Energeia and Theopoie–sis
5
Energeia and
Theopoie–sis
Activity and Making Divine
Athanasius of Alexandria is known for his orthodoxy and defense of the faith. He defended the divinity of the Son throughout his polemical writings. We have also seen his defense of the Trinity, his defense of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, his understanding of salvation, his understanding of evil and the human person. This chapter will discuss two important aspects of Athanasius’s theology: energeia and theopoiēsis. Both theological concepts have been mentioned throughout our discussion and are part of the building blocks that formed Athanasius’s orthodoxy. For Athanasius the concept energeia or “activity” cements the oneness of the Trinity. Two successors of Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria and Timothy II of Alexandria, develop the concept on this Athanasian foundation. Athanasius encapsulates his understanding of salvation in his famous dictum: “For he became human that we might be made god (theopoiēthōmen).” This should not be confused with theōsis, which is translated as “deification” and “divinization.” Theosis is a term coined by Gregory of Nazianzus and is distinctly different from Athanasius’s theopoiēsis. These two concepts, energeia and theopoiēsis, have been taken up and had their theological mark on ancient as well as modern theologians. This chapter will look at these two concepts as Athanasius understood and used them.
Energeia
The term energeia does not have an exact English equivalent and has different meanings in different contexts. In general, it can be translated as “activity or operation.” It is sometimes translated as “action or energy.” Some translators use the term “work” or “action” to express the activity undertaken. This chapter will use the term “activity” or simply the transliterated Greek, energeia. The term energeia refers to either the divine activity or the activity of the incarnate Son. In this chapter we will discuss first the activity of the Trinity, then look briefly at human activity, and finally discuss the activity of the incarnate Son.
Activity (energeia) of the Trinity
Athanasius clarifies the meaning of divine energeia through many examples. He talks about God’s guidance leading the Israelites out of Egypt: “For God himself through the Word in the Spirit guided the people.” By the expressions “through” the Word and “in” the Spirit Athanasius is saying the activity of guidance was undertaken by the whole Trinity. He uses the same expressions to speak about God’s presence: “For when the Spirit was among the people, God was among them through the Son in the Spirit.” Any activity undertaken by the Godhead is understood as an activity of the whole Trinity in which each person of the Trinity participates equally in oneness (enotētos) as expressed by the formula “From the Father, Through the Son, In the Holy Spirit.” When Scripture says “I led you out of the land of Egypt,” the “I” refers to the one Godhead doing the one activity of “leading,” which when viewed through a Trinitarian lens becomes “For God himself through the Word in the Spirit guided the people.” This expression does not divide the Trinity but unites it. Athanasius affirms the indivisibility and oneness (enotētos) of the Trinity: “There is such an order and unity [enotētos] in the Holy Trinity, who could separate either the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son or from the Father himself?”
Energeia as expressed in Athanasius’s formula “from, through, in” preserves the oneness of the Trinity. Athanasius opposes the Arian and Tropikoi heresies that claim the Son and the Holy Spirit are created beings. “Because they cannot understand how the Holy Trinity is indivisible, the Arians make the Son one with the created order, and the Tropikoi themselves classify the Spirit with the creatures.” Athanasius responds that if any person of the Trinity were a created being, that person would be foreign and external to the Trinity. The Trinity is not composed of Creator and creature; on the contrary, the Trinity is the Creator and Maker. The Trinity is indivisible, holy, and perfect, and confessed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. “The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. In this way the unity (ēenotēs) of the Trinity is preserved, and in this way is the one God preached in the Church, who is above all and through all and in all (Eph 4:6)—above all as Father, as beginning, as source; through all, through the Word; in all, in the Holy Spirit. It is not a Trinity in name alone and in linguistic expression, but in truth and actual existence.” Athanasius argues that if the oneness of the energeia is not preserved, some could claim it is only the Father who is the creator while the Son and Holy Spirit are created beings, and this would affect the Trinity since creation would be an act of the Father. Athanasius also writes, “the Father creates and renews all thing through the Word in the Holy Spirit.” Adding the concept of the oneness of the energeia to the idea of the oneness of essence strengthens the unity of the Trinity.
Paul taught the oneness (enotēta) of the Trinity when he wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:4–6, “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities [energēmatōn], but it is the same God who activates [energōn] all of them in everyone.” Athanasius expresses the activity of the Trinity in this verse by writing that the Spirit distributed the gifts “bestowed by the Father through the Word. For all the Father has is the Son’s. Thus what is given by the Son in the Spirit is a gift of the Father.” Athanasius expresses the oneness of the activity in 2 Corinthians 13:13—“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of [a] the Holy Spirit be with all of you”—by writing that “this grace and gift given in the Trinity is given by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.” What is under discussion here is the activity of bestowing of gifts. Though there are a variety of gifts, the activity of bestowing them by the Trinity is one. Athanasius concludes his explanation: “There is one activity of the Trinity. The Apostle does not mean that the gifts given by each are different and distinct, but that whatever gift is given is given in the Trinity, and that all the gifts are from the one God.”
The activity of prophecy and the incarnation both come about through the Trinity acting in oneness. When sacred writers say, “‘Thus says the Lord,’ they are not speaking otherwise than in the Holy Spirit, and when they speak in the Spirit, whatever it is they say, they say it in Christ.” Similarly, the Word in the Spirit visited the Virgin Mary and “formed the body and accommodated it to himself.” The incarnation is the Word taking the body as his own to the Father through the Word in the Spirit. Athanasius comments on the true worshipers mentioned in the story of the Samaritan woman in John 4: “True worshipers worship the Father but in Spirit and Truth, confessing the Son and the Spirit who is in him. For the Spirit is inseparable from the Son, just as the Son is inseparable from the Father.” In all of these examples, Athanasius asserts the oneness of activity of the Trinity regarding ancient prophecy, in the incarnation, and interaction with humanity during his economy. Athanasius explains all actions of the Godhead with creation and created beings are from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is indivisible and always acting in oneness.
Baptism is also an activity of the Trinity. If baptism were not performed through a oneness of energeia—that is, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and in the name of only one person of the Trinity, then the baptized is not initiated into the Godhead since baptism is initiation into the Trinity. The Trinity is indivisible, eternal, and immutable in nature, and has one holiness; that is why baptism is in the name of the Trinity.
Athanasius argues from the oneness of activity to the oneness of essence. When Paul sends his greetings to the Romans, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” the same grace and peace that was sent by the Father was sent by the Son. While the light of the sun and its radiance are one, and the sun’s illumination is affected by the radiance, the source of all is the sun. Similarly, there are not two sources of grace but it is the Father who gives grace and peace through the Son. When the Son works it is the Father who is the worker. When the Father speaks to the prophets, he speaks through the Son. If the Son and the Father were not of the same essence, such activity would have two different sources, and we would not have only one God. If it were only the Father who gives grace, or if he were the only giver, one would conclude that it is only the Father who is unoriginate and consequently the giver of all things. It is the mode of giving, the oneness of the activity, that demonstrates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same essence. It is critical to highlight the one source of gifts. Gifts may vary, but the source and the giver of the gift is one and the activity of giving it is in oneness.
Athanasius also argues from the practice of worship, explaining that we do not ask to be given blessings or gifts from “God and the angels,” but rather we pray to receive blessings from the Father and the Son because of their oneness (enotēta) and the oneness of their giving. We are given grace through the Son. All the Father’s activity is through the Son, and it is through the Son that we are given what is given. The angels minister at the command of God, they are sent forth with a mission that God sends them to complete; they do not initiate the mission but complete the command. As created beings, angels are not a creative (poiētikon) cause, they are not of the essence of God, and do not give grace. Angels are ministering spirits sent to serve. They are heralds of the gifts given from the Father through the Word. An angel was sent to Zacharias, another was sent to Mary the Theotokos; both Zacharias and Mary recognized that it was an angel they saw and not God or his Word. Angels do the work (ergon) of God through their ministry and service but are not the energeia of God since they are external to God and of a different essence. Angels, as created beings, are not a creative cause of energeia.
The one energeia unites the Trinity, for it is an indication of the one essence of the Trinity. For the Father permeates all things, and He acts (energein) in all things through the Word in the Spirit. Christians do not profess three gods or three origins; otherwise, Athanasius argues, he would have suggested the image of three suns. He always provides the example of a single sun with its radiance: the light is from the sun in the radiance. This example makes it clear there is only one origin, the sun. There is one Word from the one God for the Son is not external to the Father; for neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is a creature. Christians confess God through the Trinity, which is distinct from other gods that are of many kinds and many parts. If the Christian god were composed of many parts each would have its different and distinct nature and activity. Energeia speaks about the creative essence of God. When the Divine says, “Let there be light” there is light. The pronouncement has a creative power that lasts forever. The Trinity has one creative energeia.
Human Activity (energeia)
Athanasius compares the energeia of humans with that of God. The word of a human person does not have the power to create or produce activity. Humans are created out of nothing and it is not of their nature for their words to have creative power. Created humanity does not have such creative power in their words. Humans cannot transform water into wine with their human words. Neither human words nor human activity has creative power; they are temporal. The word of humans neither lives nor activates anything. On the other hand, God’s Word has creative power, gives life, and has energeia to do anything. In Athanasius’s opinion, created beings do not have an energeia comparable with that of the divine, for human energeia is temporal and relevant to the present and ends with time.
Activity (energeia) of the Incarnate Son
Athanasius discusses another type of energeia: the energeia of the incarnate Son. As the energeia of the divinity is undivided and the whole Trinity acts in oneness, so is the energeia of the incarnate Son. Athanasius writes that when Christians worship the Son, we worship the Lord of creation, the Word of God, and the incarnate Word of God. The flesh is created but in the incarnation of the Word the body became God’s own. In worship, we do not divide the body from the Word and worship it in itself or worship the Word apart from the body that he took as his own. Though the Word became flesh we still know and worship him as Lord. The leper knew he was the Lord and worshiped him in the body, saying to him, “‘Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean.’ He stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, ‘I do choose. Be made clean!’ Immediately his leprosy was cleansed.” Similarly, the “woman who was suffering from hemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his cloak, for she said to herself, ‘If I only touch his cloak, I will be made well.’ Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, ‘Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.’ And instantly the woman was made well.” In another example, when the waves of the raging sea heard the incarnate Word rebuke them, they became still and the storm ceased: “Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a dead calm.” Furthermore, the man born blind was healed by the fleshly spitting of the incarnate Word, for “he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and spread the mud on the man’s eyes.” In another example, where the only apparent aspect of the incarnate Word is the humanity, creation knew it was the Lord of creation who was on the cross and “the sun was darkened and the earth shook, the rocks were rent, and the veil of the temple rent, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose.” Not only that, but by stretching his hands on the cross and through the resurrection he overcame death. Athanasius concludes, “he that dishonors the Temple dishonors the Lord in the Temple, and he that separates the Word from the body, sets at naught the grace given to us in Him.” Athanasius asserts in all of these examples, the worship is not divided since the divinity and the humanity cannot be separated. It is interesting that, among all these examples, Athanasius did not introduce Eucharistic worship. His successor, Cyril of Alexandria, elaborates on the oneness of worship of the humanity and divinity in the Eucharist; it will be a major point in the Nestorian controversy.
The common thread among these miracles is the oneness of the energeia. These miracles are significant for Athanasius’s argument as he mentions them in more than one place in his writings. In the miracle of healing of the leper, the Gospel says “He stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, ‘I do choose. Be made clean!’” The act of healing included Christ stretching out his hand, Christ’s human hand touching the leper, and Christ’s human voice pronouncing the command to be made clean. In the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law he “took her by the hand and lifted her up”—here the miracle of healing included a physical touching of the hand, a human involvement in the act of divine healing. Athanasius explains, “He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely.” In the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead, Athanasius observes that when Christ went to Lazarus’s tomb, it was the human voice that was the public declaration of the miracle of raising Lazarus and through it the miracle happened, “When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’ The dead man came out.” Athanasius writes, “He gave forth a human voice as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead.” There was no time interval between the touching and the healing or the raising from the dead. It represents one activity of healing and raising. It is no coincidence that such details are carefully documented in Scripture; they have a specific theological significance. They document the one energeia of the incarnate Son, in which his divine act of healing was carried out through the humanity that he took as his own; thus, the one Jesus Christ is performing his activity in oneness of the humanity and divinity. Athanasius demonstrates the oneness of energeia of the incarnate Son in this miracle and the rest of the miracles on his list. This consistent line of thought regarding the oneness of activity of the incarnate Son is picked up by Cyril of Alexandria, who expands and reflects on more miracles, such as the healing of the son of the widow of Nain. Cyril of Alexandria also uses the understanding that Christ took a human body and made it his own and the oneness of activity of the incarnate Son in both the Nestorian debate and Eucharistic theology.
By the early seventh century the concept of monoenergism (one energeia) was suggested as a way to end the rift between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians that occurred in 451. It was intended that both parties would agree there are two natures in the incarnate Son united by one energeia, though the terms “one” and “energeia” were not clearly defined. The proposal was opposed so the concept of monotheletism (“one will”) was suggested instead. Later, energeia became a theological topic in Byzantine orthodoxy through the writings of Gregory Palamas, a fourteenth-century Byzantine theologian. The Latin West, represented by Thomas Aquinas, did not accept Palamas’s energeia as distinct from the essence of God. Within the Alexandrian tradition, Cyril of Alexandria developed the concept of energeia based on the foundations that Athanasius had laid down in his writings. Timothy II of Alexandria developed the concept further in the fifth century based on Cyril’s work. The term energeia acquired theological and historical significance much later than the time of Athanasius and was developed beyond what Athanasius discussed in his writings.
Theopoie–sis: Making Divine
Athanasius concludes his seminal two-volume work Against the Pagans—On the Incarnation with his famous and most quoted dictum: “For he became human that we might be made god (theopoiēthōmen).” Athanasius writes that it is hard to comprehend the breadth of the incarnation, which is beyond human understanding; with exceeding wonder one sees the divinity of the Word surrounding us everywhere. It is with this wonder that Athanasius delves into theopoiēsis. Athanasius constantly uses the term theopoiēsis, which is of his own coinage, to explain the incorruptibility and renewal granted to humanity by the incarnation. The literal meaning of theopoieō is to “make into a god,” and theopoiēsis is “making divine.” This should not be confused with theōsis, which is translated as “deification” and “divinization.” Theōsis was coined by Gregory Nazianzus and became the standard term in Byzantine theology, and the most commonly used term in modern theological texts, to denote the various senses of deification represented in different theological traditions. “For Gregory of Nazianzus theosis is man’s telos brought about on the one hand by the deifying power of the Holy Spirit in baptism, and on the other by the moral struggle in the ascetic life. But we can never bridge the gap between the created and uncreated orders of reality.” The focus of this chapter is Athanasius of Alexandria’s theopoiēsis.
Athanasius explains that when the Word became incarnate and took a body as his own, a body that was liable to death and corruption, he did so out of his lovingkindness for humanity. By body, Athanasius means the fullness of humanity: body, spirit, and a soul endowed with reason. He took the body and made it his own so that when he died on the cross, we all died in him, so that by his resurrection he would overcome death and corruption. The overcoming of death and corruption was completed in the Lord’s body, and the law of corruption in humanity was abolished. In his death we died with him and by his resurrection he granted humanity life and incorruption. Through the incarnation he granted us renewal of life, restored the image of God within us, and granted us incorruption. He became human that we might be made god (theopoiēthōmen).
Theopoiēsis is an exaltation of humanity; it is different than but related to the exaltation of the incarnate Son, which was for our sake. Athanasius points out that the exaltation of the Son in Philippians 2:9–10 is not a reward by a deliberate act; if it were, it could be taken away the way it was given. Rather, the Son is exalted by nature and this is never altered because his sonship is by nature and not a gift. He is always Son, Lord of glory and ever worshiped; he descended and became incarnate, not for his own promotion, but rather for our sakes, to make us children of the Father and gods. Adoption cannot happen except through the real Son; similarly, being made God cannot happen except through the Word. We are not children by nature, but were made children through the Son who is of the essence of the Father; in the same way, divinity is not part of created nature, but we were made gods through the Son. He was not first human and then became God, but he was first God and then became human to make us gods. For he is God by nature and according to essence. The exaltation mentioned in Philippians 2:9–10 is not the exaltation of the Son, for he is God by nature, but it is the exaltation of humanity when we were made children and gods. The Son granted us what belongs to God: as the resurrection granted us renewal and restoration of the divine image within us, so we became sanctified, exalted, children of the most High, and gods. Theopoiēsis does not transform the nature of humanity, but renews, exalts, and sanctifies the human nature that Christ has taken as his own. When Christ appropriates, or takes as his own, the fullness of humanity, with all it entails, and overcomes death and corruption, we receive incorruption through him and are made gods; then theopoiēsis takes place. Taking a body did not change or weaken the Word, but rather he made divine what he put on and gave it freely to humanity. Humanity is clothed in the flesh in order to exist, but the Word of God became incarnate and took flesh as his own in order to sanctify the flesh. We were dead, and through the incarnation we are “made alive” and become temples of God. By making us alive, he makes life, he grants us the renewal of life. Through his incarnation, humans are “made” children, “made” gods, “made” alive. It is the whole process of being “made” that is at the core of understanding theopoiēsis. It is the understanding that our created nature was exalted through the Son and made divine but not of the same essence as God.
As previously discussed, in his defense against the Arians, who claimed the Son was a created being before the incarnation, Athanasius insists that the Son is divine, and it is only after the incarnation and taking a body as his own that we can say the Son had a created body. So, what we read in Scripture of the Son eating, sleeping, and suffering pain and death, among other human activities, refers to the created body that he took as his own and not to the Son who is of the essence of the Father and fully divine. Thus the emphasis on aspects of the Son being “made” and “created” (poieō) becomes pivotal in the Arian controversy and should be understood within that context. Athanasius emphasizes “made” and “created” for the sake of preserving the divinity of the Son while preserving the fullness of the incarnation and showing that the Son took on humanity in truth. Athanasius writes, “For it is the same to say work or creature, so that the proof that He is no work is a proof also that He is no creature.” Athanasius observes that when the word “made” is applied, it is always applied to creatures. What is made has a beginning, and since God has no beginning then only created beings are “made.” What has a beginning is not part of the essence of the eternal creator but external to the creator. Thus John writes in the beginning “was” the Word; he does not write that the Word “became” or “was made,” but simply that he “was,” for he always was and eternally exists. Poieō is used with created beings or objects. Athanasius is careful to say that people are made divine, not become divine. Being thus “made” divine assures there is no change in the essence of humanity; while humans are made gods their essence remains that of created beings. The making divine is through the Son, the Creator, for humans do not become divinized by a transformation through or of their own inner essence. “Things originate are made and do not make; or else they made even themselves.” Divinization is given to created beings and is understood as an aspect of renewal. This is why the concept of renewal is so vital to Athanasius; it is the process of being made divine, among other things. What the incarnation granted to humanity is the fullness of renewal, the fullness of being in God’s image, which we lost by our transgression, the overcoming of death and being made incorruptible, and being made god. The incarnation does not transform the essence of human nature but aims to perfect it to its initial glory when God created it in his own image and declared it to be perfect. Theopoiēsis is the process of bringing humanity back to the fullness of Christ, to be the ultimate human being created in God’s image. It is not to transform human nature into the divine essence, but to bring humans to the fullness of humanity, the fullness of renewal, the fullness of being perfect human beings who are created in the image of the divine and who do not suffer death any longer as they are made incorruptible.
Athanasius explains that when John writes the Word was made flesh, no one thinks the whole Word was made flesh, but rather the Word put on flesh and became incarnate. The Word took this created body for our sake, so that in him we are able to be renewed (anakainisthēnai) and are made gods (theopoiēthēnai). The process of renewal can only be granted through the body that the Word took as his own. Because the Word, who is of the Father, took a human body as his own we have communion with the divine and are able to be made divine and incorruptible. Because the Son is the true God, and not a creature, humanity is made divine. Through the incarnation what is divine by nature joined what is created by nature so that humanity might be saved, sanctified, and made divine. God created us through the Word, so we are creatures by nature, but through the incarnation, we are made children of God and God the Creator becomes our Father. We are children by adoption not by nature and it is only through the Word, who is in us, that we cry to the Father and say “Abba Father.” Through the incarnate Son, created humans are made sons (uiopoieitai). Similarly, we are not gods by nature but it is through the incarnation, through the Son who is in us, who sanctifies us, that we are made gods.
Theopoiēsis grants us incorruptibility and other attributes of the Divine. We are asked to be merciful as the Father in heaven is merciful and we are asked to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. Neither our merciful actions towards others nor our progress towards perfection will make us equal to God in mercy and perfection. It is through grace that we are given to be merciful, perfect, and children of the Most High. We are called gods through his grace: we are not equal to the true God or his Word, but through his grace we become merciful. We do not become in nature benefactors or equal to God, but what has been given to us by God through grace we impart to all humanity, so we become imitators of God. When we become children of the Father we partake of his Spirit, we become virtuous, imitators, and children of God. This does not make us equal to God but gives us the oneness of the Spirit the children of God ought to have. As imitators of the divine we have divine attributes that make us gods. We are merciful as the Father is merciful, but we are not the Father himself. We are sons and gods, but not like the Son or God himself. We are imitators of God in being united in oneness by being one “in us [the Father and the Son].” Athanasius clarifies that our unity imitates the oneness of the Son and the Father but we are not in the Father in the same way as the Son is in the Father. Only the Son is in the Father, but we are in the Son and through him in the Father. We are learning our unity by imitation from the oneness of the Father and Son. These are examples to help us understand how we are made divine when we imitate God in mercy, perfection, and living in unity with one another as the Son is in oneness with the Father. We can never be equal to God in his mercy or perfection, nor can we live in unity as the Son is in the Father, but being imitators of the divine, imitators of his perfection and mercy, the Divine makes us gods.
To be made gods does not change our essence as humans. The Word became flesh, and took a body as his own so that when he sanctifies this body, we are sanctified in him and made gods. Without the incarnation we cannot receive the gift of deification, for it is through the incarnate Word that we are made gods. When we receive this gift our essence does not change into a divine essence just as the essence of the Word did not change when the Word became flesh but rather it deified the body and rendered it immortal. Just as we are “made children of God” though our essence does not change—we are not of the same essence as the Son of God—we are made gods though the essence of our humanity does not change.
If the essence of the Son is not divine like that of the Father he cannot be the enlightening power of the Father nor have the power to make us gods. If the Son is not God himself he cannot make us gods. He is the power of the Father and when we partake of the Son we partake of the Father himself. Because he is of the essence of the Father all things come to life through him and through him we are made gods. If the Son makes us gods there is no doubt that his nature is divine.
It is through the incarnation that humans are made gods. When the Word took flesh with all its properties and made it his own—all the works of the Godhead of the Word were done through the body—humanity was delivered from corruption and we were made gods. What the incarnation granted humanity is different from the sanctification previously given to people such as Jeremiah or John the Baptist, who were both sanctified in the womb yet died like the rest, for death reigned over all humanity. These examples demonstrate that no aspect of sanctification given to humanity before the incarnation could stop the corruption and mortality in human nature. It was only after the incarnation, when Christ overcame death with his resurrection, that humanity was granted incorruption and immortality. When the Word became human and appropriated all that belongs to humanity as his own, he destroyed corruption and granted humanity eternal life. We are no longer earthly but regenerated by water and the Spirit, and in Christ and with Christ we rise to eternal life.
Athanasius argues that Christ has taken a body like ours so that what he secures for himself in the flesh is secured for humanity for eternity; it cannot be taken away from us. The flesh that Christ took as his own bore all the weaknesses of human nature, such as thirst, hunger, ignorance, suffering, and death. At the same time, this very same flesh raised the dead and healed the sick. All the questions he asked in his humanity, which might show ignorance, were asked to vouchsafe knowledge of the Father for our sake. Whatever Christ received in the flesh, he received for our sake. Whatever men receive can be lost, as in the case of Adam, but what Christ received in the flesh is irrevocable and is secure for humanity. The Word became flesh so that what he receives in that flesh, humanity receives; he became flesh to sanctify us and make us gods. When he was washed in the Jordan, we were washed in him and by him. When the Spirit descended on him in the Jordan, it descended on us; it was we who were the recipients of the Spirit. The body that was sanctified is his, and from him we became sanctified. When the Word became flesh and made it his own, all the ways the flesh was perfected became ours. The advancements of the flesh are not external to the flesh, for the flesh was his own, nor were they promotion to the Godhead. The advances in the flesh and deification of the flesh are for our sake, for humanity to receive them. The Word became flesh to overcome demons and death; and as we became partakers of divine nature, we overcome demons and death, we are liberated from corruption. Whatever Christ does, he does for our sake. After the resurrection, the risen flesh has overcome mortality and become deified so that what Christ has secured in his own flesh becomes ours. The Word by its own free will accepted death in the flesh on our behalf. The flesh fears death, and he willingly accepted the fear of death on our behalf to overcome the fear of death in humanity. Because he overcame the fear of death and death itself with his resurrection, Christians now are prepared to face death without fear. Humanity is mortal; it does not die by its own free will but by the necessity of its mortal nature. The Son being immortal took mortal flesh as his own, but by his power as God the mortal flesh becomes immortal because the Word who assumed it preserved it incorruptible so that we partake of immortality from him. Whatever the Son has secured in his flesh he secured for humanity. He secured knowledge of the Father and the descent of the Spirit on us. He secured immortality and incorruption. This advancement and exaltation granted to us by the Son’s incarnation are secured by the Son and cannot be taken away from us.
In summary, Athanasius’s dictum, “for he became human that we might be made god (theopoiēthōmen)” summarizes the essence of our salvation. The Son of God became incarnate and took to himself a body as his own, a body that represents the fullness of the human essence and all that humanity is. He carried all the infirmities of humanity as his own: our mortality, fear, suffering, and all weakness that characterizes human nature. Through his divine nature he advances the human condition and heals our sickness. He made us children of God and we are able to call God “our Father.” He cleansed us in the river Jordan and accepted the Spirit on our behalf so that through him and in him we are sanctified. He took away the fear of death and gave us eternal life and immortality by overcoming death with his death. It is immortality and incorruption that seal the understanding that we are made gods, for only God is immortal. If the Son is not fully divine we could not have been sanctified and been made gods. This gift does not change either his nature or the nature of humanity. Through the incarnation and by the power of his resurrection humanity was granted renewal, the renewal of God’s image within us, and theopoiēsis. Athanasius adds a Eucharistic dimension to the understanding of theopoiēsis for we are made gods by partaking of the body of the Word himself.
Athanasius discusses in his writings three aspects of energeia. He discusses the divine energeia that characterizes the activity of the Trinity. He gives many examples to demonstrate that any divine activity is from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Divine energeia assures the oneness of the Trinity and the oneness of the essence. With this theological principle, Athanasius argues that the Son and the Holy Spirit must be divine. If the Son is a created being and his activity is introduced in the Trinity then the Son is external and we have a fourth person introduced to the Trinity. The same applies to the Holy Spirit. Athanasius briefly discusses human activity, which is temporal, does not have creative power, and cannot be compared to that of the divine. He then discusses the energeia of the incarnate Son, demonstrating through a series of examples of miracles in which Christ acts in oneness of the humanity and the divinity, each participating in each activity Christ has undertaken. Athanasius here asserts that, as energeia unites and assures oneness of the Godhead, the oneness of the activity of the incarnate Son assures the oneness of the person of Christ. Thus energeia unites the three persons of the Trinity, and energeia unites the two natures of the incarnate Son. Athanasius does not go further, however, to conclude the oneness of the Son preserves the oneness of the Trinity, or if the incarnate Son has two separate activities, the unity of the Trinity will be in jeopardy. Though this conclusion is straightforwardly deduced, he never spells it out. This is developed by Cyril of Alexandria during the debates of the Nestorian controversy who will argue that to preserve the oneness of the Trinity the activity of the incarnate Son must be in oneness.
Energeia and theopoiēsis are two concepts Athanasius applied in his understanding of the Divine essence and the understanding of our salvation. Energeia has not taken much traction in western theology, while Byzantine theology focused primarily on divine energeia. This chapter made clear the significance and specificity of Athanasius’s understanding of energeia and that it should not be confused with later developments. Theopoiēsis attracted more interest once it was subsumed under the term theosis coined by Gregory of Nazianzus. It should be noted that Athanasius never used the term theosis in his writings and therefore we should recognize the distinctiveness of the concept of theopoiēsis that he introduced and it should be understood on his own terms.
Questions for Further Discussion
Suggestions for Further Reading
Orations against the Arians 3:11–15; 30–35
Orations against the Arians 1:38–45; 2:47, 59, 70; 3:19–53
Letters to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit 1.12–33
Letter to Adelphius (especially 60:4)
. Inc. 54.
. See Liddell et al., Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. ἐνέργεια.
. Bradshaw, who studied energeia from Aristotle to Medieval times in East and West, writes that Aristotle defined energeia as “the exercise of a capacity in contrast to its mere possession.” Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West, 3.
. See Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. ἐνέργεια.
. Ep. Serap. 1.12.4.
. Ep. Serap. 1.12.5.
. Ep. Serap. 1.20.1. Bradshaw quotes Aristotle, “that which is composite and divisible into parts has several different activities, but that which is by nature simple and whose being does not consist in relation to something else must have only one excellence in the full sense of the word.” Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West, 4.
. Ep. Serap. 1.17.4.
. Ep. Serap. 1.28.2–3.
. Ep. Serap. 1.24.6.
. Ep. Serap. 1.30.4.
. Ep. Serap. 1.30.6.
. Ep. Serap. 1.31.1.
. Ep. Serap. 1.31.11.
. Ep. Serap. 1.31.12.
. Ep. Serap. 1.33.4.
. Ep. Serap. 1.30.1, 2.
. Rom 1:7.
. C. Ar. 3.11.
. C. Ar. 3.12.
. C. Ar. 3.12.
. C. Ar. 3.12.
. Heb 1:14.
. C. Ar. 3.14.
. C. Ar. 3.15.
. C. Ar. 3.15.
. C. Ar. 3.15. Bradshaw’s Aristotle East and West focuses on the divine activity and its relationship to God’s being or essence in East and West and how this illuminates some of the theological differences between Eastern and Western churches. The study does not discuss energeia of the incarnate Son, nor does it mention Athanasius, but only gives a brief philosophical and theological history of divine enregeia. Athanasopoulos and Schneider, Divine Essence and Divine Energies, should be considered a critical response to Bradshaw’s study.
. C. Ar. 2.35.
. Ep. Adelph. 3.
. Matt 8:2–3.
. Matt 9:20–22.
. Matt 8:26.
. John 9:6.
. Ep. Adelph. 3.
. Ep. Adelph. 6.
. Ep. Adelph. 8.
. Mark 1:31; C. Ar. 3.32.
. John 11:43–44; Ep. Adelph. 7; C. Ar. 3.32.
. Luke 7:14.
. Inc. 54.
. Inc. 54.
. See Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. θεοποιέω, p. 630.
. See Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. θεοποίησις, p. 631.
. See Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. θέωσις, p. 649.
. Russell, Doctrine of Deification, 233.
. Inc. 8.
. C. Ar. 1.37.
. C. Ar. 1.38.
. C. Ar. 1.39.
. C. Ar. 1.41.
. C. Ar. 1.42.
. C. Ar. 2.10.
. C. Ar. 1.42.
. C. Ar. 1.59 (8); C. Ar. 1.60 (9).
. C. Ar. 2.18.
. C. Ar. 2.57.
. C. Ar. 2.58.
. Ep. Afr. 7.
. C. Ar. 2.47.
. C. Ar. 2.70.
. C. Ar. 2.59.
. C. Ar. 2.64.
. Luke 6:36; Matt 5:48.
. C. Ar. 3.19.
. C. Ar. 3.20.
. “. . . that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21).
. C. Ar. 3.21, 25.
. Decr. 14.
. Decr. 31.
. Syn. 51; Ep. Serap. 1.24.1.
. C. Ar. 3.33.
. C. Ar. 3.38.
. C. Ar. 3.39; Ep. Adelph. 4.
. C. Ar. 1.47.
. C. Ar. 3.53.
. C. Ar. 3.53.
. C. Ar. 3.40.
. C. Ar. 3.48.
. C. Ar. 3.57.
. C. Ar. 3.57.
. Inc. 54.
. Ep. Max. 2.
. “The identity of activity among the three persons indicates identity of being; this becomes a fundamental principle of the Trinitarian theology of Cyril of Alexandria as well as of the Cappadocians.” Anatolios, Athanasius, 277.