. Washington DC: Gale, 2003. 11