ATHANASIUS ON THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD

OKECHUKWU. P. ONYENURU
Undergraduate Student of Department of Theology, Dominican Institute, Ibadan, Nigeria.
pauloke24@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION.
The coming of God as man is the bedrock of the Christianity. It the primordial stage of the
elevation of man from grass to grace; from mortality to immortality; from corruptible to
incorruptible. It is a mystery that eludes the comprehension of the rational mind considering
that its fundamental principles of knowledge (faith) an principle of origin proceeds from a
source higher than human reason. Athanasius, one of the Church Fathers and a key figure in
the Council of Nicaea, in his book-Against the Greeks: On the incarnation- tries to expound
the doctrine of the Incarnation to his audience with great emphasis on its necessity and end on
one hand, and the consistency of its details and congruity with history.
In this essay, I shall expose the arguments of Athanasius in an order that will present the heart
of his discussion in the lines of creation, humanization and redemption. In some places, I will
use the term man in the generic sense to mean humans without prejudice to genders.
BACKGROUND TO HIS WRITTING
Athanasius was born ca. 295-299AD of Egyptian blood and Greek education1. In addition to
receiving liberal education as the son of an eminent pagan worshiper, he also received
Christian education at the famous Alexandrian Catechetical School after his mother became
converted to Christianity. Upon the death of his mother, Athanasius remained in the courts of
Alexander, Bishop of Alexander, who educated him with gentleness in every art. He
memorized the gospels and read the divine scriptures and when he was mature, Alexander
ordained him a deacon and made him his scribe in his court, with the responsibility of
speaking in his stead and a competent minister of the Word. 2

1
2

Khaled Anatholios, Athanasius (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 2

Ibid., p. 3

The heading of the work-Against the Greeks, seems to suggest that Athanasius wrote it to
refute Greek religious attacks against Christianity which was predominant in the first three
centuries of Christianity. In addition, he mentions Macarius, a presbyter whom he ordered
when he was a Bishop (Athanasius was ordained Bishop of Alexander in at the age of 31) 3 to
break the chalice and overturn the altar of a Melitian Priest, Isychras.4 This is an indication
that there were mild crisis of faith that was largely evangelical rather than theological, and the
language of the work suggests that paganism was contending strongly with Christianity in
Alexander (we recall that Alexander was a city with ports and a conglomerate of all kinds of
religions), necessitating a clarification of the Christian faith to foster conversion of the
pagans.
Although the incident mentioned above happened when Athanasius was a bishop, the tone of
the work under study does not suggest that it was written during his episcopate. Unlike his
later works that bear the marks of the Nicene struggle in that they were highly theological,
exegetical, and preoccupied with interpreting text in the light of the Nicene doctrine, the
Against Greeks was largely soteriological and anthropological, putting the date of this work
around AD318 when he was yet a deacon.5
He employed common sense argument and the scriptures and without much rigour, to the
establishment of a framework that has the incarnation embedded in a closely knit connection
between God and creation.6 It has the character of a polemic. Thus what we see is Athanasius
trying to present to an average Greek, either pagan or convert to Christianity, reasonable
arguments for belief in the incarnation which can be verified in nature, scripture, history and
everyday experience.
CREATION AND THE FALL OF MAN
Among the Greeks, there are many theories that explain the origin of the universe. The
Epicureans say that everything has come into being by themselves and by chance, while Plato
says that God created things from what pre-existed. But why is the creator called God if He
cannot create out of nothing, ex nihilo? Following Greek philosophy, God would be a

V. C. De Clercq, Athanasius, St., Thomas Carson and Joann Cerrito (ed.), The New Catholic Encyclopedia.
vol. 1, 2003 edition. Washington DC: Gale, p. 817.
4
Cf. Khaled Anatholios, p. 10
5
Ibid., p. 819
6
Cf. Khaled Anatholios, p. 32

mechanic and not a creator.7 The implication would be that God will owe his existence to
another superior being that is sui generis. But this is a false doctrine. The truth is that God
made all things, not by compulsion or spontaneously, nor out of anything that was, but out of
nothing by His own Word, Jesus Christ.8 God made the terrestrial and heavenly bodies
including the non-corporeal beings- Angels. Among all that he has made, God singled out
man, making him a special partaker of Himself. God
did not barely create man, as He did all the irrational creatures on the earth, but
made them after His own image, giving them a portion even of the power of His
own Word; so that having as it were a kind of reflexion of the Word, and being
made rational, they might be able to abide ever in blessedness, living the true life
which belongs to the saints in paradise9
According to the Scriptures, God put humans in a beautiful Garden where they would live in
eternity.10 Being an image of God, humans had the Word dwelling within them so that they
would have knowledge of God, and the corruption of their mortal nature would not have an
effect on their existence.11 With this also came the gift of free will which will, like God,
enable human to make free choices. Yet knowing that human could sway, God did put a
compass that would serve as guide to human actions. Irrespective of these preventive
measures wrought by the immeasurable love of God, human, like pigs, rejected the friendship
of Love when Adam transgressed the law by a single act of disobedience. Man,
having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived
evil for themselves , received the condemnation of death with which they had
been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they were made, but
were being corrupted according to their devices; and death had the mastery over
them as king For if, out of a former normal state of non-existence, they were
called into being by the Presence and loving-kindness of the Word, it followed
naturally that when men were bereft of the knowledge of God and were turned
back to what was not (for what is evil is not, but what is good is), they should, since
they derive their being from God who IS, be everlastingly bereft even of being;

Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 2

Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 3
9
Athanasius, On the incarnation, a 3
10
Gen. 2: 8 New Jerusalem Bible.
11
Athanasius, On the incarnation, a.11
8

in other words, that they should be disintegrated and abide in death and
corruption12
It is not clear how to interpret Athanasius anthropological position. It seems that Athanasius
is arguing that sin brings disintegration of the human nature, sending man to oblivion or
complete annihilation: from existence to non-existence. However, at the end of the statement,
he presents milder terms-death and corruption- which does not mean complete annihilation.
We see an anthropological dialectic between nature and grace. Human nature () by itself
is corruptible, mortal, non self-sustaining and so far removed from the absolute beingness of
God. Humans, whose nature is created ex nihilo, lack the ability to contemplate God due to
the gap between absolute nothingness and absolute beingness. For human beings to
actually exist, human nature must be radically complemented by the dynamics of grace,
, which corresponds to the divine (love) of God. The implication of this
position is that any who is not redeemed will go into annihilation or nothingness or die. This
grace given to man is specifically to have knowledge of God. So that after the fall man had
no knowledge of God because he had lost his rationality whose actual principle flows from
the indwelling of the Word ().
For Athanasius, rationality lies not in the ability to move from the known to the unknown, but
to contemplate God, meaning that at the Fall, man lost the ability to contemplate God, or
come to knowledge of God. For he says
what profit to the creatures if they knew not their Maker? or how could they be
rational without knowing the Word (and Reason) of the Father, in Whom they
received their very being? For there would be nothing to distinguish them even
from brute creatures if they had knowledge of nothing but earthly things.13
He seems to stress the complete fragility of the human . Man by his very nature can do
nothing to save himself, not even to come to a barest minimum knowledge of God. This
contrasts with the Medieval conception of man's ability to know. For the School Men, man by
his rationality can come to knowledge of God, but whereas some will arrive at this
knowledge, and some will miss him altogether, others will get only a caricature of Him.
Copleston, explaining Augustines view on this issue say:

12
13

Athanasius, On the incarnation, a.4

Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 11

such is the power of true Godhead that it cannot be altogether and utterly hidden from
the rational creature, once it (man) makes use of its reason. For with the exception of
a few in whom nature is excessively depraved, the whole human race confesses God to
be the author of the world. Even if a man thinks that a plurality of gods exists, he still
attempts to conceive the one God of gods14
For St. Thomas, man can by things in the world come to knowledge of God:
Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be
known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and
depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God "whether He
exists," and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of
all things, exceeding all things caused by Him.15
According to Anatolios, Athanasius should not be seen as holding a pessimistic view about
human nature. His conclusion stems from his concept of man's anthropology. For him, man
was a composite and a at creation. The is an intrinsic participation in the
Word, and it is the rationality of man.16 At the fall, man lost the grace, lost his rationality and
so could not perceive God even in the things created by God.
INCARNATION
Following the Fall, man became blinded by a multiplicity of sins that he indulged himself in.
Man could not save himself, because being made of body and soul, even though he could see
his mortal frame, little or nothing could be done because the form (Soul) was beyond his
vision. Concupiscence, evil, deceit had enveloped that part, which makes it impossible for
man to redeem himself and also the rest of the universe considering that he is the highest of
all beings. No part of creation could be redeemed because man could not clearly see in them
(creatures) marks of the creator, the Word of God, due to loss of his rationality. How could
man discover the good in what he does not see? Rather, man used other creature in ways not
directed to their proper end since he was ignorant of their good end. Thus, in order that
creation would not become a futile venture, sanity, order and harmony had to be restored.

14

Frederick, Copleston. A History of Philosophy, Vol II. (New York:, Doubleday, 1962). p. 70
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1. q. 12 a. 12
16
Cf. Khaled Anatolios p. 34
15

When by mans fall he incurred universal wrath of death, it was clear that the Evil One had
won the battle. The Devil had thwarted the creative plan of God, putting to disrepute the love
of God for humanity. But what was God to do? Keep silent or abandon His creation as some
contemporary philosophers hold? God had to redeem His creation. Why? Firstly, it was a
defeat to God if creatures once made rational as partakers of His Word, should by sin go into
non-existence. It would have been better if they did not from the onset partake of this Divine
love. Secondly, it was against the goodness of God to neglect what he had created. Thirdly, it
would be an act of weakness on the part of the Eternal God to abandon His project. Is it
possible that the omnipotent would be powerless in the face of the actions of the Devil whose
existence is rooted in God? Since both goodness and strength are essential to God, it behoves
on Him to setup a mechanism that would save man from corruption.17
Could this salvation not come about by putting into man the sense of remorse or repentance
for his numerous sins? Athanasius discredits this path to salvation by positing that repentance
does not guarantee redemption on two grounds. First, since man had lost the grace, if
repentance restored incorruptibility, then immortality would be gained without the presence
of the Grace of the Word of God who created man at the beginning. Thus, God's word that
immortality comes by having His Word would be a lie. Second, repentance does not call
men back from what is their nature-it merely stays them from acts of sin18
Therefore, it was pertinent that there be once more a union of man and the eternal Word of
God for immortality to be restored. Man could not save himself; neither could the angels
since they are not even images of the Word.19 If from the beginning the Word dwelt in the
nature of men, it was pertinent that he performs the same act in order to restore man to former
glory.20 Out of the love of the Word of the Father for creation,
He (The Word) took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and
condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the
masterylest the creature should perish, and His Fathers handiwork in men be
spent for noughtHe takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from
ours. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear.21

17

Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 6

Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 7
19
Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 13
20
Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 10
21
Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 8
18

The eternal and most powerful Word of God could simply have come down from heaven to
destroy death, give a command and the status quo would change, or dwell forcefully in the
hearts of men again. But all these would not satisfy the price of redemption. Death and
mortality had a grip on humanity, such that it required a special kind of death to rescue man
from this incarceration. Due to this requirement, and since no man was pure enough to
undergo this perfect sacrifice, the Word had to come in the form of man. Yet he could have
appeared suddenly and died but it was necessary for him to be born, grow among a people
and die a death resulting from his good acts.
To satisfy all the requirements, the Word had to be born like all other men considering the
fact that if he suddenly appeared, he could not have taken the form of man completely, but
would be a seeming or an apparent replica of man, and so would not be true man. The
implication is that not being true man, he would not have died because God cannot die.
Finally, in taking up human flesh, he might turn the corrupt human nature back to
incorruption by rising from death in his humanity by the power of his divinity. Thus, the
eternal Word
takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless
virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of
men,22 so that seeing a body proceeding forth from a Virgin alone without man,
(who could) fail to infer that He Who appears in it is Maker and Lord of other bodies
also?23
The Word took upon himself human nature formed of a virgin. The body which Christ moved
and lived with while on earth was formed from that of human being, a virgin. He took human
nature from a human, so that the action of condescension may be complete. Considering that
the soteriological intention was to die, he needed to take up human nature in order that the
immortal one could for a while be mortal, and then upon his crucifixion die with all that are
mortal and upon his resurrection give immortality to all mortals.
But so that he would not be the product of human desire, he chose not to be born of a father,
lest we reduce him to a human being. Because he was formed of a human being, it was

22
23

Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 8

Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 18

subject to corruption. But because he was divine, his human nature could be saved from
corruption.24 As Scriptures say:
Since all the children share the same human nature, he too shared equally in it, so that
by his death he could set aside him who held the power of death, namely the devil, and
set free all those who had been held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death. For
it was not the angels that he took to himself; he took to himself the line of Abraham. It
was essential that he should in this way be made completely like his brothers so that
he could become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship to
God, able to expiate the sins of the people25
The Word did not perform magic by instantly coming from the clouds, dying and rising from
death. If salvation took this form, the world would not have known him. But he came in flesh
and blood, eating, drinking and working marvels among the human race in order that those
whom he had come to save would recognize him. However, not for a second did he detach
himself from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and being the sustainer of life, he did not cease
to be what he has been from eternity when he took upon himself the human nature. So at the
incarnation, the Word was both God and man. Athanasius captures this condescending act of
the Word of God when he says that
This was the wonderful thing that He (the Word) was at once walking as man, and as
the Word was quickening all things, and as the Son was dwelling with His Father. So
that not even when the Virgin bore Him did He suffer any change, nor by being in the
body was [His glory] dulled: but, on the contrary, He sanctified the body also. For not
even by being in the universe does He share in its nature, but all things, on the
contrary, are quickened and sustained by Him.26
Irrespective of the choice of the Word to take flesh, Christ was always God. Athanasius
seems to have anticipated the Arian controversy, for in no place does he present the thought
of subordinations of the Son. He makes clear the eternal relationship between the Father and
the Son. Furthermore, Christ did not come in an exulted form because was not coming to
make a show of his power but to heal and teach those who were suffering. He took human
nature so that men would recognize in one like themselves the true God once again.

24

Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 8

Heb 2:14-17 (New Jerusalem Bible)
26
Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 17
25

For, men as they are, they will be able to know His Father more quickly and directly
by a body of like nature and by the divine works wrought through it, judging by
comparison that they are not human, but the works of God, which are done by Him
For just as He is in creation, and yet does not partake of its nature in the least
degree, but rather all things partake of His power; so while He used the body as
His instrument He partook of no corporeal property, but, on the contrary,
Himself sanctified the body 27
THE FINALITY OF THE INCARNATION
The incarnation of the Word had a soteriological end. It was geared towards salvaging the
creation of the Word from destruction. Since the principal salvific act is death, the Word
could have simply lived on earth and died like most good men do. But this is not how
Christs sojourn on earth took. The Word died a public and shameful death. If the Word had
lived till his grey days and died, it would have been said that he was like all men in all things
including the weakness and fragility peculiar to men which normally leads them to sickness
and death. Knowing that he could not succumb to the mortality due to his human nature
because his divine nature was life and strength, he had to receive death from the hands of
others so as to consummate the sacrificial act that precedes redemption.
It would seem that while Christ was still with his disciplines, he often spoke of the kind of
death that he would die. Is it the case that he chose a particular kind of death that suited him
in a bid to enhance his publicity, or was he afraid of some kind of death? If Christ had died in
secret, no one would have believed the resurrection. There would have been no evidence to
prove the authenticity and originality of the resurrection. But we know that even outside the
Scriptures, history records the death of Christ and no historical account of the crucifixion of
Christ would exclude a claim to his resurrection. Secondly, Christ did not make a choice of
the kind of death to die. By this act he would have shown his weakness in the face of death.
But he was open to any manner of death that his adversaries would prepare for him. The most
dishonourable for any human being would best serve his purpose of condescending to save,
stooping to raise up.
The scorn which his detractors had for him made them request the most grisly and shameful
death. A kind of death not even deserving of a Roman citizen-death by hanging on a tree.

27

Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 43

Cursed was man after the fall and only that person who is ready to bear the curse could save
man from corruption. Now, death on the cross was the most gruesome and shameful kind of
death because the person was laid naked on a tree, nailed to it and allowed to die slowly.
Also, it is believed that cursed is he that hangeth on a tree.28 Furthermore, only the one
who hangs on the tree accomplishes a two-fold act of destroying the celestial stronghold of
the Satan and his angels by hanging in the air, and also drawing all men and women with
outstretched arms, for Christ says when I am lifted up, I shall draw all men to myself".29
Christs resurrection was also not a haphazard event. It had to take place on the third day for
several reasons. If it had taken place immediately after his death, it would have been said that
death had not fully taken over his mortal body, meaning that he pretended to be dead when he
was on the tree. If he had allowed it to linger for long, the body would have been completely
corrupted and the news will be that he exchanged his body for another. But it was timely to
serve as experiential evidence that the Word, once dead was alive again.
His resurrection made a fool of death. It brought death to nothing by removing the fear that
men had for it. Man after the Fall could not fully express the inherent principle of selfpreservation. Man feared death as it brought to futility this inherent principle, representing
non-existence. But upon Christs incarnation, death and resurrection, men and women spoke
aloud death where is thy victory, oh grave where is thy sting? Athanasius ascribes the
willingness of Christians to embrace martyrdom to the event of the resurrection when he says
Before men believe Christ, they see in death an object of terror, and play the coward
before him. But when they are gone over to Christs faith and teaching, their contempt
for death is so great that they even eagerly rush upon it, and become witnesses
for the Resurrection the Saviour has accomplished against it. For while still tender in
years they make haste to die, and not men only, but women also, exercise themselves
by bodily discipline against it. So weak has he become, that even women who
were formerly deceived by him, now mock at him as dead and paralyzed.30
The resurrection is a reality because it comes with a lot of evidences. If Christ was still in the
tomb, how is it that Christians are at war with demons and evil spirits? We know that evil
spirits have existence, but how will a name that is dead be a terror to one that has being? The

28

Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 25

Jh. 11: 32 (New Jerusalem Bible)
30
Athanasius, On the incarnation, a. 27
29

sick get healed, the lame work, the blind see, the deaf hear at the mention of the name of
Jesus Christ. These are evidences to anyone who is honest and reasonable to accept the
resurrection as an event that occurred in history, and also changed history. If this is accepted,
then the incarnation which its starting point should not be a hard teaching.
CONCLUSION
Creation, sin and redemption are words that best capture Athanasius approach to the mystery
of the Incarnation in his work De Incarnatione. He communicates it in a dramatic manner
that seems to present the incarnation of Christ primarily with reference to its endRedemption and Salvation of the human race. Much emphasis is laid on the final end of
incarnation served by personification of the Word. Athanasius pursues a soteriology in his
treatment of the incarnation by the way of anthropology.
By his incarnation, the Word reconciled man back to God by abolishing corruption that was
intrinsic to human nature. He comes to heal the wounds of sin that makes man ignorant of
God and make man disobey the will of God. The pedagogical implication of the mystery lies
in the humanity of Christ. He lived, moved and related with humans on earth without picking
up sin. His life is a path towards transformation of human life in all spheres-Moral, social,
spiritual. As those who accept the person of Christ at baptism, we have been cloth again, like
at creation, with the garment of immortality by being born in the Grace of the Word.
Athanasius charges Christians to live the life of the incarnation, shunning evil and idolatry. It
is in doing so that the incarnation of Christ leads to a death like unto his own and ultimately
to a resurrection into life incorruptible, eternal and immortal.

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Benziger Bros edition. London: Fathers of the English
Dominican Province, 1947.
Anatholios Khaled, Athanasius. London: Routledge, 2004
Athanasius. Against the Greeks-On the incarnation. Tranl. by Philip Schaff. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1891.
Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy, Vol II. New York:, Doubleday, 1962.
De Clercq V. C. Athanasius. St., Thomas Carson and Joann Cerrito (ed.), The New
Catholic Encyclopedia. vol.1. Washington DC: Gale, 2003.

11