Scripture
3
Scripture
Scripture is at the center of Athanasius’s theological thought and writings. His theology is biblically based and his biblical interpretation is theological and spiritual. Athanasius never wrote a biblical commentary, but he explicitly wrote about the theological method of interpretation as it informs theology and exposes Arian theological inconsistency and unorthodoxy. Attempts to work out his method of biblical interpretation depend primarily on his polemical writings. The Arian controversy shaped these writings, which are geared to proving that the Arians misinterpreted biblical verses. Aspects of his methodology are influenced by this context. It is important to give attention to Athanasius’s interpretative method since it shaped and defined the theology of the universal church; it is this method which asserted the divinity of the Son as well as that of the Holy Spirit. This chapter begins with general observations about the role of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, in Athanasius’s writings, then examines his methods of interpretation, that is, his theological and spiritual interpretations. This chapter is a short introduction to these themes as the following chapters provide further examples in context.
Introductory Observations
Festal Letter 39, written in 367, demonstrates the centrality of Scripture in Athanasius’s work. The letter provides a list of the canonical Old and New Testament books accepted in the Alexandrian Church. The books of the New Testament canon listed in this letter are the same as the ones used in our present day Bibles. Athanasius mentions in the letter that some use “fabricated” books to advance their teachings and mislead the simple. Athanasius found it necessary to address this problem in his festal letter and prescribe the books that lay the foundation upon which churches can begin theological discussions. Scripture is the yardstick upon which Athanasius judges the orthodoxy of any teaching and securing the canonical books is a means to secure the orthodoxy of the faith.
In his Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya Athanasius exhorts the faithful Christians who are true disciples of the Gospel and have the grace to discern spiritual things to be aware of deceitful teachings. However lengthy his discourse might be, Scripture is “most sufficient”; any knowledge they want to acquire they will find in Scripture. His belief that a Christian is a disciple of the Gospel and that Scripture is at the center of Christian knowledge sheds light on the role of Scripture in Athanasius’s thought.
Athanasius also urges those who read and exegete Scripture to interpret verses in context and not ignore parts of Scripture. For example, Hebrews 3:2a says that Jesus “was faithful to the one made him (tō poiēsanti auton).” When taken out of context, which is how the Arians interpreted it, it would mean the Son is a created being made (epoieēse) by the Father. Athanasius explains that the Apostle is addressing the Son who became incarnate, so that his humanity—the Word took earthly flesh—is what was “made” or created. Further, in his capacity as incarnate Son, the term “made” takes on the sense of appointed as an apostle and high priest, just as Moses was “made” or “appointed” over God’s house. The context that the Arians missed was that this verse is not addressing the Son in his divinity but rather the incarnate Son, who is both human and divine at the same time.
Ecclesiastes 12:14, “God shall bring every work (poiēma) into judgment,” provides another example of Arians interpreting a text out of context and not taking into consideration the multiple senses of the term poiēma. The Arians considered the Word to be a created being and therefore a “work” of God who will stand judgment. The Arian argument follows Hebrews 3:1, which describes Jesus as faithful to God, and connects it with Ecclesiastes where all “works,” that is the “faithful,” will stand judgment. Therefore, the Arians concluded that Jesus will stand judgment. Athanasius asks how the judge will be on trial. What law will judge the Lawgiver? Athanasius begins his argument by saying that God is faithful and true. In addition, Paul writes that God is faithful and will not test anyone beyond their strength. Athanasius concludes there are two senses for the term “faithful” in Scripture, the first is “believing” and the second is “trustworthy,” of which the former belongs to humans and the latter belongs to God. Thus, Abraham was faithful because he believed in God’s word, and when David gives praise, saying “the Lord is faithful in all his words,” he means God is trustworthy and does not lie. In conclusion, the Son is not a work and does not stand in judgment before God. This is another aspect of Athanasius’s method of interpreting verses, and words within verses, in context; thus, to understand the meaning of a specific term, such as “faithful,” one must examine it to see if it is applied to God or to humanity.
The previous two examples are theological interpretations. This is Athanasius’s primary method of interpretation. In these examples Athanasius demonstrates two principles of interpretation: interpret verses first within their immediate context and then within the larger context of scripture, including both Old and New Testaments. Theological interpretation has shaped the way we interpret and read Scripture to this day and affects our present-day biblical translations. In the previous two examples, the interpretations are based on the Greek text in which the Greek words for “made” and “faithful” carry several meanings and nuances. The theologically accepted meaning was settled through Athanasius’s theological interpretation centuries ago and modern translations follow the Nicene and Athanasian argument as demonstrated above (see notes 2 and 6).
The Septuagint (LXX) was the Scripture of the Early Church and Athanasius uses it for his reading and interpretation. The LXX had some translation problems that affected the Arian debate; a good example is Prov 8:22, “The LORD created me [wisdom] at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.” The problem is the word “created.” This was one of the key verses that the Arians used to argue that the Son is “created” and thus a creature and not divine. Athanasius uses sections 18–82 of the second Oration against the Arians, that is, most of the Second Oration, to interpret Prov 8:22 in a way that defends the divinity of the Son. If Athanasius knew Hebrew, like his fellow Alexandrian, Origen, in the previous century, the problem would be solved as the Hebrew word qānā (קָ֭נָנִי קָנָה) means “acquire,” “buy,” “buy as wife,” or “ransom”; “acquire wisdom” would have solved the problem since no reference to creation is made. The LXX translators translated the Hebrew qānā by the Greek ektisen (ἔκτισέν) meaning “created.” Few early Christian writers referred to the Hebrew text and when Arius raised this issue arguing that the Son was created, Athanasius, like other early Christian theologians, argued on theological not linguistic bases, not referring to the Hebrew original. The interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 is the most difficult and lengthy argument in the whole of the Oration against the Arians. Arius argues that the “me” in “The LORD created me at the beginning of his work” in Prov 8:22 refers to the Son who is a created being and thus not fully divine. Athanasius responds that “me” refers to Wisdom, for Wisdom built itself a house. The house of Wisdom refers to created humanity through which the Word and Wisdom became human, for as John wrote, “the Word became flesh.” Athanasius emphasizes that what is “created” is not the essence of the Godhead but the humanity of the incarnate Word. Athanasius adds that Proverbs should not be interpreted in a literal sense but as what they are, proverbs. Athanasius explains that “He created” does not refer to the essence and mode of generation but sometimes means “renewal” as in “create in me a clean heart.” Athanasius reminds his readers that to be called creatures indicates things have by nature a created essence. Athanasius accuses Arius of inconsistency for allegorizing the “house” in Proverbs 9:1, where Wisdom has built her house and set up her seven pillars, but insisting on taking Proverbs 8:22 literally and holding that the Son is a created being.
Athanasius explains that misinterpretation of biblical passages arises when one does not consider the skopos of the faith. Athanasius distinguishes between interpretation according to the accepted catholic faith of the church, accepted by the church as a body as represented in the Council of Nicaea, and private interpretation which starts with “I believe,” representing personal interpretations, which are a novelty, not representing the accepted faith or tradition. Athanasius reasons that the faith Christians hold should be used as a rule: when the rule is applied to the reading of Scripture we interpret Scripture according to the faith. Athanasius accuses the Arians of misinterpreting Scripture according to their private sense. The purpose for writing the three Orations against the Arians was to expose the Arian private interpretations that were against the orthodox sense. Athanasius explains the source of orthodoxy is tradition embodied in the sound faith that Christ gave us, which the Apostles preached, which was handed down to the church and the Fathers who came from all over the world to meet at Nicaea. He adds that the orthodoxy of the faith starts with the teachings of the Apostles, which was handed down by the Fathers, and confirmed by both the Old and New Testaments. Athanasius considers the Council of Nicaea to be a cornerstone of the Christian faith whose teachings are held to be equal to those of the Apostles. One of the guiding rules Athanasius establishes then is that it consider the skopos of the faith and not contradict the faith established by tradition exemplified in Christ, the Old and New Testaments, the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Council of Nicaea.
Athanasius affirms the use of the Old Testament in opposition to Marcion and Mani. Athanasius argues that the New Testament arose out of the Old Testament and bears witness to it for it is the fulfillment of God’s promises. It is only through Scripture that we can confess the Lord. If we reject the Old Testament, how can we accept the one of whom Moses and the Prophets wrote? It is through the Law that we came to know of the coming of Christ, who is both Lord of the Law and the Prophets. If we deny one, we deny the other.
Athanasius cites the New Testament twice as much as the Old Testament. The book he quotes most from the Old Testament is the book of Psalms, followed by Proverbs and Isaiah. Of the Gospels, he uses John and Matthew the most, followed by Luke; of the Epistles, Romans, Hebrews, and 1 Corinthians are used most. This general observation tells us that Athanasius did not neglect use of the Old Testament and his theology is more heavily dependent on the Gospel narrative than the Pauline and other epistles. The theological prominence of the Gospel narrative, especially that of John, is a distinctive trait in Alexandrian theology.
Methods of Interpretation
Athanasius interweaves scriptural verses throughout his polemical writings. Non-polemical texts such as Against the Gentiles, On The Incarnation, or Life of Antony include scriptural verses but not in the same intensively interwoven fashion as the polemical. The method of weaving scriptural verses throughout his argument is based on his understanding that the scope of his theology should be inspired by Scripture, for the Lord himself said, “Search the Scriptures for they testify of me.” The following example is one of many that clarify the method Athanasius uses. Athanasius accuses the Arians who deny the divinity of the Son of fighting the Godhead itself, who proclaimed “this is my Son” with the understanding that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. A thread of verses forming a full paragraph follows, each showing the Father declaring the Son’s divinity. Athanasius begins with Proverbs 8:25, in which God speaks about the Son being begotten not created. The Arians do not trust the Scripture that proclaims that the Son is the brightness of God’s glory and the exact representation of his hypostasis, and the power and wisdom of God. He then weaves his argument with more Old Testament verses that clearly refer to divine aspects of the Son: he is the well of life, we see light with his light, and all things are made in wisdom. “The Word of the Lord came to me, and thus declared,” that “In the beginning was the Word.” Athanasius follows this with the idea of the Word delivered to us, as found in Jeremiah, John, and, finally, in Luke, “handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.” Further still, “God sent his Word and we were healed.” For Athanasius these verses signify the eternity of the Word and of the hypostasis, or substance, of the Father. This line of argument is one example of many that demonstrates how Athanasius weaves scriptural verses to substantiate his theological stance. He also uses verses to give flavor to his arguments or express his attitude towards his opponents: for example, he denounces the Arians for fighting against the divinity with “a tongue as sharp as a sword.”
The most important method of theological interpretation that Athanasius follows is based on the principle of the “double accounts.” Athanasius wrote about the double accounts:
Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this, it contains a double account of the Savior; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary, Bearer of God, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me.
The double accounts principle of interpretation was crucial during the Arian controversy as Arius focused on the accounts pertaining to the humanity of the incarnate Son and deduced that the Son was a creature. Athanasius introduces the method of the double accounts to show that Arius’s conclusions were wrong. Athanasius elaborates on the above quotation, starting with the opening of John’s gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God,” which is followed by “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, a glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.” John in his introductory narrative moves from the beginning of the Word with God, declaring the divinity, to the Word become flesh, revealing the economy and the humanity, in one consistent narrative. Athanasius next turns to Paul, who wrote that Christ, “though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.” Paul also speaks of both the form of God and the form of slave, the divinity and the humanity, in the same narrative. Athanasius thus shows the pattern and the movement from divinity to humanity and vice versa, within the same narrative. One can go through the rest of Scripture following this method of interpretation.
The following example demonstrates how Athanasius applied the method of the double accounts in interpretation. Athanasius argues that when Proverbs 8:22 says “He created me,” it refers to the Son who “put on created flesh.” On the one hand, he is Word of the Father and calls God Father; on the other hand, he has taken the form of the servant and calls God Lord. Christ himself has taught us this difference, for he says, “I thank thee, O Father” and then “Lord of heaven and earth.” Christ calls God Father but when it is the creatures who address God, then God is addressed as Lord. Athanasius furthers the discussion by asserting that Proverbs 8:22 does not refer to the essence of the Word but his humanity and his economy. The verse emphasizes the Word was created “for his works” as coming second to his essence. Adam was created, not to work, but primarily to be a human being; later he received the command that he should work. Noah was created, not for the Ark, but received the commandment to build the Ark later. Similarly, Moses was created and then later was entrusted to govern the people. In each example, creation came first and the command to work came later. The Word was first, then, when creation needed restoration through the Word, the Word took it on himself to condescend and assimilate to the works, or created beings, which are referred to by the “he created.” And this is confirmed by Isaiah 49:5: “Thus saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his own servant” (LXX). Throughout this lengthy discussion, Athanasius asserts the principle that some accounts refer to the humanity and others refer to the divinity. Once the Arian controversy fades, the strong emphasis on the created aspect of the incarnate Son will not be part of the theological vocabulary. The argument moves beyond these concerns to the explanation of the nature of the incarnate Son, which will be picked up by Cyril of Alexandria.
Athanasius furthers the discussion by explaining the differences in expression in the double accounts. Terms like “he created,” “he formed,” or “he set” refer to the economy that took place for the renewal of humanity and do not refer to the essence or the beginning of the Word. Scripture refers to his divinity in absolute terms without qualification, with no reason or purpose added. For example, when John 1:1 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God,” no purpose is given. This verse refers to the divinity of the Son as it speaks in simple, absolute terms. By contrast, when John 1:14 says that “the Word became flesh,” it immediately adds the purpose: “and dwelt among us,” he became flesh for the sake of the economy. In Philippians 2:6–8, he “was in the form of God” is not followed by any purpose, but “he took the form of a slave” for our sake, to die on the cross. The purpose for his humility and incarnation pertains to his humanity and is for the economy.
Athanasius uses the Holy Spirit as another important illustration of when texts should be read according to whether they are written in absolute or qualified form. Athanasius explains that when the Holy Spirit is mentioned in Scripture it is always qualified with a definite article or with “of God,” “of the Father,” “my,” “his,” “of Christ,” “of the Son,” “from me,” referring to God, or “of Truth,” referring to the Son who is the Truth. The Holy Spirit could also be mentioned in absolute terms by name: “the Holy Spirit” or “Paraclete.” When the term “spirit” is written without qualification, it refers simply to a spirit but not the Holy Spirit. Athanasius used this argument to oppose claims that spirit refers to angels, to which Athanasius responded that the Holy Spirit is always qualified as in “Spirit of adopted sonship,” “Spirit of sanctification,” “Spirit of God,” and “Spirit of Christ.” Interpreting Scripture based on the close reading of texts and terms had a far-reaching effect on theological understanding of the divine nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Athanasius briefly touches on the idea that Scripture sometimes speaks not in a plain sense but in a hidden sense, in enigma. The book of Proverbs says “The Lord created me” not in the plain sense, for the Word never called himself a creature by nature, but in a hidden way; when we take away the veil we understand the hidden meaning and lay bare the enigma. Proverbs 1:5–6 says that a wise person of understanding will understand proverbs, figures, their interpretation, the words of the wise and their riddles. Unveiling and understanding the hidden sense requires reading Scripture with wisdom.
Athanasius gives other examples of reading Scripture beyond the literal sense. Scripture uses images and illustrations from nature to demonstrate moral lessons for humanity. It uses images to demonstrate bad conduct, as when Christ exposed Herod and addressed him as “that fox.” Or when it gives this advice, “Do not be like a horse or a mule, without understanding, whose temper must be curbed.” Similarly, when Christ sent his disciples, he said “See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” We are not instructed to become beasts of burden, Athanasius argues, but rather to understand the wisdom of one, the deception of another, or the meekness of a third. These moral lessons were conveyed in images of nature familiar to the audience, who would understand the meaning of the images conveyed. Athanasius gives a general assessment of Arius’s biblical interpretation as missing the “right sense.” For the Arians struggle with passages such as “The Lord created me,” “Made better than the angels,” or “First-born” because they thought God was material and interpreted immaterial things in a material way.
The example of Matthew 12:40 deserves some attention: “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.” Athanasius writes that Jonah was not the Savior, nor did he go to hades, nor was the whale hades, nor did Jonah bring up any other person from the belly of the whale except himself. “Therefore there is no identity nor equality signified in the term ‘as,’ but one thing and another; and it shows a certain kind of parallel in the case of Jonah, on account of the three days.” Similarly, when we become one as the Father and the Son are one, we become one in mind and agreement of spirit. We shall not be as the Son or equal to him for in our case “as” (kathōs) means parallel. For we are not of the same nature as the Son. The Son is in the Father by nature but for us it is an image or example. Redeemed humanity is no longer dead, but were made “as” (kathōs) God. We are not of God’s nature and therefore do not actually become divine, but “as” (kathōs) the Son redeemed us through the incarnation and taking our humanity renewed and perfected his work, that is our humanity, we are made God (theopoiēsis). Theopoiēsis does not make us gods, equal to God, or of his nature. The verb poieō and the term poiēsis indicate that the process of making divine is related to created beings who are not of the nature of God. Athanasius’s complex method of interpretation has a theological dimension and requires that attention be paid to the theological significance of words.
Athanasius interprets the Old Testament as a shadow and type of the New Testament. According to Athanasius, the example of Aaron being made a high priest was a shadow according to the Law. As Aaron did not change when he was “made” or “became” a high priest and was vested to perform his priestly functions, so the incarnation of the Son of God did not effect change in his divinity when he “became” human to accomplish our salvation. Athanasius used shadow or type not only for polemical theological interpretation but also in his Festal Letters, which have a more pastoral dimension. Festal Letter 45 describes Moses making the tabernacle according to the pattern shown on the mount, so that the services were a type of the heavenly mysteries, and applies it to Easter: “As all the old things were a type of the new, so the festival that now is, is a type of the joy which is above.” Athanasius urges his listeners to celebrate Easter with great joy as it is a type of the heavenly joy we will experience in the heavenly kingdom.
Theological Interpretation
Athanasius incorporates these approaches to Scripture into his theological interpretation, as when he responds to Arian claims, based on some biblical verses that speak of the Son as a created being, that the Son is not fully divine. The focus is on terms like “made” and “created,” which seem to run counter to the notion of the Son’s divinity. As we noted, Athanasius asserts that Scripture refers to the divinity in absolute terms without added qualification. Thus, “I and the Father are one,” “I am the Truth,” and “I am the Light of the world” are absolute statements about the Son without any qualifications or purpose. But when the Son takes flesh, he is assigned a cause, for “I came down from heaven, not to do my will, but the will of him that sent me.” For our sakes, he became incarnate, died on the cross, destroyed death by his resurrection, and gave us the renewal of life. There could be no resurrection without death, no death without a mortal body, no body without the incarnation. This is the reason for the incarnation. For “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” The Son came into the world to heal the blind, raise the dead, and to save humanity; he came for our sake. Consequently, if he was created in the flesh, not for himself but for our sake, then he is not himself a creature, but he uses this language for us. As written in Ephesians, he has broken the wall of enmity, “in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace.” The idea of “creating” a new humanity in himself so that we become renewed makes the language of Proverbs, “The Lord created me,” suitable for him though he is not himself a creature. This example of theological interpretation makes use of many of the methods outlined earlier. Athanasius has a clear skopos regarding the undisputed divinity of the Son, and he applies the principle that divinity is always articulated in absolute terms. In addition, he uses Scripture to interpret Scripture: his main argument is based on the Johannine texts but Ephesians clarifies and further affirms the theological premise of the divinity of the Son and that the language of “created” is only used after the incarnation.
Athanasius argues the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, that a Virgin shall bear a son who shall be named Emmanuel, cannot be other than that God has come in the flesh. Peter taught Christ suffered for us in the flesh, for how could he suffer if he had not taken flesh? He gave himself for us, he has undergone death in the flesh so that he might bring the power of death to naught. Thus, when we give thanks to Jesus Christ who came in the flesh to save us, we do not worship a creature but the Creator who has put on a created body for our salvation. The Arians approve of the Jews worshiping God in the temple but do not approve of the worship of the Lord who is in the flesh as in a temple. The temple was a shadow created of stone and gold but when reality came the type ceased and the temple was destroyed. Thus, we worship the body of the Lord that was formed by the Holy Spirit and clothed the Word. Athanasius elaborates on the power of the flesh that clothed the Word and demonstrates that it was the Word’s very own. It was the bodily hand that lifted Simon’s mother-in-law and healed her from the fever. It was Christ’s human voice that spoke at the tomb of Lazarus and raised him from the dead. It was the human hand stretched out on the cross that overcame death. Athanasius explains that the created flesh formed by the Holy Spirit, because it is the Word’s own, can heal, raise the dead, and suffer on the cross for our salvation and thus is worthy of worship because it is God’s own and in it we are worshiping God himself. This very specific notion that the humanity and the divinity perform the same act as one is the theological foundation of the concept of monoenergeia, a theological concept that unites the divinity and humanity in oneness and has theological and historical ramifications that will be discussed in a later chapter. In this example, Athanasius discusses several theological issues that might seem unconnected, but eventually these points merge together to build the larger picture of the incarnation and the incarnate Son. Athanasius’s theological interpretation moves fluidly from the Old Testament to the New as one unit in which we see the shadow and type fulfilled as he elaborates on the understanding of the incarnate Son’s humanity and divinity. Athanasius’s theology is based on the bible and he uses this method of theological biblical interpretation to expound his theology. In the chapter on the Trinity there will be more illustrations of Athanasius’s method of theological interpretation. This very short exposition is to alert the reader to Athanasius’s method while discussing his theology.
Spiritual Interpretation
Athanasius believes Scripture strengthens the mind during spiritual warfare. The devil, according to Athanasius, envies humanity for having the blessings of knowing God through the words of Scripture. But the devil knows the human mind can be swayed to evil so he snatches away the seed of the Word sown within us. Christ sealed up his instructions in our hearts for us to treasure and warned us not to be led astray or deceived by the devil. The Word bestowed on us a great gift and we should treasure the Word within our hearts and not be deceived by appearances as the grace of Holy Spirit will help us in discernment. Athanasius believes that by reading and keeping within the treasury of our hearts the words of Scripture, and with the grace of the Holy Spirit, we strengthen our minds against any deception by which the devil attempts to sway us from God.
The Word became flesh for our sake, so when Proverbs says, “He founded me,” the text is referring to his created humanity, following Athanasius’s interpretive method that when a cause is specified (for his works) it refers to the humanity. So, he is “founded,” according to his humanity, so that we, as precious stones built upon his foundation, become a temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. Similarly, he is the vine and we are his branches; we, as branches, are like him according to his humanity but not according to his divine essence. For the text does not say “he made me a foundation,” lest the reader thinks he is a creation, but he “founded me.” But for the sake of the stones he became a foundation taking what belongs to us, our humanity, so that through the likeness of the flesh, we may attain perfection and abide in immortality and incorruption. Athanasius dwells at great length on Proverbs 8:22, interpreting it in various ways. In this instance he looks at it from a theological and spiritual perspective. He affirms the Son as “uncreated,” but uses the verse to speak about the dwelling of the Holy Spirit within humanity. The incarnate Son is the foundation and vine that nourishes us to perfection. Taking what belongs to us, that is humanity, he granted us salvation, which is the overcoming of death, immortality, incorruption, and attaining perfection.
Festal Letter 4 is a good example of the use of typology for spiritual instruction. Just as the Passover was a commemoration of the death of Pharaoh and the delivery of the people of Israel, so now we do celebrate not a temporal feast but a heavenly and eternal feast because the devil is slain. We do not celebrate in shadow but we celebrate it in truth. We do not eat the flesh of a lamb and anoint the doorpost with blood, we eat the Word of the Father and the blood of the New Testament seals the lentils of our hearts. The Savior has given us the grace of life, for he said, I am the Life. Now everything is filled with joy and gladness because death is brought to naught and the whole world now knows the Lord. We should rid ourselves of the filthy garments and clothe our minds with pure garments. We observe that when Athanasius moves to the spiritual level, the focus shifts to the inner person represented in the mind, and the mind lifts the person to the heavenly realm. When we love virtue we are clothed with God, we exercise temperance, righteousness, humility, and have the strength of mind to not forget the poor. Israel celebrated the Passover and victory in figure, but now the shadow is fulfilled and the type is accomplished, so let us go beyond the type and sing a new song. We do not celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem, but celebrate it everywhere in the world. For in every place there is praise and worship to God since the gospel has spread to every place. Christ changed the type into the spiritual, for he did not eat with the disciples the flesh of the lamb but his own flesh, saying, take, eat and drink, this is my body and my blood. Athanasius took the Passover event as a shadow of old. The death of Pharaoh delivering Israel is a type fulfilled in Christ dying on the cross, overcoming death and saving humanity. The slain lamb is a type of the spiritual food of the body and blood of the Lord.
Athanasius’s methods of interpretation are complex as he interweaves them in long expositions. He starts with one verse, but he uses so many other verses and various methods of interpretation to clarify its meaning that the reader may find it difficult to follow the intricacies of his thought. But following his thought in the interpretative process is rewarding and provides the reader with many insights into each verse he introduces.
In summary, Athanasius’s interpretation is both theological and spiritual. Interpreting Scripture theologically became characteristic of Athanasius and of his successor Cyril of Alexandria, who elaborated and developed the method even further. Athanasius looks at the Old and New Testaments as one revelation in which the Old is a shadow and type of what is revealed and fulfilled in the New. He interprets verses within their context and within the skopos of the church’s faith and tradition. Athanasius understood tradition as what Christ revealed in Scripture, what the apostles and their successors and teachers of the church taught, and what has been confirmed by the Council of Nicaea. The agreement of church leaders in Nicaea set a precedent that Athanasius considered authoritative, and the whole church would follow him; interpreting Scripture according to the skopos of the faith set in Nicaea and the later Councils became a guiding principle. Scripture is so important to Athanasius that he effortlessly weaves biblical verses and imagery into his writings; Scripture molds his theological language. Athanasius had such an extraordinary grasp of the entire biblical narrative, down to the minutest detail, that few modern scholars, even with the help of technology, can match it. Such mastery of the bible enabled him to interpret verses within their context and within the larger context of Scripture. Athanasius’s close reading of Scripture enabled him to observe that Scripture refers to the divinity in absolute terms without qualifications of reason or cause. This principle is applied to both the Son and the Holy Spirit. Athanasius’s method of the double accounts exposed the theological pitfalls into which the Arians fell and which led to great upheaval in the church. It should be noted that this method, though it clarified many interpretive difficulties the church faced during the Arian controversy, would not be emphasized by later theologians and the language of the “created body” or “created flesh” will disappear from the theological expressions of succeeding Alexandrian theologians. Athanasius uses the language of the created body to address the Arian concerns but at the same time he emphasizes that the created body was not that of a created being but of the Son of God. He augments the language of double accounts with the concept of the oneness of the energia to remove any division within the person of Christ. In general, Athanasius’s theological interpretation had an impact on theology and set a trajectory for biblical interpretation in the Alexandrian Church.
Questions for Further Discussion
Suggestions for Further Reading
Festal Letter 1, 4, 6, 7, 14, 39
Orations against the Arians: 2:44–56; 3:18–29
. Ep. Aeg. Lib. 4.
. C. Ar. 2. 7. It should be noted that the NRSV has taken this theological argument into account and translated the verse as follows: “consider that Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, was faithful to the one who appointed (ποιήσαντι) him, just as Moses also ‘was faithful in all God’s house’” (Heb 3:1, 2, NRSV).
. Deut 32:4; Exod 34:6; Rev 3:14.
. 1 Cor 10:13.
. Ps 145:13.
. C. Ar. 2.6. Again observe how modern translation has taken such theological interpretation into consideration: “For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Eccl 12:14, NRSV).
. Prov 9:1.
. John 1:14.
. C. Ar. 2.44–45.
. Ps 51:10.
. Skopos means the object on which one fixes the eye, a mark, or an aim, end. See Liddell et al., Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. σκοπός.
. Syn. 3–4.
. C. Ar. 3.28.
. C. Ar. 1.37.
. Ep. Afr. 1.
. Ep. Adelph. 6.
. Ep. Aeg. Lib. 4.
. I used the indices of the NPNF and Ernest.
. Cyril of Alexandria, the inheritor of the Athanasian theological heritage, will build on and develop Athanasius’s theology and will preserve the Johnanine emphasis. See Farag, St. Cyril of Alexandria.
. C. Ar. 3.29; John 5:39.
. Prov 8:25, LXX: “before all hills, he begets [genna] me.”
. Heb 1:3; 1 Cor 1:24.
. Pss 36:9; 104:24; Jer 2:1.
. Jer 2:1; John 1:1.
. Luke 1:2.
. Ps 107:20.
. Ps 57:4.
. C. Ar. 3.29. John 5:39. The term Theotokos is usually rendered as “Bearer of God.” Quotes are from the NPNF edition, unless otherwise noted.
. John 1:1.
. John 1:14.
. Phil 2:6–8.
. C. Ar. 3.29.
. Matt 11:25.
. C. Ar. 2.50.
. The LXX translation of Prov 8:22: “The Lord made/created me the beginning of his ways for his works.”
. C. Ar. 2.51.
. Athanasius’s double account does not imply the communicatio idiomatum (exchange of properties) principle necessitated by the two-nature Christology. Athanasius is defending the fullness of divinity of the Son both before and after the incarnation. To defend the fullness of divinity of the Son before the incarnation he emphasizes that the Son is not a created being against the assertions of the Arians. To defend the divinity of the Son after the incarnation he emphasizes the fullness of humanity of the incarnate Son with all its human attributes, except sin, so that all human attributes of Christ in the biblical narrative pertain to the humanity of the incarnate Son and are not attributes of the divinity. Once the divinity of the Son was confirmed in the Council of Nicaea and the aftermath of the Council, emphasis on the created humanity to affirm the divinity receded to the background. Athanasius is defending the essence and nature of the divinity of the Son. The communicatio idiomatum principle explains that the properties of each nature of the incarnate Son can be appropriated by the other. Athanasius is arguing for the divine essence, not the divine properties.
. C. Ar. 2.53.
. Ep. Serap. 1.4.1. The translation of DelCogliano and Radde-Gallwitz unless otherwise noted.
. Ep. Serap. 1.11.1. Rom 8:15; 1:4; 8:9; Matt 3:17; and 1 Pet 1:11. The translation of DelCogliano and Radde-Gallwitz.
. C. Ar. 2.77. See also C. Ar. 2.44 for a more detailed explanation of not reading the plain sense of Prov 8:22.
. Luke 13:32.
. Ps 32:9.
. Matt 10:16.
. C. Ar. 3.18.
. C. Ar. 3.1.
. C. Ar. 3.23.
. C. Ar. 3.23.
. C. Ar. 2.8.
. Ep. fest. 45.
. John 10:30; 14:6; 8:12; 6:38; C. Ar. 2.54.
. John 3:17.
. Eph 2:14–15.
. C. Ar. 2.55.
. 1 Pet 4:1.
. Ep. Adelph. 6.
. Mark 1:31.
. John 11:43.
. Ep. Adelph. 7.
. Luke 21:1.
. Ep. Aeg. Lib. 1.
. Prov 8:22. The LXX translation is: “The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works.” Athanasius intentionally chose “foundation” rather than “made” to fit his interpretation.
. C. Ar. 2.74.
. John 14:6.
. Ep. fest. 4:2, 3.
. Ep. fest. 4:4.
. Ep. fest. 4:4.