The Trinity
4
The Trinity
Athanasius did not write a comprehensive or systematic treatise to discuss the nature of God or the nature of the incarnate Son. His theology is in response to the heresies of his times and should be understood within this context. His theological masterpiece, Against the Pagans-On The Incarnation, which can be considered a full treatise on a subject, discusses the incarnation with few details about the nature of the Trinity. Most of his understanding of the Trinity is gleaned from his Orations against the Arians, his Letters to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, and a few other letters in response to specific concerns. Thus, polemical writings shape our knowledge of Athanasius’s understanding of the Trinity, which explains why certain topics are not addressed. This chapter briefly introduces some of the heresies that were of concern to Athanasius and mentioned in his treatises or correspondence before discussing his views of the Trinity. Discussion of the divinity of the Son constitutes the major part of this chapter because the Arian controversy, which consumed theological thought during the fourth century, revolved around the divinity of the Son, both before and after the incarnation. The Holy Spirit will be discussed within the context of the polemics surrounding the Spirit’s divinity.
Heresies
Athanasius frequently mentions names of leaders of various heretical tendencies in his polemical writings: Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and the Eusebians, Asterius the Sophist, Eunomius, who took over from Aetius, Militius, Manichæus, Valentinus, Marcion, Basilides, Paul of Samosata, and the Tropikoi. The following is a very short introduction to the main theological position of major names Athanasius mentions in his arguments. The aim is to acquaint the reader broadly with the larger context of the theological debates; Athanasius was contending not only with the Arians but with a larger spectrum of theological errors. Understanding the theological context of Athanasius’s polemical writings will clarify Athanasius’s emphasis on certain terms and themes.
Arius is the primary and most well-known antagonist in the historical debates of the fourth century. Arius was born in Libya and ordained a presbyter in the church of Baucalis in Alexandria during the tenure of Pope Alexander of Alexandria. He acquired some fame in Alexandria, initially because he was a persuasive speaker and later because of his controversial teachings. Not much of his writings has survived except for fragments of letters, a Letter to Alexander of Alexandria, and some excerpts from the Thalia. Arius’s ideas did not die with him; rather, those who would be called the Eusebians, the followers of Eusebius of Nicomedia, carried his banner and developed his ideas further even during the time of Athanasius. Arius believed God was unbegotten/uncaused (agen[n]ētos) and the creator of all things. Arius argued that if we attribute to the Son the attributes of God the Father, we will have “two unbegottens” or two causes which would be closer to Manichaean dualism. If the Son is from the Father, then he came to existence after a time interval; thus, Arius concludes his famous dictum, “once he (the Son) was not.” If the Son did not exist once, and he is from the Father, then he came into being like the rest of creation and he is a creature. According to Arius, the Son is above other creations since he was created to help God in the act of creation. In addition, since Scripture attributes human characteristics to Christ, then Christ is human and the Son is not divine. Scripture also uses the language of “created” and “made” to speak of wisdom, as in Proverbs 8:22, which Arius referred to the Son. Terms such as “created,” “made,” “unbegotten/begotten,” will be critical throughout Athanasius’s writings. According to both Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius of Alexandria the problem is that Arius focuses on biblical verses that describe the humanity and the economy of Christ and disregards those that discuss the divinity of the incarnate Son.
Athanasius mentions Asterius the Sophist in his writings. Asterius was from Cappadocia, a supporter of Arius, and a friend of Eusebius. Athanasius describes him as the “sacrificer” because he offered sacrifices, thus renouncing the faith, during the time of persecution. According to Athanasius, Asterius preached in churches in Syria that the Wisdom of God was the creator of Christ and the rest of creation. Asterius wrote that because “power of God” and “wisdom of God” were written without the definite article, they are distinct from and generative of Christ. Romans 1:20 says, “ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made,” which Asterius interprets to refer to the Father. Asterius made a distinction between the wisdom and power integral to the divine essence and those given to created beings. God’s eternal power and wisdom are one and the same and “without beginning and unbegotten” (anarchon te kai agennēton) but Christ is the Only-Begotten and the First-born. Asterius concludes that the Son is a creature as he is the first of things whose intellectual nature shines upon the intellectual world. Asterius insists that the Son is a being created by God’s will. The Father alone created the Son, and then the Son assisted the Father in the creation of the rest of creation.
Eunomius was born in Cappadocia in the beginning of the fourth century. He studied under Aetius in Alexandria and was ordained bishop of Cyzicus in 360. Eunomius taught that the Son is “unlike” (anomios) the Father, thus his teaching came to be known as Anomian, but sometimes his followers are simply called Eunomians. Eunomius also taught that God’s activity is distinct from his essence. The Nicene Creed asserts that the Son is and of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father. The term homoousios caused a great debate as it was not a biblical term. The Anomians objected to the idea that the Son is of the same essence as the Father. They taught that the Father is unbegotten in essence and thus the Son, the Only-begotten, is of a different essence than the Father. The Son came to be by the will of God. The Holy Spirit is a creature sent by the Son.
Melitius, bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt, was of the opinion that the church should not be lenient with the lapsed, which caused a schism in the Egyptian church. Pope Peter of Alexandria excommunicated Melitius when he ordained presbyters outside of his jurisdiction who were sympathetic with his opinion. The Council of Nicaea resolved the problem by reinstating Melitius as bishop of Lycopolis, but with restrictions. He was not to ordain any bishops or presbyters and the presbyters ordained during the schism were to be under the supervision of Pope Alexander of Alexandria. Though the initial schism did not involve theological differences, after the eruption of the Arian controversy and the succession of Athanasius as bishop of Alexandria, the Melitians formed an alliance with the Arians.
Manicheans have a dualistic worldview that explains the existence of evil as a constant battle between light and darkness. They do not believe in a creator God nor one active in creation. Manicheanism was widespread at the time of Athanasius in Egypt and around the known world, and it had a strong intellectual and literary presence. It definitely required a Christian response to its understanding of creation and the Godhead. Athanasius also attacked Valentinus and Carpocrates: the former claimed that the Son and the angels are of the same nature and the latter that the angels were the creators of the world. Later in the same treatise Athanasius accuses Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides of promoting the idea that angels created the world. Valentinus believed the Christ did not assume a real flesh, a notion that aligns more with Docetism. Athanasius also opposes Valentinus’s claim that the Son is created by the will of the Father and is a “work of good pleasure.” Paul of Samosata, a third-century bishop of Antioch, seemed to deny the divinity and the preexistence of the Son and is mentioned several times in Athanasius’s lists of heresiarchs.
The Tropikoi might be translated as “Misinterpreters” as Athanasius refers to their fallacious interpretation or “mode of exegesis” (tropos). Athanasius refers to the Tropikoi as “Spirit-fighters.” The Tropikoi claimed that the Holy Spirit was a creature based on their interpretation of Amos 4:13, among other verses. Athanasius refutes their claims with a series of biblical interpretations to set their “misinterpretation” right. Athanasius wrote Letters to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit to oppose their teaching.
Athanasius did not believe those who followed heretical assertions should be called Christians. Thus he mentions that the followers of Marcion are called Marcionites, not Christians. He provides a list of heresiarchs whose followers are named after them and not called Christians: The followers of the Gnostic Valentinus, Basilides, Manichaeus, Simon Magus, Novatus, and Melitius are called Valentinians, Basilidians, Manicheans, Simonians, and Melitians. Though Athanasius was preoccupied with the Arians, he was also very aware of the other theological tendencies, with their various nuances, which fed on and made alliances with one other. All had to be addressed in his writings.
The Trinity
Christian theologians of the fourth century had to sort out a lot of questions, refine the theological language, and respond to the challenges that faced them. Athanasius posed some pithy questions that represent the crux of the problem. The major question is “was he?” or “was he not?” “Was” the Son always with the Father? or “was he not” from the beginning and thus was there a time before he came into existence? His list of pithy questions follow the same pattern: “Always” or “before his birth”? “Eternal” or “from this and from then”? “True” son or “by adoption”? “From participation” or “a thought”? “Came into existence [genētōn]” or “united to the Father”? “Unlike [anomoion] the Father in essence” or “like and proper [omoion kai idion] to the Father”? “A creature [ktisma]” or “through whom creatures came into existence [gegenēsthai]”? “Is he the Father’s word” or is there “another word beside him” through whom he came to be [gegenēsthai]”? Is there another “wisdom” or is he alone named “Wisdom and Word”? Is he a partaker (metochon) of this wisdom? Such is the language used in Athanasius’s writings; all questions refer to major topics relevant to the understanding of the Godhead. Throughout the theological endeavor of Athanasius, these were the topics that consumed the discussions: Is the Son preexistent? If not, then the Son is a creature and not divine. Is the Son eternal? Is the Son of the same nature and essence as the Father? Is the Son born, unbegotten, or unoriginate? Is the Son the Word of God, Wisdom, and Radiance? Is the Holy Spirit divine? These are the main questions around which most of Athanasius’s arguments revolve as he attempts to respond to them to clarify the Christian understanding of the Trinity and the Godhead. These will be the major themes addressed in this chapter.
Athanasius acknowledges the unsuitability of the human mind to comprehend the fullness of the divinity and the incarnation. Nonetheless, he believes it is possible to express what God is not. This came to be called apophatic theology, that is, to speak about what cannot describe or be attributed to God and the Trinity. Thus, Athanasius writes it is possible to condemn heretical assertions of the Son by saying what he is not; thus the Son is not a creature or a created being. Such assertions further Athanasius’s argument for the divinity of the Son.
Athanasius asserts the Trinity is one God of one origin, three of the same essence but not three gods. Athanasius notes he is asserting the one origin of the Godhead in opposition to Marcion and Manichæus. The Son is not external to the Godhead and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not from nothing, that is, they are not created beings. Athanasius argues we do not speak of three origins but one, as the sun has one radiance and its light is one, so the Trinity is one and not three gods. If the Son is external and the Holy Spirit is a creature, then we would be polytheists. Christians believe in one God through the Trinity and accordingly differ from the heretics who divide the Godhead into parts of different kinds. The origin, source, and essence of the three persons of the Trinity define the relationship of oneness of the three persons within the one Godhead.
Athanasius is Trinitarian in theology. His defense of the Son is for the sake of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Though most of the Arian controversy involved the nature of the Son, the necessity of defending the divinity of the Son involved defense of the Trinity. Our understanding of the Trinity entails speaking the truth about both the Son and the Holy Spirit. The truth about the Father cannot deny the Son who reveals the Father; similarly, we cannot deny the Son without denying the Holy Spirit. If the Son and his divinity are denied, our understanding of the incarnation and the resurrection, the core of the Christian faith, will be in jeopardy. Athanasius argues that if God the creator, who creates through the Son, is not eternal and the Son, God’s Word and Wisdom, is not eternal, then God is not the creator and the Son is external to the Godhead and not of the essence of the Father. If the Son and the Father are not both eternal, then the Trinity is not eternal. Against those who oppose the Trinity and call for a Monad and explain that the Son and the Holy Spirit were added to the Monad later, he argues that the Trinity would have been deficient before the Son and the Holy Spirit, being completed only after the creation of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity would thus be composed of natures and essences alien to each other. The Trinity would have a created consistency and we would worship a created being. For Athanasius, Christian faith recognizes an unalterable and perfect Holy Trinity. If any person of the Trinity were to be created or a later addition, the divine essence of the Trinity would be jeopardized and we would be left with a less-than-divine entity and a created God. The Trinity is indivisible and does not admit any addition or subtraction, for worship is to the indivisible Trinity. There is one glory to the Holy Trinity. The nature of the Trinity is undivided and divine: to claim that the Father is eternal but the Son is not dishonors both Son and Father.
If the Father is divine and the Son a created being, then the Trinity is compound and the Holy Spirit would also rank with created entities. The essence of the divine is simple. Adding external or foreign elements transforms the simple divine nature to a compound, created nature. The Trinity ceases to have a divine essence. Athanasius concludes this inevitably divides and dissolves the Trinity. Athanasius further explains the indivisibility of the Trinity, saying that “the Spirit proceeds from the Father and, being proper to the Son, is given by him to the disciples and to all who believe in him.” Athanasius adds: “Seeing that there is such an order and unity in the Holy Trinity, who could separate either the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son or from the Father himself?” The Trinity is not compound and is indivisible. This assures the oneness of the nature and essence of the Trinity, its oneness of activity, and the oneness of worship.
An important aspect of Athanasius Trinitarian theology is the oneness of the activity (energeia) of the Trinity. He asks, “If the Father creates and renews all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit, what sort of likeness of kinship could the Creator have with creatures?” The divine activity of creation and renewal is a Trinitarian activity, which assures the indivisibility of the persons, who are all of the same nature. The Trinity is not divided into created and uncreated substances, which assures the oneness of the Trinity. “The gifts which the Spirit distributes to each are bestowed by the Father through the Word. For all that the Father has is the Son’s. Thus what is given by the Son in the Spirit is a gift of the Father.” Whether it is the activity of creation, renewal, or the distribution of gifts, every activity is from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. This oneness of activity preserves the understanding that the Trinity is one, undivided, of one nature and essence.
Athanasius gives a good summary of his understanding the Trinity in the following passage:
For the holy and blessed Trinity is indivisible and united in itself. When the Father is mentioned, with him are both his Word and the Spirit who is in the Son. If the Son is named, the Father is in the Son, and the Spirit is not external to the Word. For there is one grace from the Father which is perfected through the Son in the Holy Spirit. And there is one divinity, and one God who is over all, and through all, and in all.
God
Athanasius writes that the Trinity has not come into existence (genētē), there is one Godhead that is eternal, and the Holy Trinity has one glory and cannot be divided into different natures. Though for the sake of discussion the Trinity is treated under a different title than God, theologically, the indivisibility of the Trinity has to be kept in mind. The same applies to each person of the Trinity, as Athanasius’s defense of the Son as well as the Holy Spirit is for the sake of preserving the oneness and indivisibility of the Trinity and the Godhead.
Athanasius illustrates by an example from nature the indivisibility of the Godhead: when the sun shines, the radiance illuminates and the light cannot be detached as it is one and indivisible. Where the Father is, so is the Son. The oneness of the indivisible God is demonstrated in baptism. Athanasius writes the Father is one and the Son is one and the Son baptizes whomever the Father baptizes; and whomever the Son baptizes is perfected in the Holy Spirit. We are baptized through and in the name of each person of the Trinity indivisibly. God is indivisible, and when the Arians introduce a Son that is created, they are describing two Gods, one that is unoriginate (agenētō) and the other that has an origin (genētō); they deny that the Son shares the same essence, nature and activities (energeias) of the Father. If God is divisible we are not baptized in the name of the Trinity.
God is not only indivisible; he is also uncompounded, that is, not composite. The Arians and Asterius claim that the Son is not truly Son but he is called Word and Wisdom only in name. The true Wisdom of the Father coexisted with him without being generated, and this Wisdom made or created the Son. In this argument, the Arians allowed the Son to be called Son only in name. Athanasius refutes this proposal as it makes the Word and Wisdom complementary to the essence of God and creates a composite God. God is not composite, and the Son is truly Son. God, the creator of all things, who compounded things into being, is not composite. The nature of created, compounded entities differs from the nature of God their creator. God created things through the Word, so the essence of both God and the Word is not composite. The Word is Son in truth and is of the same essence as God.
The Arians reasoned that Christ’s increase in wisdom and suffering on the cross demonstrate that he is a created being for God does not increase in wisdom and does not suffer. Athanasius responds that it was the humanity that increased in wisdom and suffered, but the Son made the flesh his own and thus the suffering became God’s own. The Arians used Luke 2:52 and similar verses in which Scripture says Jesus increased in wisdom, to claim that the Son is a created being. Athanasius expands such references to include Jesus’ suffering in the flesh, hungering in the flesh, and being fatigued in the flesh to show that it was the flesh that increased in wisdom. But to say that the flesh increased in wisdom is to say that God increased in wisdom because the body was his own. The same can be said about his death. For though God is impassible, he is passible in the flesh because he has taken a passible body. Such descriptions are attributed to the Son after the Word became flesh, for the hunger and fatigue are characteristic of the flesh, as are the increase in wisdom, suffering, and death. The body is God’s body, it is his own. The increase in wisdom does not affect the Father’s Light, which is the Son, but proves that the Word became flesh and that flesh is true flesh. The flesh, that is, the humanity, increased in wisdom. It was in this same flesh that he raised Lazarus from the dead, made the water wine, and healed the blind. Athanasius is advancing the case that, since the Arians recognized the humanity of Christ, they should also acknowledge the divinity manifested in the same body that suffered and increased in wisdom. The Arians misinterpret Scripture and undo the oneness (enotēta) of the Godhead, the oneness of Father and the Son, for “the Father and I are one.” Cyril of Alexandria, a successor of Athanasius, emphasizes the oneness of the person of Christ, not only of the Godhead. It is necessary to affirm that the incorporeal took a mortal and corruptible body so that the things proper to the flesh, such as suffering and hunger, are attributed to God as well as to the body. Athanasius affirms everything that is attributed to the humanity is true, otherwise the incarnation is only in appearance, God is divisible, and composite. If the Son had not become flesh, and this flesh were not true flesh, then God, to whom is attributed everything that is attributed to the flesh, would not have suffered on the cross, overcome death, and renewed humanity. This also demonstrates that the Son is of the same essence as the Father as well as the oneness of the activity of the Godhead.
The Father
Athanasius argues that calling God Father surpasses calling him unoriginate. The title “unoriginate” (agenētos) is relative to all the works that are “originate,” that is, came into being through the Word, but the title “Father” is relative only to the Son. And the title “Father” is scriptural: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me”; and “The Father and I are one.” Scripture does not call the Father unoriginate and we are not baptized in the name of the unoriginate, but we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, through baptism, we, created beings who are originate, become sons.
Athanasius lists the attributes of the Father as follows: “The Father is eternal, immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator [ktistēs], and Maker [poiētēs].” Because Athanasius’s focus is on showing the divinity of the Son, we often must extract his understanding of the Father from his arguments about the Son. For example, God is Reason (Logos). There was no time when the Father was without Reason, for reason is part of the Father’s own (idion) essence. To add Reason to God would be to change God, who is unchangeable. In the same way, God is Light and the Father’s radiance is part of his essence. No one inquires into the radiance of the sun; otherwise, the light and radiance would be external to the sun, which is not the case. Radiance is part of the sun’s own (idion) essence. We cannot say that there was a time when the sun was without radiance or radiance was not part of the essence of light. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory, so we cannot consider the Word as an addition to the Father and external to the Father, for the Son is begotten of the Father. The Son was always with the Father, not external to the Father or a later addition to the Father. The Son was always with the Father and then became flesh. As radiance is proper to the light and all things of the light are of the radiance, so is the Son in relation to God. The Father is the source of all grace and peace, and when the Father gives these gifts, the Son gives it for “in the Image is contemplated the Father, and in the Radiance is the Light.” There are not two sources of grace or gifts, all gifts are from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.
God the Father always had the power to make, and all creation is made through the Son. All created things that came into existence are external to the creator and do not have the power to be eternal. The Son is the eternal offspring of the Father and is the Father’s own and of his essence. Athanasius adds another dimension to his argument: if the Son is a created being and is created for the sake of bringing things into being, this detracts from the Father who thus appears incapable of creation and in need of assistance. Arius also claimed that the Son was merely an instrument (organon) used by the Father for creation, which Athanasius opposed as making the Son external to the Father and a created being, not of the essence of the Father.
The title “Father” is significant. The essence of the Son is the same as that of the Father. The Son is the Image of the Father. The Image must have these attributes to make it true that whoever has seen the Son, has seen the Father. Therefore, the Son has to have all the attributes of the Father or he would not be the Image of the Father and of the essence of the Father. The Father does not change and consequently the Image does not change. Therefore, if change is attributed to the Son, then change is attributed to the Father who does not change. To understand the Father, we listen to what the Son reveals about himself and about the Father. If we diminish the Son, we diminish the Father. If the Arians claim that the Son is a created being, then they detract from the essence of the Father and add change to the essence of the unchangeable God. The Father and the Son are at the core of our understanding of the Trinity and any attempt by the Arians to undermine the Son for the sake of the Father undermines the Trinity.
The Son
Athanasius writes: “God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at once follows that He is always; that he is from the Father; that He is like; that He is the eternal offspring of His essence; and there is no idea involved in these of creature [ktismatos] or work [poiēmatos].” The themes and terms for the Son’s attributes in this quotation were rallying cries used by the Arians against the divinity of the Son and taken over and defended by Athanasius in his refutation of the Arians. Whether the Son is divine or a created being is at the core of the Arian controversy.
Athanasius took several approaches to defend the Son’s divinity. One of these approaches is to correct Arian misinterpretations of biblical verses that use terms such as “created” or “made.” Athanasius asserts that they refer to the humanity of the incarnate Son. Athanasius explains that when John says that the Word became flesh, it should not be understood that the whole Word was transformed and became flesh, but that he put on flesh and became man. When Proverbs says that the Lord “created [ektisen] me,” it should not be understood that the whole Word became a creature (ktisma) in nature but that the Word put on a created body. It is through this created body taken by Christ as his own that we are renewed (anakainisthēnai) and made divine (theopoiēthēnai). Athanasius clarifies that the Word took what belongs to humanity, everything that belongs to its created nature, as his own to renew the fallen humanity. The incarnation did not change anything of the divine nature but its purpose was to renew human nature and make it divine (theopoiēthēnai). This renewal cannot take place unless the divinity empties itself, without any change of its nature, to raise humanity up to its former status as image of God. Athanasius is very careful to call the body “created” but not to ascribe createdness to the whole of the incarnate Word so as not to give the attribute “created” to the Word itself. Verses that ascribe human attributes to the incarnate Son Arians interpreted as referring to the Son before the incarnation. Thus Athanasius emphasizes the ”created body” to counter any notion of createdness attributed to the totality of the incarnate Son, or to the Son before the incarnation, and to restrict createdness entirely to the body, which represents the fullness of humanity at the time of the incarnation.
The emphasis on the body as created was forced on Athanasius by the Arian controversy and explains the double-accounts approach to scriptural interpretation. The use of double accounts in theological discourse was abandoned after the settlement of the Arian controversy, after which the idea that he took a body “as his own” was emphasized. In addition, to eliminate separation or division within the person of Christ the “created” body language was supplemented with the idea of the oneness of the activity of the person of Christ. The principle of communication idiomatum, the exchange of idioms or properties, which emerged centuries later, cannot be applied here. According to that principle the properties of each nature of the incarnate Son can be exchanged. If the communicatio idiomatum were applied in this case then the createdness of the flesh of the incarnate Son would be applied to the divinity so that the divinity would be created and the Son a creature, which is exactly what Athanasius was opposing. Athanasius discusses and defends the divine essence, not the properties of the incarnate Son.
Athanasius’s close reading of Scripture, paying special attention to the use of terms, was another means he used to defend the divinity of the Son. Athanasius emphasizes throughout his writings that what is labeled “created” or “made” is only relevant to creatures and cannot be attributed of the divinity and accordingly not to any person of the Trinity. Genesis 1:1 says, “God created heaven and earth.” Psalm 119:73 says, “Your hands have made and fashioned me”; it does not say, “You have begotten me.” The verb “made” is always used with creatures but when speaking about the Son it is always “beget.” What is made always has a beginning, that is, it is “originate” (genētos), but God has no beginning because he was not made and is therefore “unoriginate” (agenētos). The Word of God also did not have a beginning and was always with the Father. Since all things came to be through the Word, it is evident that the Word was before the beginning of creation. All originate things came to be through the Word. When Scripture speaks about Job, Moses, or Abraham as begetting sons, it speaks about human generation. Scripture is clear that while what is generated may be spoken of using “become” or “made,” originate things (genēta) cannot be called generate (gennēta), that is, begotten. Athanasius is careful to point out that comparison implies oneness of kind; we cannot compare the Son with originate things because we are comparing things of different kind and essence. For example, we cannot compare the essence of the Son with angels because the angels are originate while the Son is not. God is beyond comparison and cannot be compared to humanity, which is also originate. The term “become” when used of the Son indicates the Son’s ministry and the economy, not his essence. It also refers to his incarnate presence as he bore our sins in his own body on the cross. Athanasius flags terms that when used should be understood either about creatures, the humanity of the incarnate Son, or the Son’s ministry and economy among us.
Athanasius takes the terms “created” and “made” further. He says that Scripture differentiates between the Offspring (gennēma, “begotten one”) and creation. Creation is not of the essence of God but external to him. The Son is described as an Offspring and eternal, but when referring to things made, Scripture indicates that they came to be, they had a beginning, they are external works of the maker. John writes, “In the beginning was the Word,” not “in the beginning the Word has become,” or “been made,” but “was,” for the Word always and eternally existed; the Son is the begotten of the Father. We are God’s creation and later we were made sons, but the Son is Son by nature and from the beginning. The Word who is in us who gave us the right to cry “Abba, Father” made us sons of God, but we are not sons by nature.
While clarifying the significance of the terms “created” and “made,” Athanasius gives a concise explanation of the difference between “created” and “begotten.” God, who is the Father of the Word by nature, the begotten Word, becomes creator and maker of the flesh that the Word takes on when he becomes flesh. On the other hand, God the creator becomes the father of humanity because the Word was dwelling in humanity. When humanity received the Spirit of the Son, we became children of God. When the Word put on a created nature and became like us, he was called the Firstborn for our sake. When the Son for our sake raised his own body, for the flesh, being the Word’s body, was the first to be free and is the first to rise, he becomes the Firstborn from the dead for he abolished death. Because he rose from the dead, we also rise in due course from the dead. The flesh that rose from the dead for our sake is created for the sake of the economy and for the sake of our salvation, but the Son was begotten and is Word by nature. When he rose from the dead, he healed our wounds and perfected us and renewed us. When he overcame death we no longer fear death but will be forever with Christ in the heavens.
Athanasius also defends the divinity of the Son when he discusses the divine attributes of the Father, asserting that they are also attributes of the Son. The Son is eternal as the Father is eternal. The Son never said, “I became Truth” but “I am the Truth.” “I am” signifies eternity. Athanasius asserts that any addition or change to the Father demonstrates an imperfect Godhead. For if the Son was created after the Father, then the essence of the Father was imperfect until the Son was added; but he is of God’s own essence who is everlasting and eternal. Athanasius asserts that these attributes belong to the Son: the Son is eternal and not created, he is of the essence of the Father, and there was no time interval separating the Son from the Father.
That the essence of the Son is the same as the essence of the Father was made clear when the voice from heaven proclaimed, “This is my beloved Son.” The Son is of the essence of the Father; he is eternal, not external or an addition to the Father as he is not created; he is the Truth, Image, Radiance, and Word of the Father. Athanasius devotes special attention to the attribute of Radiance. The metaphor of the sun and its radiance is a helpful theological argument for refuting claims that the Son is a created being and, especially, that the Son is separated from the Father in time. The Son’s being the Radiance of God assumes the eternity of the Son and directly opposes the Arian rallying cry that the Son was not always with the Father. Athanasius uses Hebrews 1:3, which speaks about the Son being the radiance of God’s glory and the impress of his essence. There was no time when God was not with what is proper to him and what is proper to him and is his own belongs to his essence. God is eternal and his Radiance is eternal. Athanasius argues that, as the word is in the thought, and the sun in the radiance, and the stream in the fountain, whoever contemplates the Son contemplates the Father’s own essence. In all of these metaphors there is no time or thought interval. Athanasius again uses the metaphor from nature that “the radiance also is light, not second to the sun, nor different from light, nor from participation of it, but a whole and proper offspring of it.” Though the sun has one light and not two, the sun and radiance are two; similarly the Father and the Son are indivisible but two. Because the Son is the offspring of the Father, the attributes and essence of the Father are the Son’s own. For the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son: “I and the Father are one” reveals the identity and the oneness of the essence and nature of the Godhead. The Father and the Son are inseparable. Such metaphors clarify the language of the Nicene Creed. The theological discussion here highlights the intention of the Creed’s use of such expressions as “light from light” to emphasize that there was no time interval between Father and Son: they are of the same essence and attributes, and the Son is not a created being. The Son is indivisible from the Father but still distinct. It is a succinct metaphor that clarifies the complex theological doctrine of the Trinity.
God is unchangeable and his Image and Word is equally unchangeable. When the Word became flesh, the Word and his nature remained unchangeable. When Philippians 2:5–11 describes Christ humbling himself and then being exalted, the humility is not a reward, nor is the exaltation, which simply indicates that he is equal to the Father and receives equal worship. Because humility pertains to his humanity and the economy of salvation, and on account of the body that is his own, when he received exaltation, we were exalted with him. The Word did not receive exaltation for he possesses it according to his divinity. For our sake and for our sanctification, he provides for humanity the exaltation and the indwelling of the Spirit within us. Similarly, when Christ says that “for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth,” Christ is the sanctifier, he is the Lord of sanctification. He sanctifies himself so that we are sanctified in truth. Similarly, when he is baptized, we are baptized in him. Athanasius provides all these examples of humility, of exaltation, of sanctification, and of baptism to explain that the Word did not need any of these “exaltations” and he did not receive them for his own sake, but it is humanity who received them through him. He does not need exaltation for he is unchangeable. God’s Word is unchangeable.
Athanasius discusses the incarnation to further dismantle the Arian claims. Athanasius stresses that the Son became human and did not come into a human being. The former describes the Word become flesh, the latter, the Lord’s coming to the prophets or only appearing to people. Athanasius emphasizes the Word becoming flesh and taking it as his own, without which our renewal and salvation cannot be complete. This understanding of the incarnation will have important repercussions in the following centuries, especially during the Nestorian controversy. If the Word appeared to people or indwelled a single human person, not taking the full humanity as his own to save, he would have saved only one person. Or if he was speaking through a person, as the Word did through the prophets, then there is no incarnation but a continuation of the revelations of the Old Testament. When the prophets suffered, Scripture never says that God suffered; however, when the Word became flesh and suffered on our behalf, Scripture says that he suffered for us in the flesh.
Athanasius writes that the word “flesh” refers to the fullness of humanity, constituted of body, soul, and sense or intelligence. Joel describes “my Spirit” poured on all flesh meaning human beings. Similarly, Daniel affirms that he worships the Living God who has sovereignty over all flesh. In both cases, Athanasius argues, by the term “flesh” Scripture refers to humanity. If the flesh of the incarnate Son does not include the fullness of humanity—body, soul, and intelligence/reason—if the flesh meant only the body, then the incarnate Son would have saved only part of the human person. Athanasius emphasizes, “became flesh” does not mean that the Word was transformed into flesh and bones but that he became flesh in the full sense, and this flesh became his own.
When the Word became flesh, the body became his own and the properties of the flesh are his own. Accordingly, the suffering of the flesh is God’s suffering as are its hunger and thirst. At the same time, the Word heals the sick and raises the dead also through the body. “And the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God’s.” Athanasius points out that Isaiah 53:4 says that he “carried,” and not “remedied,” our sins to indicate that he himself carries our sins and infirmities in his own body and not as an external activity. He became incarnate for our sake and in the body that is his, he carries our sins on the tree, that is the cross, for the sake of our salvation so that we are “filled with the righteousness of the Word.”
The theological proposition that when the body became the Word’s own, the properties of the flesh also became his own is at the core of Athanasius’s theological thinking. It is this concept that makes possible Athanasius’s double-accounts interpretation without causing any division or duality within the person of Christ. Athanasius gives specific examples to illustrate his theological concept. Christ stretched his hands humanly to Peter’s mother-in-law but he stopped the illness divinely. He used his human spittle mixed with clay and spread it on the eyes of the man born blind and divinely healed him. He gave forth a human voice through which he divinely raised Lazarus from the dead. Athanasius explains that these miracles were done with the clear participation of both the humanity and the divinity to assert that he has a true body and not only the appearance of a body, that the body is his own, and all that is proper to the body is proper to the Son. Every activity involved both the humanity and the divinity working together in unity. The oneness of activity would not have taken place had the body not been his own but external to him.
It is through the divine activities that took place through the body that we are made divine. Had not the properties of the flesh been the Word’s own humanity we would not have been set free. Humanity remained mortal and corruptible from the time of Adam’s transgression, but now that the Word has taken humanity as his own and appropriated everything to himself, death no longer has power over the flesh “and henceforth men no longer remain sinners and dead according to their proper affections, but having risen according to the Word’s power, they abide ever immortal and incorruptible.” The Word transferred to himself everything that belongs to humanity and made it his own so that we, now proper to the Word, may share eternal life. We do not die according to our origin in Adam, “but henceforward our origin and all infirmity of flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being removed, because of Him who is in us, and who has become a curse for us, and with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened; the flesh being no longer earthy, but being henceforth made Word, by reason of God’s Word who for our sake ‘became flesh.’”
The term homoousion, meaning “of the same essence,” is used in the Nicene Creed but is hardly mentioned in Athanasius’s writings. The term was the subject of a long controversy. There was a lot of objection to the term as it is not biblical and might be interpreted in Sabellian terms for not distinguishing sufficiently among the persons of the Trinity. Throughout Athanasius’s treatises he insists that the Son is of the same essence as the Father, as we have discussed throughout this chapter, but he avoids using the term homoousion. But though he avoids the term in his writings, Athanasius strongly defends its use. In addition, he defended “of the same essence” rather than “like in essence.” Athanasius argues if the Son is not of the same essence as the Father, then he is a created being, and the unity of the Godhead is lost. Athanasius was hesitant to accept terms other than homoousion, and in the end homoousion remained in the Nicene Creed when it was revised at the Council of Constantinople to include the Holy Spirit. Throughout the Arian controversy, Athanasius defended the divinity of the Son, maintaining the Son is not created or made but is of the same essence as the Father. The Son has the same attributes as the Father. For he is eternal and unchangeable, being the Father’s Image and Radiance. When the Son took the fullness of humanity none of his attributes were changed and he remained divine and of the same essence of the Godhead.
The Holy Spirit
Athanasius’s theology on the Holy Spirit is gleaned from two main sources, both polemical: his Orations against the Arians (AD 339–46) and his Letters to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit (AD 358–59) responding to the Tropikoi. Athanasius had two main concerns: to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and to establish the place of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity.
The Tropikoi taught that the Holy Spirit is a creature and that it has an angelic status; the former teaching is the same as that which the Arians used to describe the Son. As in the case of the Son, Athanasius’s argument against the Tropikoi is that they misinterpreted Scripture. For example, the Tropikoi misinterpreted the passage in Amos 4:13, which according to Athanasius’s text reads, “Therefore I am the one who gives strength to thunder and who creates spirit and who proclaims his Christ to humanity.” If God creates spirit, the Tropikoi concluded, then the spirit is a creature. Athanasius argued that the term “spirit” here refers to wind rather than the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit is never referred to without qualification. In this verse, “spirit” is used without qualification, therefore it refers to “a spirit” or in this case “the wind.” Scripture uses “spirit” to refer to the spirit of a human being, or spirit as in Genesis, or divine Word, newness of spirit, referring to the spirit and not the letter, and other variant meanings.
The Tropikoi also misinterpreted 1 Timothy 5:21, which according to Athanasius’s text reads, “In the presence of God and Jesus Christ and the elect angels, I charge you to observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing out of partiality.” The Tropikoi concluded that the “elect angels” refer to the Holy Spirit, as they are mentioned after God and Christ. Athanasius explains that the angels, who are minsters to human affairs, were mentioned as “witness who observe what is said.” Athanasius’s defense of the divinity of Holy Spirit is for the preservation of the Trinity, for if the Holy Spirit is a creature, then the Son must be a creature for the Spirit is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and if the Son or the Spirit is separated then we “destroy the perfection of the Trinity.” In the Letters to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit Athanasius defends the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He lists ways Scripture describes the Holy Spirit: it is from God and it is the Spirit of sanctification and renewal. The Spirit is life-giving. The Spirit is an anointing and a seal. Humanity partakes of God through the Spirit.
Athanasius explains that all things partake of the Spirit and the Spirit takes from the Son. Athanasius here extends the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the whole of creation in addition to the Trinity. All things that partake of the grace of the Spirit come from the Son, and as we partake of the Son, we partake of God. All things partake of the Son who sanctifies all things in the Spirit. The Psalm says the Son is anointed. He is anointed in the humanity that he has taken as his own with the oil of gladness, that is, the Holy Spirit, as is written in Isaiah 61:1, so that he provides for humanity the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. His anointing provides not only exaltation and resurrection for humanity, it also provides the indwelling of and building up of friendship with the Holy Spirit. It is not the indwelling spoken about of Aaron or David; it is Christ’s receiving the Spirit for our sake so that what dwells in him dwells in us because the body is his own. The Son is sanctified for our sake in his humanity so that when Scripture describes the descent of the Spirit on him in the Jordan, it is the descent of the Spirit upon humanity because the Son has taken human nature as his own. When he received the Spirit in the Jordan, it was humanity that received the Spirit. When he was baptized, it was humanity that was baptized in him. Because of us and for us he was anointed in the flesh he assumed so that the sanctification received by him in his humanity may come to all humanity from him. Christ did not need to be anointed or sanctified, nor did this anointing alter his essence in any way; he was anointed for our sake so that through him humanity is sanctified. The Lord is the giver of the Spirit, the Father gives it through the Son, and it is given to us out of the Son’s fullness. Therefore, he who blasphemes against the Spirit blasphemes against the Son, whose Spirit it is.
The Spirit is God’s gift to humanity that is given to us through the Son. The incarnate Son called the Father Lord so that when we receive the Spirit through him, by the gift of the Spirit we call the Lord Father. The Son is son by nature but we are by adoption through the Son in the Spirit. This is the gift of adoption given to us through the incarnation of the Son, through whom in the Spirit we are able to call God “Abba, Father.” Athanasius explains when Proverbs 3:19 says wisdom founded the earth, it does not mean the Son is a created being but refers to his humanity, which he took for our sake. We are the precious stones in the building of his humanity and we become the temple of the Holy Spirit that dwells in us. The Son is the foundation, we are the stones built upon him. He took humanity for our sakes, taking what is ours so that through him the Holy Spirit dwells within us and we attain perfection and abide in immortality and incorruptibility.
The divinity of the Holy Spirit as one of the persons of the Trinity has been affirmed in the Nicene Creed. In addition, in a few, though not all, of his writings, Athanasius ends with Trinitarian doxologies, as when he speaks of those who “love the God and Father, in Christ Jesus our Lord: through Whom and with Whom be to the Father Himself, with the Son Himself, in the Holy Spirit, honor and might and glory for ever and ever. Amen”; or of “all them that ‘have loved the appearing’ of our Lord, and Savior, and God, and universal King, Jesus Christ; through whom to the Father be glory and dominion in the Holy Spirit, both now and for ever, world without end, Amen.” These greetings indicate that doxologies to the Trinity in the form “to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit” were common practice at the time of Athanasius. The Trinity was at the center of Alexandrian thought.
We have not presented all the dimensions of Athanasius’s Trinitarian theology, nor have we even covered the full extent of the main points of his theology. We have instead highlighted the main themes Athanasius constantly emphasized, those relevant for his understanding of God and the Trinity, and those relevant to present-day Christians’ understanding the roots of Christian theological thought. We also want to provide familiarity with the terms and vocabulary Athanasius uses in his writings, hoping it will encourage the reading of Athanasius’s literary corpus. The language of Athanasius and the theological themes covered in this chapter clarify the language of the Nicene Creed. The summary of this chapter is the Nicene Creed; it encapsulates all that Athanasius spent his lifetime defending.
Questions for Further Discussion
Suggestions for Further Reading
The Three Orations against the Arians
Letters to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit (preferable the translation of DelGogliano and Radde-Gallwitz.)
Letter to Epictetus
Tome to the People of Antioch
On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (especially sections 33–55)
. C. Ar. 2.21, 24, 40, 41, 43; Ep. Serap. 1.1.2.
. Arius Letter to Alexander of Alexandria in Syn.16; Thalia in C. Ar. 1.5–7 and Syn.15.
. Because of the introductory nature of this text and keeping with its objective, the ideas of Arius, the Eusebians, and their later followers will often be mentioned under the name of Arius.
. Decr.8; C. Ar. 2.24; and Syn. 18, 19.
. Syn. 18.
. 1 Cor 1:24: “Χριστὸν θεοῦ δύναμιν καὶ θεοῦ σοφίαν.” The Greek text does not have an article but is translated with an article in NRSV “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
. Syn. 18, 19.
. C. Ar. 2.24.
. Decr. 8. Athanasius cites Asterius’ Syntagmation, the fragments of which have been collected by Vinzent, Asterius von Kappadokien.
. Eunomius, Apol. 22.
. C. Ar. 1.56 (5).
. C. Ar. 2.21.
. C. Ar. 2.70.
. C. Ar. 3.66, 67.
. Athanasius and Didymus, Works on the Spirit, 21.
. C. Ar. 1.3; Ep. Adelph. 2.
. C. Ar. 1.9.
. Ep. mon. 1.2.
. Ep. mon. 1.2.
. C. Ar. 3.15.
. C. Ar. 1.8.
. C. Ar. 1.17.
. C. Ar. 1.18.
. Ep. Serap. 1.2.4.
. Ep. Serap. 1.20.1.
. Ep. Serap. 1.24.6.
. Ep. Serap. 1.30.5.
. Ep. Serap. 1.14.6; words in italics are a citation of Eph 4:6.
. C. Ar. 1.18.
. C. Ar. 2.41.
. C. Ar. 3.16.
. C. Ar. 2.38.
. Ep. Afr. 8.
. C. Ar. 3.54.
. The insistence on the flesh being “true” is in opposition to the Marcionites and Manicheans who believed it “appeared” to be flesh, a type of Docetism.
. C. Ar. 3.53 and C. Ar. 3.42–52.
. John 10:30; C. Ar. 3.55.
. C. Ar. 3.56.
. John 14:10,11; and 10:30.
. C. Ar. 1.34.
. C. Ar. 1.21.
. C. Ar. 1.24, 25.
. C. Ar. 1.25; C. Ar. 2.33. Heb 1:3 is critical for this interpretation as it speaks of the Son as being a radiance of God’s glory and an impress of his very being, and upholding all things by the word of his power.
. C. Ar. 3.36.
. C. Ar. 3.11.
. John 1:3.
. C. Ar. 1.29.
. C. Ar. 2.25.
. Athanasius also does not consider the body of Christ as an instrument. Farag, “Organon,” 93–105.
. John 14:9; C. Ar. 1.21.
. C. Ar. 1.22.
. C. Ar. 2.34.
. Prov 8:22.
. C. Ar. 2.47.
. It should be noted that Genesis 1 uses two words to describe the activity of creation. For example, in Genesis 1:1, 21, and 27 the Hebrew word בָּרָ֣א (bara’) is used for “to create” and in Genesis 1:7, 16, 25, 27, and 31 the Hebrew word עָשָׂ֔ה (‘ashah) is used for “to make.” In the LXX both words are translated in Greek as poieō, “to make.” Since Athanasius is a LXX reader and user, “to make” became representative of all acts of creation and is always used when speaking about creatures or creation.
. C. Ar. 2.57.
. C. Ar. 1.56.
. C. Ar. 1.58.
. C. Ar. 1.56 (5). Athanasius is responding to Valentinus, Carpocrates, and other heretics who believed that Christ was one with the Angels.
. C. Ar. 1.57; C. Ar. 1.59 (7).
. C. Ar. 1.62.
. C. Ar. 1.62 (12).
. C. Ar. 2.58.
. C. Ar. 2.59; C. Ar. 3.25.
. C. Ar. 2.61.
. C. Ar. 2.67.
. C. Ar. 1.12.
. C. Ar. 1.14.
. Matt 3:17.
. C. Ar. 3.3.
. C. Ar. 3.4.
. C. Ar. 3.4.
. C. Ar. 3.5.
. C. Ar. 3.6.
. C. Ar. 1.36, 37.
. C. Ar. 1.40.
. C. Ar. 1.44.
. John 17:19–20; C. Ar. 1.46.
. C. Ar. 1.48.
. C. Ar. 1.49, 51, 52.
. C. Ar. 3.30.
. 1 Pet 4:1; C. Ar. 3.31.
. Tom. 7, 11.
. C. Ar. 3.30; Ep. Epict. 7, 8; Joel 2:28; Bel 1:5 LXX.
. Ep. Epict. 7, 8.
. C. Ar. 3.31.
. C. Ar. 3.31.
. C. Ar. 3.32; C. Ar. 3.41.
. C. Ar. 3.33.
. C. Ar. 3.33.
. C. Ar. 3.33.
. Syn. 53.
. Syn. 35.
. Syn. 50.
. Ep. Serap. 1.3.1. It should be noted that the LXX uses the term “create/ktizōn” with spirit or wind.
. Ep. Serap. 1.4.1. This was discussed in chapter 3 under “Methods of Interpretation.” See pages 60–68.
. Ep. Serap. 1.8.4—10.1. Modern translations use “wind.”
. Ep. Serap. 1.8.1.
. Ep. Serap. 1.10.4.
. Ep. Serap. 1.14.7.
. Ep. Serap. 1.21.1, 3.
. Ep. Serap. 1.22.1, 3; Rom 1:4.
. Ep. Serap. 1.23.2; Rom 8:11.
. Ep. Serap. 1.23.4; 1 John 2:27.
. Ep. Serap. 1.24.1; 1 Cor 3:16–17.
. C. Ar. 1.15.
. C. Ar. 1.16.
. C. Ar. 1.46.
. C. Ar. 1.46; Ps 45:7.
. C. Ar. 1.47.
. C. Ar. 1.47.
. C. Ar. 1.50.
. C. Ar. 2.18.
. C. Ar. 2.51.
. C. Ar. 2.74.
. As well as in many references in Athanasius’s corpus such as Tomus ad Antiochenos and Letters to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit.
. Inc. 57.
. Ep. Aeg. Lib. 23.
. Appendix 2 has a comparative chart of the Nicene Creed and the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Creed.