Chapter 2: Athanasius’s Early Works
2
Athanasius’s Early Works
Scholars disagree significantly as to when Athanasius began his literary career. His first two works, Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) and On the Incarnation of the Word of God (De incarnatione verbi Dei), are probably best understood as twin books or two halves of the same major treatise. Older scholarship has placed these theological treatises in the early years of Athanasius’s ministry in Alexandria, before the so-called Arian controversy that erupted there in circa 320. Archibald Robertson, the editor of Athanasius’s works in NPNF, is an apt example of this approach.27 He dates Against the Heathen and On the Incarnation circa 318, when Athanasius was between eighteen and twenty-one years of age. The reason for this early dating of these two treatises is the fact that they make absolutely no reference (direct or indirect) to the Arian controversy. It is assumed that this theological crisis was of such major proportions that it would have had to have been mentioned in a far-reaching, two-volume defense of the Christian faith.
More recent scholarship has taken a different approach that locates the writing of these twin treatises in the period after Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria, in 328. Some scholars date them as late as his first exile in 337, because in Against the Heathen (§ 1) the writer mentioned that he did not have his books at hand. Others point to phraseology in On the Incarnation (§ 24) that is paralleled in Athanasius’s Festal Letter of 337.28 Hence, Timothy Barnes dates these treatises between 325 and 335,29 and Hanson locates them in Athanasius’s first exile to Trier (in Gaul), in 335 or 336.30 John Behr acknowledges the difficulties in dating these two treatises and opts for a time frame in the early years of Athanasius’s episcopacy in Alexandria, which would place them in 328 or soon thereafter.31 This rich diversity of opinion about the dating of these works makes it very difficult for us to reconstruct a historical context for them.
The current study follows the older dating scheme, which places these treatises prior to the dispute over Arianism in the Alexandrian church (ca. 318), for the reasons that Robertson and others have suggested; it is difficult for me to imagine that our author would have written two major apologetic works on the nature of the Christian faith, after or during the Arian crisis, without mentioning a single word about it. This approach assumes that Against the Heathen and On the Incarnation were written by a young but also extremely talented and energetic theological intellect—and this does not seem antithetical to what we know about Athanasius from his various other writings.
The title of Against the Heathen may be a bit off-putting for modern readers. Contra Gentes is also sometimes translated Against the Pagans; today, the Christian apologist would probably say “To the Non-Christians,” for that is certainly the readership Athanasius had in mind. It is an ambitious and far-reaching work that seeks to demolish some of the main religious claims of non-Christians, in order to clear the floor (so to speak) for the acceptance of the Christian faith. Against the Heathen looks beyond the church to her lively religious opposition, an opposition that was both spirited and somewhat troublesome—particularly in Alexandria. In reaching beyond the readership of Christianity, and hoping to reach non-Christians, Athanasius stood in a long tradition of Christian apologists who sought to win a fair hearing and religious toleration for the Christian faith by giving “reason for the hope that was within them” (1 Pet 3:15).
In his apologetic approach Athanasius seems to have read and known the approaches used by both Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165) and Irenaeus of Lyon (ca. 130–202) before him. From Justin Martyr, Athanasius inherited the attack upon pagan idols and idol worship. Like Irenaeus, he stressed the deep inner connection between God’s two great acts in creation and redemption. But there is no textual indication of his direct borrowing from these earlier Christian apologists, so perhaps Athanasius’s creative and retentive mind developed his apologetic approach without direct recourse to these earlier Christian writers.
Against the Heathen is the first offering in this pair of early works. It is addressed to Macarius, whose name means “blessed one,” who desires to hear about “our religion.” Whether this “Macarius” is a real person or a literary device remains a matter of conjecture. The introduction, however, makes clear the purpose Athanasius had in mind in writing the treatise: “The purpose of the book [is] a vindication of Christian doctrine, and especially of the Cross, against the scoffing objection of the Gentiles.”32 It is comprised of forty-seven short sections, which are grouped into three main parts: (1) “The Refutation of Heathenism”; (2) “The Knowledge of God Possible (The Soul)”; and (3) “Nature a Revelation of God.” The broad outline provided by the titles of the three sections offers a helpful window into the development and approach of this work.
The first section is quite polemical. Athanasius went on the attack, seeking to demolish the credibility of the non-Christian faiths around him by showing that they cannot properly describe the origin of evil in the world, that their idolatry is sheer folly, and that pantheism (the identification of God with nature and natural forces) is an utter dead end. Athanasius argued that evil had no real part in God’s original creation, nor in the original constitution of human nature; hence, like other Eastern Orthodox theologians before and after him, he started his defense from a foundation of “original righteousness” instead of “original sin.” Evil was described as a human development through the misuse of human freedom. The human soul “fell into lust of themselves, preferring what was their own to the contemplation of what belonged to God.”33 The heading of section 5 summarized well the nature of evil, as Athanasius viewed it: “Evil, then, consists essentially in the choice of what is lower in preference to what is higher.”34 After attacking certain non-Christian approaches to the nature of evil—that is, that evil is a substance, and that evil resides in matter (dualism)—Athanasius turned his polemic attack upon idolatry.
Athanasius stressed that idolatry is a prime example of the fall of the human soul into evil, because it seeks to find God while engrossed in earthly things (§ 8). In a similar way idolatry led to the worship of celestial bodies, animals, and fabled creatures (§ 9), and even mortals—like the supposed Greek gods (§§ 10–11)—became deified. The “shameful actions ascribed to heathen deities all prove that they are but men of former times, and not even good men.”35 In worshipping images, not only are people submitting to great evil (as evil was defined above) but they are also dishonoring art by misusing the skill of mere humans (§ 13). Furthermore, the Scriptures are clearly against the making and use of idols, because idolatry deceives the human heart, and “none can deliver his soul.”36 Hence, Athanasius argued that “the gods conveyed in the representations of them by poets and artists show that they are without life, and that they are not gods, nor even decent men and women.”37
After attacking and laying aside several of the arguments in support of idolatry (§ 16), Athanasius concluded, “The truth probably is, that the scandalous tales [about the gods] are true, while the divine attributes ascribed to them are due to the flattery of the poets” (§ 17).38 He then went on the attack again, arguing against the idea that “the gods [should be] worshipped for inventing the Arts of Life” (§ 18).39 This is completely wrong: “For men having a natural capacity for knowledge according to the definition laid down concerning them, there is nothing to surprise us if by human intelligence, and by looking of themselves at their own nature and coming to know it, they have hit upon the arts.”40 The variety and diversity of idolatrous cults prove that they are false (§ 23), and the fact that “the so-called gods of one place are used as victims [for sacrifice] in another” shows that there is no unified truth to be found in idolatry (§ 24).41 The height of this absurdity is seen in human sacrifice, which produces calamitous results in society, “for nearly every city is full of licentiousness of all kinds, the result of the savage character of its gods . . .” (§ 25).42 In fact, “the moral corruptions of Paganism all admittedly originated with the gods” (§ 26).43
Having demolished the credibility of idolatry, the most popular form of non-Christian worship, Athanasius turned his attention towards nature-worship (pantheism). He argued that “Nature witnesses to God by the mutual dependence of all her parts, which forbid us to think of any one of them as the supreme God” (§ 27).44 Hence, the order, design, and unity of the various parts of creation do not show us that they are divine, but rather remind us that they had and have a Divine Creator, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, “Whom the would-be philosophers turn from to worship and deify the Creation which proceeded from Him, which yet itself worships and confesses the Lord Whom they deny on its account.”45 God cannot be diffused into the various and dissimilar aspects of nature, for God is incapable of dissolution (§ 28). And “the balance of powers in Nature shows that it is not God, either collectively, or in [its] parts” (§ 29).46
The second section of Against the Heathen focused attention upon the human soul. Drawing upon Platonic philosophy and Scripture—in which humans are said to be created in the image of God (Gen 1:26)—Athanasius argued that all humans have an immortal soul and that in their soul they have a reflection or mirror of the Divine nature. Hence, he wrote, “The soul of man, being intellectual, can know God of itself, if it be true to its own nature” (§ 30). This soul is both rational and immortal (à la Plato); it is what distinguishes humans from other creatures (§ 31). The role of the soul is seen in its ability to overrule the instincts of “the bodily organs” (§ 32). The fact that the soul is immortal is proved by (1) “its being distinct from the body, (2) its being the source of motion, [and] (3) its power to go beyond the body in imagination and thought” (§ 33).47 Because of its heavenly origin, the human soul is capable of knowing God and God’s revelation through the Logos (Word, Logic, Mind) of God. The human predicament, therefore, is not one of the finitude of human nature but of corruption of the human soul; “the soul, then, if only it get rid of the stains of sin is able to know God directly, its own rational nature imaging back the Word of God, after whose image it was created. But even if it cannot pierce the cloud which sin draws over its vision, it is confronted by the witness of creation to God” (§ 34).
In Part III, the created world is viewed as a proper revelation of certain aspects of God; these include God’s existence, God’s unity, as well as God’s role as Designer and Sustainer of nature. Athanasius wrote, “Creation [is] a revelation of God; especially in the order and harmony pervading the whole” (§ 35).48 The argument from “design” (§§ 36–37) leads to the assertion of the unity of the Godhead: “The Unity of God [is] shown by the Harmony of the order of Nature” (§ 38).49 This unity points to the “impossibility of a plurality of Gods” (§ 39).50 Athanasius, following but not quoting John 1:1–4, introduced the Logos as the Agent of God’s creative act and the ongoing power of God at work in revealing God in the world and to human souls. He wrote, for example, “The rationality and order of the Universe proves that it is the work of the Reason or Word of God” (§ 40).51 The Logos is not only Creator of the world but also its Sustainer, as Athanasius wrote: “The presence of the Word in nature [is] necessary, not only for its original Creation, but also for its permanence” (§ 41).52 After discussing the “function of the Word [Logos] at length” (§ 42), he offered three analogies (§§ 43–44) that were designed to illustrate this profound relationship between Creator and creation.
The brief conclusion (§§ 45–47) recapped the theology of Part I, and Part III, from the standpoint of the scriptural witness. It also provided a rationale and a point of departure for the second treatise, On the Incarnation of the Word of God. It provided a rationale by pointing out the inadequacy of the non-Christian approaches to knowing God, and by doing so cleared the way for the options offered by Christian faith. Secondly, it provided a point of departure by introducing the theme of God as the Logos—Who will be the One incarnated in human flesh—as the reconciling revelation of God in the second book.
On the Incarnation of the Word of God, the second of the twin treatises under consideration here, is arguably Athanasius’s most famous and most widely read work today. Like its predecessor, it is divided into three main parts: (1) “The Incarnation of the Word,” (2) “The Death and Resurrection of Christ,” and (3) “The Refutation of Contemporary Unbelief,” which are followed by a brief conclusion. The book is comprised of fifty-seven short sections and is—like its predecessor—addressed to “Macarius.” Also like the previous work, On the Incarnation draws upon Platonic philosophy and the Christian Scriptures to explain and to prove Christian doctrine.
Bridging back to Against the Heathen, Athanasius presupposed the doctrine of Creation by the Word of God, and that God Who had made the world through the Logos had determined to save the world by Him through Whom it was first made. Once again, the idolatry of the non-Christian world is the subject of his polemic, as well as the occasion for the demonstration of the Word’s divinity: “He by His own power demonstrates to be divine, subduing the pretensions of idols by His supposed humiliation—by the Cross—and those who mock and disbelieve invisibly winning over to recognize His divinity and power.”53 The same Word of the Father, by Whom the Universe was made, appeared and was made manifest in human form for our salvation. As Athanasius wrote, “He has yet of the loving-kindness and goodness of His own Father been manifested to us in a human body for our salvation.”54
Once again stressing the interconnection between creation and redemption as the re-creation of humanity, Athanasius proceeded to explain, critique, and reject several erroneous views of creation, including those of Epicureanism, Platonism, and Gnosticism (§ 2). In the next section (3) he introduced “the true doctrine” of creation, which stressed creation out of nothing, by God, and the creation of humans “in the image of God.” Because of the dignity of their created nature, humans are capable of participating in the blessedness of God. He explained that God “made them after His own image, giving them a portion even of the power of His own Word; so that having as it were a kind of reflection of the Word, and being made rational, they might be able to abide ever in blessedness, living the true life which belongs to the saints in paradise.”55 But also knowing that humans possessed a free will that “could sway to either side,” God also gave the first humans the grace of a commandment, which was to prepare their way towards blessedness. This commandment (or “law”) stated, “‘Of every tree that is in the garden, eating thou shalt eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ye shall not eat of it, but on the day that ye eat, dying ye shall die.’ But by ‘dying ye shall die,’ what else could be meant than not dying merely, but also abiding even in the corruption of death?”56
Through the violation of this commandment or “law,” humanity fell into corruption and death, hence providing both the need and the necessity for the Word becoming flesh: “For in speaking of the appearance of the Savior amongst us, we must needs speak also of the origin of men, that you may know that the reason of His coming down was because of us, and that our transgression called forth the loving-kindness of the Word, that the Lord should both make haste to help us and appear among men.”57
The plight of humans caused a “divine dilemma” (§ 6). God, Who created us in God’s image for incorruption and blessedness, also laid down a law for us. The willful violation of God’s good law made humanity subject to corruption and death. The crux of the dilemma, as Athanasius draws it, is between Divine Goodness (in creating and redeeming humans) and Divine Justice (in requiring death of those who transgress God’s holy law). Hence, he wrote, “It was, then, out of the question to leave men to the current of corruption; because this would be unseemly, and unworthy of God’s goodness.”58 So a means of redemption needed to be devised that would allow God to “appear true to the law He had laid down concerning death. For it were monstrous for God, the Father of Truth, to appear a liar for our profit and preservation.”59 Here then is the dilemma caused by the human predicament; if humans are allowed to live in corruption and death, God’s goodness seems to be violated. If humans are reconciled to God through mere repentance, without fulfilling the law of death, then God’s justice and veracity seem to be violated.
After examining the various options offered by this dilemma, Athanasius concluded that the only One who could justly renew all humanity was the Logos through Whom and by Whom humanity was originally created; only He could re-create all, suffer for all, and represent all to the Father by way of intercession (§ 7). Athanasius explained, “For His it was once more both to bring the incorruptible to incorruption, and to maintain intact the just claim of the Father upon all. For being Word of the Father, and above all, He alone of natural fitness was both able to recreate everything, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be ambassador for all with the Father.”60 His solution to the dilemma addresses both aspects of the problem—namely, the debt of humanity in sin and a solution that is worthy of the goodness of God. Athanasius’s solution addressed both horns of the dilemma, in that it both covered the debt that humanity owed and restored the image of God within humanity.
This “dilemma” then is the rationale behind the Incarnation of the Word of God, in which—borrowing the language of the Fourth Gospel (John 1:14)—“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” As Athanasius put it, “He took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the mastery—lest the creature should perish, and His Father’s handiwork in men be spent for nought—He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours.”61 His body, however, was born of a Virgin, so as not to be under the penalty of our corruption. Hence, our Divine Maker took a body like ours in order to banish death and corruption from us, “like straw from the fire.”62 Since only His death could stop the plague that infested the human race, the Word took a body that was mortal, like ours, so that it could avail redemption for all; hence, by becoming mortal, He clothed us with immortality (§ 9). This is the basis of the famous dictum that is used to summarize Athanasius’s theology of redemption: “He became what we are, to make us what He is.”63
After developing an extended “simile” or parable with which to illustrate the interconnection between the Incarnation of the Word and reconciliation with God (§ 10), Athanasius turned to the second reason for the Incarnation of the Word of God (§ 11). The second fundamental reason for the Incarnation was so that humans, who were made in the image of God, might be able to know God the Father through the ministrations of the Word—God’s Son. In their perversity, however, humans turned to idolatry rather than to God. God sent humanity the Law and Prophets (§ 12), in order that God might be known and received by them, but they continued to live according to their own desires rather than seeking after God where He might be found. When these messages and messengers failed, God resolved not to keep silence but instead came to humanity in person, in the person of God’s Son, the Word; hence, “the Word of God came in His own person, that, as He was the Image of the Father, He might be able to create afresh the man after the image. But, again, it could not else have taken place had not death and corruption been done away. Whence He took, in natural fitness, a mortal body, that while death might in it be once for all done away, men made after His Image might once more be renewed.”64
Even while in the body, the Word was not limited to the body; while in the body, the Word continued working in the universe, working through Providence, and was not absent from creation (§ 17). The divinity of the Word was not diminished by the incarnation. In fact, the divinity of the Word was seen in and attested through His human actions, like casting out demons, performing miracles, and being born of a Virgin (§ 18). The chief of the Word’s works, however, and the one by which His deity was most clearly confessed was His death and resurrection (§ 19).
With this mention of Christ’s death and resurrection, Athanasius moved into the second major section of his treatise, in which he examined the death and resurrection of the Word. In order to pay the debt of death, He “offered up” the Temple of His body (§ 20). Athanasius explained, “He offered up His sacrifice . . . on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to show Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all.”65 Having first stressed the importance of the Word’s death as a substitute for that of humanity, he emphasized the Word’s resurrection as the first-fruits of humanity. Athanasius went on to explain why it was necessary that God’s Son, who lived a life of obedience to God, would die an unnatural, public death at the hands of others (§§ 21–24). Death upon a cross was necessary so that the Word could bear “the curse” (Deut 21:23) of corruption and death under which humanity dwelt (§ 25). After considering why it was necessary that the Word be raised on the third day, and not sooner (§ 26), Athanasius reported that Christians no longer fear death, because of the cross and resurrection of Christ, “but by the sign of the Cross and by faith in Christ [they] tread it down as dead.”66 No longer living in bondage, terror, and dread, Christians scoff at death, “jesting at him and saying what has been written against him of old, ‘O death, where is thy victory? O grave, where is thy sting?’”67 This truth has been proven over and over again by practical experience; let those who doubt it become Christians and see for themselves (§ 28). Like someone or something encased in asbestos “knows that fire has no burning power over it, and as he who would see the tyrant bound goes over to the empire of his conqueror, so too let him who is incredulous about the victory over death receive the faith of Christ, and pass over to His teaching, and he shall see the weakness of death, and the triumph over it.”68
The reality of the resurrection is proved by various facts, including the victory over death, the wonders of grace at work in the lives of those in whom the Savior lives, and the fact that the Living Christ is able to break the power of (allegedly) alive pagan gods (§ 30). If power is a sign of life—and it certainly is—then the power of Christ’s death and resurrection testify to His divinity and eternal life (§ 31). “For it is plain,” Athanasius wrote, “that if Christ be dead, He could not be expelling demons and spoiling idols; for a dead man the spirits would not have obeyed.”69
In the third part of this treatise, “The Refutation of Contemporary Unbelief,” Athanasius returned to his polemic against Judaism and Greek religion. Both of these were live options and competitors with Christianity for the hearts and minds of people in Alexandria when he wrote this treatise; hence, they are not hypothetical arguments for him. While these polemic sections are not “live” issues (perhaps) for modern readers, they do continue to flesh out the basic argument of On the Incarnation of the Word of God and are worth reading for that reason.
Athanasius’s apologetic towards Jews largely amounts to an argument from fulfilled prophecy, since both Christians and Jews esteem the Old Testament as Scripture. This assumption forms the basis of his approach. After surveying the prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures that predicted the coming of One who was both God and Man (§ 33), those that predicted the circumstances of Christ’s suffering and death (§ 34), those that predicted His death on the cross (§ 35), and those that predicted His Sovereignty and flight into Egypt (§ 36), he pointed to the cessation of prophecy and the destruction of Jerusalem as indications that God had taken the promises first offered to the Jews and given them to the Gentiles (§ 40). “What more remains for the Messiah to do, that Christ has not done?”70 Athanasius asked.
His “answer to the Greeks” (§§ 41–54) used Greek philosophy to show the credibility of the Christian message of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. His point of contact with his non-Christian readers in this section is the concept of the Logos (Word), which plays a major role in Greek (Platonic) philosophy, as well as in Christian theology. The relationship of the Logos to creation at large shows us how it is that the Logos can also be manifested in a human body (§ 42). The very same works that the Greeks see the Logos perform in the natural universe were also performed by the Logos incarnate as Man (§ 43). Since God made the universe and humanity by the Word, it was fitting that God should also restore humanity by way of God’s Word. Hence, “He put on a body, that He might find death in the body, and blot it out.”71 Nature itself testifies to the reality of the Incarnation by the miracles it yields (§ 45). Where there is incredible diversity in non-Christian worship, the worship of Christ is catholic (universal) and uniform (§ 46). Pagan oracles and idols are further attacked and offer evidence of human evil since they are dispelled by the sign of the cross (§ 47). The courage and constancy of martyrs and virgins points to the power of their message, and the power of Christ is to be distinguished from the power of magic and magicians (§ 48). Christ’s birth and miracles exceed that of the Greek gods, who are viewed as divine because of their inferior works (§ 49). Christ’s resurrection is completely without parallel in Greek thought (§ 50). The impact of Christian faith upon society as a force for revolutionary change, for peace and purity, also shows its truthfulness (§ 51). Wars that are aroused by demons, and the hatred they breed among people, are lulled by Christianity (§ 52). The conversion and transformation of large portions of the pagan world by Christian faith also points to its truthfulness (§ 53): “For whom they used to worship, them they are deserting, and Whom they used to mock as one crucified, Him they worship as Christ, confessing Him to be God.”72
That the Word of God incarnate was fully divine was evidenced from His works: “If a man should wish to see God, Who is invisible by nature and not seen at all, he may know and apprehend Him from His works: so let him who fails to see Christ with his understanding, at least apprehend Him by the works of His body, and test whether they be human works or God’s works.”73 This divinity in Christ is most aptly seen in his “deifying mission” so that in coming to faith in Christ, humans may live a purer and more honorable life than they did before. As Athanasius wrote, “For He was made man that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality.”74 These two features of Christ’s mission—the deification of humans through redemption and revelation of the unseen God—were then the twin reasons for the Incarnation of the Word of God.
In summary of the foregoing argument to Greeks, he pointed to the cessation of pagan miracles, the propagation of the Christian faith, and the transformation of lives and society as indicators that “the True King has come forth and silenced all usurpers.”75 Readers are asked to search the Scriptures in order to flesh out what has been said in this treatise, and urged to prepare themselves for the second coming of Christ and the Last Judgment (§ 56). This was all written, said Athanasius, so that the reader might have knowledge of God in Christ, and possess an honorable life and a pure mind (§ 57). The treatise closed with a Doxology: “‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man,’ whatsoever things are prepared for them that live a virtuous life, and 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 forever and ever. Amen.”76
Athanasius’s presentation of the Christian gospel was well established in these two early treatises, and most especially in On the Incarnation of the Word of God. In these treatises the goodness of creation was stressed, as well as the continuity of creation and redemption as twin acts of the Logos of God. Humans were viewed from the standpoint of their God-given identity as ones created in the “image of God.” This meant, among other things, that they were given an immortal soul and rationality; that high and blessed station also held within it the potential of their own undoing. Through the misuse of their will and rationality, humanity fell into corruption and evil. Evil was powerfully described as having its locus in the human will and in a willingness to exchange devotion to God, the Creator, for the worship of this world and the desires thereof. Idolatry, then, is symptomatic of humanity’s fall and fundamental problem. Hence fear, death, and corruption reigned in humans through the breaking of God’s primordial law; the penalty for breaking God’s law was decreed to be death.
This dire situation posed a dilemma for God and for humans; it meant that death and corruption ruled in those whom God had blessed with God’s own image and love. It was a dilemma involving the consistency of a just and loving God, Who had created humanity for fellowship with God and life in God’s image, and yet also laid down a law of obedience for them to follow; hence “it were monstrous” that humans, who had been made in God’s image, should live and perish in fear, corruption, and death. And yet, a just God must also redeem humanity in a manner that was consistent with God’s own nature and law. The Incarnation of the Logos is the answer to the divine dilemma—of what to do about the plight of humans in a way that both vindicates God’s goodness and validates God justice. The incarnate One “took a body like our own” which was capable of death and corruption. He lived a pure life and died a public death at the hands of His enemies. The Logos, as the God-Man, satisfied the requirement of God’s justice through dying as a substitute for humanity, and He vindicated the goodness and love of God’s nature by dying on behalf of others. Thus, the Incarnation of the Logos finds its inner logic and rationale in the Christian theology of redemption, whereby God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Hence, the death of the incarnate One both reconciles humanity to God and reveals the true nature of God. Christ’s redemption of humanity not only reconciles God and humanity, it brings about the sanctification or deification (theosis) of those who believe and live by faith in Christ. This was stressed through Athanasius’s famous dictum: “He became what we are to make us what He is.”
If this rendition of the Christian gospel sounds at all familiar—if it sounds like faithful and traditional Christianity—that is because Athanasius said it first here, in these two treatises, in the early fourth century. While others had written on many of these same themes, few have drawn them all together with the scope, power, and perception evident in these two works of “the great Athanasius.”
27. Robertson, introduction to Contra Gentes, NPNF, vol. IV, 1. Johannes Quasten, Patrology, 3:25, follows the same approach.
28. Anatolios, Athanasius, 26.
29. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 13.
30. Hanson, Christian Doctrine of God, 418.
31. Behr, Formation of Christian Theology, vol. 2, pt. 1, 168.
32. Against the Heathen I, NPNF, vol. IV, 4.
33. Against the Heathen III.2, NPNF, vol. IV, 5.
34. Against the Heathen IV, NPNF, vol. IV, 6.
35. Against the Heathen XII, NPNF, vol. IV, 10.
36. Against the Heathen XIV.1, NPNF, vol. IV, 12.
37. Against the Heathen XV, NPNF, vol. IV, 12.
38. Against the Heathen XVII, NPNF, vol. IV, 13.
39. Against the Heathen XVIII, NPNF, vol. IV, 13.
40. Against the Heathen XVIII.3, NPNF, vol. IV, 13.
41. Against the Heathen XXIV, NPNF, vol. IV, 16.
42. Against the Heathen XXV.4, NPNF, vol. IV, 17.
43. Against the Heathen XXVI, NPNF, vol. IV, 17.
44. Against the Heathen XXVII, NPNF, vol. IV, 18.
45. Against the Heathen XXVII.3, NPNF, vol. IV, 18.
46. Against the Heathen XXIX, NPNF, vol. IV, 19.
47. Against the Heathen XXXIII, NPNF, vol. IV, 21.
48. Against the Heathen XXXV, NPNF, vol. IV, 22.
49. Against the Heathen XXXVIII, NPNF, vol. IV, 24.
50. Against the Heathen XXXIX, NPNF, vol. IV, 24.
51. Against the Heathen XL, NPNF, vol. IV, 25.
52. Against the Heathen XLI, NPNF, vol. IV, 26.
53. On the Incarnation of the Word I.2, NPNF, vol. IV, 36.
54. On the Incarnation of the Word I.3, NPNF, vol. IV, 36.
55. On the Incarnation of the Word III.3, NPNF, vol. IV, 37.
56. On the Incarnation of the Word III.5, NPNF, vol. IV, 38.
57. On the Incarnation of the Word IV.2, NPNF, vol. IV, 38.
58. On the Incarnation of the Word VI.10, NPNF, vol. IV, 39.
59. On the Incarnation of the Word VII, NPNF, vol. IV, 38.
60. On the Incarnation of the Word VII.5, NPNF, vol. IV, 40.
61. On the Incarnation of the Word VIII.2, NPNF, vol. IV, 40.
62. On the Incarnation of the Word VIII.4, NPNF, vol. IV, 40.
63. On the Incarnation of the Word LIV.3, NPNF, vol. IV, 65.
64. On the Incarnation of the Word XIII.7–9, NPNF, vol. IV, 43.
65. On the Incarnation of the Word XX.2, NPNF, vol. IV, 47. Note here the “all” of a universal application of the atonement of Christ, for all humans.
66. On the Incarnation of the Word XXVII, NPNF, vol. IV, 50–51.
67. On the Incarnation of the Word XXVII.4, NPNF, vol. IV, 51.
68. On the Incarnation of the Word XXVIII.5, NPNF, vol. IV, 51.
69. On the Incarnation of the Word XXXII.4, NPNF, vol. IV, 53.
70. On the Incarnation of the Word XL, NPNF, vol. IV, 57.
71. On the Incarnation of the Word XLIV.6, NPNF, vol. IV, 60.
72. On the Incarnation of the Word LIII.2, NPNF, vol. IV, 65.
73. On the Incarnation of the Word LIV, NPNF, vol. IV, 65.
74. On the Incarnation of the Word LIV.3, NPNF, vol. IV, 65.
75. On the Incarnation of the Word LV, NPNF, vol. IV, 66.
76. On the Incarnation of the Word LVII.3, NPNF, vol. IV, 67.