Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Athanasius and Deification Part 2

    Загружено:

    piratehome1
    33 просмотров13 страниц
    Athanasius and Deification

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Athanasius and Deification

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    33 просмотров13 страниц

    Athanasius and Deification Part 2

    Загружено:

    piratehome1
    Athanasius and Deification

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 13
    Chapter 2 THE PLACE OF DEIFICATION IN THE DOCTRINAL SYSTEM OF ATHANASIUS ‘The doctrine that man's ultimate destiny and fulfillment is to become like God forms the heart of Christianity for Athanasius. D focus of both his anthropology and theology, which he sums up in the famous catch-phrase fication is the aiivds yap éunvipsnaen, iva fyeis Beomoxn Ge He (God) became man in order that we might be made God.’ Although his development of this idea was sharpened by the Arian conflict, even his (presumably early) apologetic works center on this concept, as the foregoing citation from De Incarnatione indicates: In no other church father is the concept of deification so crucial to an understanding of the overall doctrinal system. As Gross notes, for Athanasius, “the divinization of ority of the earlier Fathers, a more or less secondary and casual element, but the central idea of his theol ogy.” Even among those who emphasized the idea that salvation consists primarily of assimila tion to God, effected by the incarnation of the Logos, Athanasius must be reckoned the “spokesman’ for this largely “Eastern tradition,” which became “the highest concentration of the the Christian is not, as for the m: value of Christianity: Volker points out that Athanasius showed none of the reserve of Origen in using the explicit languages of deification.* Although Athanasius is not generally considered empha- sis on this concept and its organic necessity to his system is unique, and presents a challenge to the ‘modern reader of his works. Because Athanasius’ an original or innovative theologian, hi writings tend to deal with issues on a theoretical level; an analysis of the place of deification in his system must begin with his anthropology. Athan: s’ Anthropology Athanasius’ anthropology has been analyzed carefully by R. Bernard in his monograph Limage de Dieu dapris St. Athanase, and, more recently, by J. Roldan the interrelationship of anthropology with in his admirable study of Christology, Le Christ et Phomme dans la theolo gic d’Athanase d’Alexandrie. Despite what Bernard sees as the “imprecision” of Athanasius on this subject,* the general outlines of his anthropology are clear. Man is composed of a mortal body and an immortal soul, both of 32 + Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology which are created by God ex nihilo.’ The soul is immortal, not because, as in the Platonic tradi- tion, it is by nature eternal, but simply because God has added that grace to it at creation.” Along with this dependent immortality, the characteri- zation of the soul as Noyxés defines its essential nature. It is by this faculty that the mortal body aspires to virtue and immortality." Furthermore, it is this rationality which assures free will to humanity, the liberty to choose that virtue." Despite the obscuring of these powers through the Fall and individual sin, the spiritual and immortal soul may still be said to possess reason and liberty, which are virtually inseparable from human nature. Human beings are capable, on the basis of this spiritual affinity with God in the soul, of aspiring to the realm of truth and deity itself For the knowledge and unerring understand ing ofthis road we have need of nothing save ‘ourselves. For the road to God is not as far from us or as extrancous to us as God him- self is high above all, but itis within us and ‘we ourselves can find its beginning, as Moses taught: “The word of faith is within your heart” This the Saviour also indicated and confirmed, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is within you." Virtue, Athanasius insists in the mouth of the ‘model monk Antony, has need only of willing- ness on our part, since the soul was originally created “good and upright” (sai) at cis), with an “intellectual capacity” (+3. voepiv xara éow) for virtue. In its natural state the soul reflects, as a mirror, the character of its divine creator" Athanasius’ portrayal of the original, ideal man is important because of his emphasis on redemption as the restoration of humanity to its primal state of blessedness, Evil does not exist among the saints today, just as it did not from the beginning.” Adam, the first man, is thus “the prototype of our divinization.” His life in “Paradise” is characterized as “idyllic and truly blessed and immortal; and in his purity he enjoys direct knowledge of the divine through contemplation, unhampered by sensual distrac- tions." Citing Ps, 81:6 (LX), he asserts that ‘Adam, in this corruptible state, had lived as God." “Por God did not only create us from nothing, but he also granted us by the grace of the Word to live kara Bed? ‘The basis of this evaluation of man’s original divine state is the biblical account of man’s cre- ation in Gen, 1:26-27: the idea of the imago Dei. ‘As we have seen, this passage carried major sig- nificance for the earlier Fathers, and its exegesis received much attention in modern studies of the Patristic period.” It is especially important for Athanasius, as indicated by the title of Bernard's study of his anthropology, L’image de Diew d'aprés St. Athanase. But whereas Irenaeus, ‘Clement and Origen had interpreted the differ- ence in verse 27 from verse 26 as denoting an actual creation of man in the image only, and not the likeness of God, and thereby distinguished between etnsiv and Suoiuois," Athanasius recog- nized no such distinction.* Instead of the simili- tude being the fulfillment or perfection of the image by a restoration or moral progression, ‘Snotwors with God js itself the content of that image Irenaeus had specified that the “image” denotes the corporeal element in man,* and referred proleptically to the Incarnation, but Athanasius follows Clement and Origen in inter- preting it spiritually." Despite this similarity to the Alexandrian exegetical tradition, he does not subscribe to the idea of spiritual advancement from kar" eixsva to likeness, since this would imply a defective creation.” This brings us to an even more important reason that Athanasius does not maintain the distinction between image and similitude. For Athanasius, man only secondarily participates in God through the Logos. He is not himself the The Place of Deification in the Doctrinal System of Athanasius * 33 image, a distinction reserved for the Logos, but was created “according to” or “in” that image." In this he was not merely insisting on a literal read- ing of xa’ eixéva from the LXX, but follows the lead of Paul in Col. 1:15, If Cor. 4:4 and I Cor. 15:45~49, In the latter passage Paul cites Gen. 2:7 to show that Adam is of the earth, in contrast to the heavenly Christ. “Thus,” concludes Ladner, “it is clear that the image-likeness of Gen. 1:26 can- not be on the same plane as Christ’s image rela tion to the Father?” Athanasius is also following a well-established Patristic exegetical tradition which included Tatian, Irenaeus, Clement and Origen.* But he is not strictly limited to this tra dition, since, as Ladner points out," the earlier Fathers were still influenced by “the Platonic conception of an image as something inferior or second best if compared to its archetype.” This insight may cast light on the persistent subordi- nationist tendency to which the Arians appealed. Against their extremism on this point, Athanasius fought for a decisive break with the tradition in support of the Nicene definition, insisting on the uniqueness of the Logos-Im: as “necessarily” equal to its archetype in every respect." There is a fundamental difference between the Son and ourselves. if, as we have said before, the Son is not such by participation (2 erousias), but hile all things originated have by participa- tion the grace of God, He is the Father's Wisdom and Word of which all things par- take... For by partaking of Him, we partake of the Father, because the Word is the Father’s own @6tov). Whence, if He was Himself too from participation, and not from the Father His essential Godhead and Image, He would not deify (20coroinae), being deified Himself." What Athanasius stresses here, against the Arians, is the significance of cat” eixva asa par- ticipation term." Man was formed as the image of the image of God, which is the Logos, and by this means partakes of God. But this is a two- edged sword. On the one hand a7? eixéva indi cates the contingent nature of man, but on the other it is not a simple resemblance or reproduc- tion of form, but an ontological participation. It is the divine life itself which is communicated: r® ara Qcdv Civ." This realization points to the way Athanasius constructs his anthropology with the soteriological goal of deification, How is this divine capacity manifest? To be the image of the very Aéyos means that ‘man is by nature hoyuxés." The image is not cen- tered on the physical body, as with Irenaeus,” but the mind or soul. The purpose of this relation- ship to the Logos of God, according to De Incarnatione, is to give human creatures the abil- ity to understand the nature of their creator. “The grace of being in the im was sufficient for one to know God the Logos and through him the Father?” Man was created in order to con- template his Maker. The ideal picture of the archetypal Adam is that of one who continuously contemplates by his purity the image of the Father, God the Word, in whose mage he was made, and is filled with admi- ration when he grasps his providence towards the universe. He is superior to sen- sual things and all bodily impressions, and by the power of his mind clings to the divine and intelligible realities in heaven." Originally the mind transcends the needs of the body, since Adam’s mind was concentrated ‘on God and intelligible reality: This condition was characterized not only by knowledge and happiness, but incorruptibility. Although man is created from nothing and thus is mortal and cor- ruptible by nature, “through contemplating God” he could have retained his likeness to the existent one, so that “he would have blunted his natural corruption and would have remained incorruptible,” and thus have lived as God (is 34 + Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology eds), as Ps. 81:6 says." At least in his earliest works, which set forth his anthropology, itis not the fact of humanity's creatureliness which looms as of primary importance, but that he was enabled to live a divine life. This exalted estimate of man before the fall as fully participating in the divine image and thus already all but deified, constitutes the unique viewpoint of Athanasius in the Patrist tradition. The fact that he did not see suotwats as a goal to be attained gradually through the ful- fillment of eixév, as both Irenaeus before him and Gregory of Nyssa afterwards stressed,* thus takes on special significance. In an important sense, virtue and divine knowledge and blessed- ness are the natural state of man, because of his creation Kar’ cixéva Gcod. “Athanasius sees man as a responsible creature, destined to commun- jon with the Word." Harnack has already com- mented on the soteriological implications of this, type of anthropology. Despite the natural ten- dency to think of redemption as an unmerited Bift of God, the conviction of the lofty and, at bottom, inalienable dignity of man roused the idea that man receives through redemption that ‘Which corresponds to his nature If adoption to the sonship of God and participation in the divine nature appeared on the one hand 48 gift above all reason and expectation, yet it looked on the other as corresponding to the nature of man already fixed in his cre- ation, For man is God’s image, and exalted as he is above the ower animals by his constitu- tion, rises asa spiritual being into the heav- enly sphere.” This seemingly logical and straightforward analysis, however, is obscured by that great com- plicating factor of Christian dogmatics, the Fall. As we would expect, humanity's loss of original ‘grace and beatitude is of crucial significance for Athanasius as well. The fact of the Fall indicates the unstable nature of man's original relationship to his Maker, Although he was granted grace from without, it was easily lost due to the fact that it was not united to his bodys ie., inherent in his nature. Adam’s disobedience lost for mankind the divine knowledge and incorruptibility which were his in Paradise.” The nature of his sin was in turning away from the understanding of God to the sensual enticements of his own body. “By considering themselves and cleaving to the body and the other senses. . . they fell into selfish desires and preferred their own good to the con- templation of the divine:”* As a consequence, the ‘grace which protected them from corruption was forfeited. Man had not just sinned; he had turned. from grace to nature; ie., his mortality. It is revealing to see how he develops this: God, then, had so created man and willed that he should remain in incorruptibility. But ‘when men had disregarded and turned away from the understanding of God, and had thought of and invented for themselves wickedness... then they received the con- demnation of death which had been previ- ously threatened, and no longer remained as they had been created, ... And death over- ‘ame them and reigned over them, For the transgression of the commandment turned them to what was natural, so that, as they had come into being from non-existence, s0 also they might accordingly suffer in time the corruption consequent to their non-being." In continuing this theme, Athanasius ties his Plotinian presuppositions on the nature of evil as non-being to the fall of man, which was an estrangement from true being: ie., God. For if, having such @ nature as not ever to ‘exist, they were summoned to existence by the advent and mercy of the Word, it fol- lowed that because men were deprived of the understanding of God and had turned to ‘things which do not exist—for what does not exist i vil, but what does exist is good since ithad been created by the existent God-then they were also deprived of eternal existence. But this means that when they perished they ‘would remain in death and corruption, For man is by nature mortal in that he was creat- ed from nothing. This did not mean, however, that the content of the imago Dei was entirely or absolutely abol- ished in man, Although from the standpoint of ‘grace, which had preserved man from his natural corruptibility and tendency to nothingness, the clkv was indeed lost, when considered as the inherent “rational” makeup of the soul, it was merely obscured." Roldanus notes that man ‘under sin is represented by Athanasius as “on the fone hand having turned away and abandoned himself to his physical condition, by which any form of communion with God had become impossible; on the other hand maintaining the essence of his humanity and the necessary means for that communion hidden under the irrespon- sible abuse which man effects?” The retention of his essential intago Dei in the Logos constitutes an ability to know God and the liberty to use that ability to return to God.* Nevertheless, the process of degeneration did not end with Adam's transgression; mankind has further turned away from God by individually sinning, so that even that “rationality” which is the distinguishing ‘mark of human nature is impaired, and man appears no longer hovexés but doyos. Although God in his goodness bestowed the means to regain knowledge of Himself and the proper conduct of one’s soul, nevertheless men, being overcome by their present desires and the illusions and deceits of demons, did not look towards the truth, but sated themselves with many vices and sins, o that they no longer appeared ration- al beings (Xoyixo8s), but from their behav- iour were considered to be irrational (hs yous)" The Place of Deification in the Doctrinal System of Athanasius 35 In this way man forgot the image, having turned outside himself (¢&u éauriis), from the soul to the body, and thus to the illusory world of the senses. From this point men have descended {nto all manner of idolatry, which becomes a major focus of his apologetic oration Contra Gentes (chapters 9-29), This then, the anthropology of Athanasius, sets up the problem of his soteriology: a chasm of sin and death has been formed between God and humanity, “a chasm which in the course of time and history ever more broadened.”* Man's state of mortality and corruption is that of a separa- tion from God, which is the real meaning of death.” ‘The Incarnation Athanasius met the anthropological dilemma head-on with his soteriology, which forms the heart of his doctrinal system. Like Irenaeus, he centered his redemption theology on the Incarnation, which becomes the key to deifica- tion. This is evident from his earliest works on, as even a casual reading of Contra Gentes—De Incarnatione shows. Despite their intensified concern with the natural divinity of the Son, the later, explicitly anti-Arian works still manifest this concern, which has to do, above all, “with the Christian's spiritual growth.” The point of the Incarnation is salvation, Georotnois, and only a saviour who is divine by nature can effect it. His writings are so imbued with this religious spirit and a biblical faith in the immediacy and efficacy of God's saving act, that Harnack has lauded him as the one who had freed Christianity from the shackles of Greek philosophy, due to his concern with redemption over cosmology: In the history of the development of Trinitarian dogma, Athanasius is usually remem: bered primarily for his “defense of the Nicene definition” —that the Son was 5poota.os with the Father, While it is true that he was a life-long ration: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology champion of the absolute divinity of the Son, his advocacy of the catchword “djooso0s” as an expression of the divine unity is not evident until after 347.” His near-fanatical concern with the Son's full deity was, at bottom, a concern over man's redemption, For if the Lord had not become man, we had not been redeemed from sins nor raised from the dead, but we would have remained dead under the earth, Neither would we have been exalted to heaven, but we would have lain in Hades" As has been noted, such an exaltation was described by Athanasius as deification, and it was precisely this understanding of soteriology which required the very Logos of God as a Saviour, since only Deity can truly deify us.* It was for the sake of mankind that the Logos humbled himself to take upon him human nature, and thus over- come the gulf of sin and death which separated man from God. Thus Athanasius becomes a major spokesman for the mystery of the Incarnation: the doctrine that God became man was the only sure guarantee of our redemption. This theme of Incarnation-Deification recurs throughout the writings of Athanasius. The rea- son that “the Word was made flesh” was in order “that we . . . might be enabled to be deified (Gconountivax Berm¥5qer),” which could only be gained “by his clothing himself in our created body.” The aphorism “He became man in order that we might become God” succinctly sums up the doctrinal focus of Athanasius, The Incarnation, as the basis of the (re)divinization of mankind, “is the fundamental thought of the soteriology of our saint." If the original state of ‘man was on a divine level, from which he has fallen so as to be subject to death and corruption, then the Incarnation serves a double role. As both God and man, Christ pays the ransom due ‘on man’s part for sin by his own death, and reforms the image of God within humanity, restoring him back to the level of deity:* “For in two ways our Saviour had compassion through the incarnation: he both rid us of death and renewed us?” This double aspect of redemption has often been overlooked, especially when Athanasius’ doctrine has been classed as simply a “mystical” or “physical theory of redemption?» According to this interpretation of the Athanasian corpus, redemption is concerned primarily if not exclu- sively with the abolition of physical death and corruptibility; in other words, the Greek ideal of immortality as constituting divinity, In De Incarnatione 7, Athanasius explains that repen- tance alone, which would pay the penalty for sin, would be insufficient to redeem us. “Repentance gives no exemption from the consequences of ture, but merely looses sins" Because of transgression, we are in a state of “natural cor- ruption,” and thus subject to physical death or mortality, This, according to Tixeront,”is the sig- nificance of the Incarnation for Athanasius: it overcomes mortality in the sense of physical cor- ruption, But such an analysis is only partially correct, since it ignores the other major conse- uence of transgression: man has been “deprived of the grace of being in the image” The content of that image is not fully or even primarily exhausted by the category of mortality; the whole range of divine attributes is included, as we shall see in chapter IV. It is precisely because of the richness of its content that the restoration of the image requires the Incarnation, amounting toa virtual re-creation of humanity by the Logos-Image himself, the original creator, In order that “man might be able ‘once more to know him,” he must “renew again that which was in his image,” and this required “the very image of God.” Such a renewal was not possible by men on their own, since they them- selves were created only “in the image” (car? «ixéva), So “the Logos of God came in his own person, in order that, as he is the image of his Father, he might be able to restore man who is i the image.” In no other way could this have been accomplished, for “who was needed for such grace and recalling except the Logos of God, who also in the beginning had created the universe from nothing”” Only the creator can renew the image in fallen man, and bring him back to incorruption, No one ese could bring what was corrupted to incorruptibility, except the Saviour him- self, who also created the universe in the beginning from nothing: nor could any other recreate men in the image, save the image of the Father; nor could another raise up what ‘was mortal as immortal save our Lord Jesus Christ, who is life itself.» Since this is a new creation, it is not done from without, as the first Adam was formed from the dust of the earth, but from within mankind itself, ic., through the Incarnation. Again and again, Athanasius reminds us, this is how deifica- tion is effected. “Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so also we men are both dei fied as being helped through his flesh, and hence- forward inherit life everlasting” By “taking on him what is ours” he transforms us into what He is, “that we, as incorporated and compacted and bound together (ojoowior cwvapnodoyasuevo veal gwvSedvres) in him through the likeness of the flesh may attain to a perfect man, and abide immortal and incorruptible" This pregnant passage brings up two important aspects of ‘Athanasius’ doctrine of the Incarnation: the unit ing of God to humanity and the apparent uni- versal aspect of this version of redemption, The crucial fact of the Incarnation, for ‘Athanasius, is that the Logos united to Himself the flesh of mankind, thereby raising it up to his level, that of godhood.” The eternal framer of our bodies himself assumed that same flesh, renewing and deifying it for us." This joined us, The Place of Deification in the Doctrinal System of Athanasius as individual members of mankind, to the Logos. His union with flesh abolished sin and death, “and these being destroyed from the flesh, we all were thus liberated by the kinship of the flesh (névtes obrw kara Tiv ovyyéveau TS capxds ‘nevGepcidnyev), and for the future were joined, even we, to the Logos” He who is by nature God took upon Himself a body, in order to unite to himself human nature, that salvation and deif cation might be assured." It is apparent in these passages that Athanasius is speaking of Christ taking upon himself and uniting with, not just “some” flesh, or “a” particular body, but human nature itselé When he is described as advancing or being cxalted in the Scriptures, itis the manhood or human nature which is thus promoted." As the Lord of all, Christ re-exalts mankind to God. To some extent, Athanasius may be following Paul in seeing a “kind of universal character” in the humanity of Christ," but the influence of Platonic realism seems much more evident here. To modern ears, such a notion sounds strained, but this universalism was a commonly shared presupposition of the age, and in fact is vital to the formulation of Trinitarian and Christological dogma.” As Gross points out,” Athanasius’ philo- sophical concept of mankind is that of a generic concrete reality along Platonic lines. “We men, indeed, because we are alike and share the same identity, are one in essence with each other.”* As is well known, in Platonic thinking the Ultimate realities are spiritual or intellectual (i.e., non-material) Ideas or Forms, which transcend the world of material being. These Ideas are uni- versal archetypes or models, which objects imi- tate or participate in for their identity. But such particular “concrete” objects actually exist on a lower plane of reality—they have less “being” — than the archetypal [deas; thus the spirit-matter dualism may be described as one of being. becoming” Material objects are a temporary, 38 + Desfication: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology almost illusory, manifestation of the eternal, ‘unchanging Ideas which are imperceptible to our Bross sensory organs, Whereas for Plato these Ideal Forms seem to have a separate, independ- ent existence as deities," already with Philo and the Middle Platonists they had been described as mental constructs (with a “real” existence) in the “mind” of the Logos." This view was inherited by the Fathers, notably Origen, whence we may surmise that Athanasius was familiar with it To take the idea one step further, individual human beings would be seen as imperfect copies of the ‘deal Form of manhood, through which each person takes existence by participation. For Athanasius, this archetypal humanity is embodied in Christ who became flesh; by virtue of his incarnation he is the new Adam, the head of humanity. He is superior to the old Adam, the man of the earth, since he is the heavenly man, perfect, the principle of rationality itself In explicating the prayer for unity in John 17, he combines it with the idea of the perfect man from Ephesians 4:13. Thus he paraphrases: Here at length the Lord asks something greater and more perfect for us; fortis plain that the Logos has come to be in us, for he has put on our body. “And thou Father in me;"“for 1am thy Logos, and since thou art {in me, because Iam thy Logos, and Tin them because ofthe body, and because of thee the salvation of men is perfected in me; therefore 1 ask that they also may become one, accord- ing tothe body that isin me and according to its perfection; that they too may become per fect, having oneness with it, and having become one in it; that, as if all were carried by me, all may be one body and one spirit, and may grow up into a perfect man, For we all, partaking of the same, become one body, having the one Lord in ourselves. Just how explicitly (or consciously) Athanasius had Platonic notions in mind in this regard is uncertain: certainly his blend of biblical and Platonic concepts is nothing less than virtuosic, But the important point is that Christ, the Logos of God, by taking flesh to himself, in effect unites with the archetypal human nature, so that human nature itself is, to coin a word equivalent to Athanasius’ term, “logosized.”” Thisenhances our understanding of the sote- riological couplet, expressed again in a letter to Adelphius: “he has become man, that he might deify us in himself." Schoemann concludes that, “According to this teaching, the Incarnation is ‘not merely the beginning of redemption ... [but] through the Incarnation already the whole race is deified in its head, 6 ént navrwy Adyos." Can it be true that each individual, merely by virtue of Participation in humanity, thereby becomes per- fectly Aoyinds and deified? Continuing his letter to Adelphius, Athana- sius seems to imply this. The purpose of the Incarnation is “that we may become henceforth a holy race, and ‘partakers of the Divine Nature} as the blessed Peter wrote.” But it is unlikely that Athanasius means here the entire human race; rather the allusion seems to be to the “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people,” of I Peter 2:9 (cf. Exodus 19:6). This is the new Israel, which fulfills the moral exhorta- tion to “be holy, for I {the Lord] am holy.” Even ‘more significant is the connection with Il Peter 1:4, which refers to becoming “partakers of the divine nature.” Both the New ‘Testament and Athanasius use the present middle subjunctive of the verb yyvoua: in a purpose clause following ‘va, connoting a possibility of fulfillment, but not certainty, In II Peter the pericope continues (vss, Sif): “For this very reason make every effort (oxovbiv macav)” to add godly virtues and knowledge to your faith, It is clear that the real- ization of the “precious and great promise.” which includes participation (koworia) in the divine nature, is on an individual basis. Likewise Athanasius, in the midst of an exhortation to purity of deed and thought, holds out the desired goal that “we may be able to partake of the Logos." A more explicit reference to II Peter 1:4 is in the Life of Antony: “The Logos of God . took a human body for the salvation and well-being of rman, so that having shared in human birth he might make man partake in the divine and spiri tual nature.” Clearly it is a possibility that is held out to us,a reward to strive for, that “we may be exalted (ibubsuev) in him, and that we may enter (ciofXdev) the gates of heaven.”™ The Logos “put on a created body . .. in order that in him we might be capable (Bun@nev) of being renewed and deified.” ‘Thus it is apparent that, although “through the Incarnation of the Logos the participation (Lebensgemeinschaft) of mankind with God has begun again,” it does not follow that every sin- gle individual is thereby automatically redeemed. [As Gross observes,"" “he always speaks of indi- vidual deification as a result of the combined action of the subject, Christ, and the Holy Spirit” We shall see in the following chapter how the work of the Godhead is combined with the action of human freedom in order to restore the individual to the original created state of God- likeness, mankind back into grace through Christ and his work has taken place in principle and potential, The Incarnation, then, is the union of God and man, which takes place on For Athanasius “the reception of but not yet in fact." an archetypal level. The actualization of this cos- mic soteriological event for the individual depends on the extent of one’s effort at partici- pation in the divine nature, which includes imi- tation and cooperation with the Holy Spirit, whose task of sanctification “knits us into the Godhead.” It is to the path of deification pre- scribed for the individual Christian that we now turn The Place of Deification in the Doctrinal System of Athanasius + 39 Notes 1. De Ine, 54; ef. Or: Syn. 51, et passim. 2. Ibid, For the designation of Contra Gentes and Ar 1.39% De Deer, 143 De De Incarnatione as “apologetic” genre writing see J Roldanus, Le Christ et Phomme dans la theologie Athanase @’Alexandrie (Leiden, 1968), p. 13, n. 2 The date of these works is still disputed. A strong case has been made for placing them near the beginning of the first exile, c. 335, instead of the usual “youthful” pre-Arian dating; ie, before 323. See Charles Kannengiesser, “Le témoignage des Lettres festales de saint Athanase sur la date de lapologie Contre les paiens sur Vincarnation du Verbe,” Recherches de se cence relgieuse 52 (1964), 91-100, Although Arians are rot mentioned by name in either of these apologetic works, Kannengiesser sees a reference to them in the allusion to Christ's body not being dismembered at his death, which Athanasius interprets as giving no excuse to “those who wish to divide the Church’ (De Inc, 54). This same exegesis was explicitly applied to the Arians in the Easter Letters of 334 and 335. (See additional arguments fora later dating in Thompson, pp xxi) However, Meijering, pp. 111£, probably still represents the majority of scholars who adhere to the earlier dating, Even if the minority opinion is accept: ed, the apologetic pair remains comparatively early; fen before Athanasius had fully worked out his anti- Arian soteriology. Our analysis shows a definite devel ‘opment in this regard. 3, Gross, p. 202. J. B. Berchem, “LIncarnation dans le plan divin @aprés saint Athanase.” Echoes Orient 33 (1934), p. 316, contends that deification only served as an argument to bolster the divinity of christ, On the interdependency of these two doc- trines, see above, pp. 35ff 4, Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Cathotic Tradition (Chicago, 1971), p. 206. 5. Harnack, HD Il, p. 6. As is well known, Harnack was highly critical of this development in Christian dogma. See esp. HD I, p. 43. 6, Volker, Gregor von Nyssa, p. 278, n. 8. He cites (Or. Ar. 3.23 and Ep. Serap. 1.24 7.Schoemann, p. 347, 5, as examples. 8, Bernard, p. 51. See below, p. 41 40 + Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soterilogy Roldanus, pp. 5, prefers to speak of Athanasius “concept of man," rather than his “anthropology,” since “Athanasius did not develop any theory of man in his writings” He was not a “closet theologian, but a polemicist and pastor.” 9..C. Gen, 32, 33 10, Thi, 33. Irenaeus, Haer, 2.56.2, maintains that God's will can preserve what is perishable by nature, which recalls a similar concept in Plato, Tim. 4IAfTs the lower planetary gods will be saved from death by the will of the Demiurge. Meijring, p. 26, points out that Athanasius uses Plato's category of the soul as self-moving, while rejecting the corollary doc- trine of pre-existence, See Phaedr. 245Cff, and Aristotle, De Gaelo .282B4f. Cf. Justin, Dial. 5, who ‘argues on the same grounds thatthe soul is immortal 11. Gen. 32, 12. Vit. Ant. 20; C. Gen. 30, For the extended ‘meaning of “Aoyixds,” see below, p. 40,2. 38, 13. Gross, p. 204, 14. C, Gen, 30; similarly, Vit. Ant, 2. 15, Vie. Ant. 20, 16. C. Gen. 8; 34. CE. Theophilus, Ad Autolyewn 1.2. Bernard, p. 75, points out that the connection between resemblance of the soul and knowledge of God is Platonic, although the comparison of the soul to a mirror is not, despite its use by Plotinus See En. WW.iii 11.7. 17.€ Gen. 2. Thompson, loc cit, points out that in this context, ot &ytot refers to angels. 18. Gross, p, 202, 19. C. Gen, 2: rev dmnova Kai _paKdpiov Gurus aBdvarov plov. 20. Ibid. 21, De Inc. 4. See H. B, W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption (London, 1952), p88. 22, De Ine. 5. Cf. Or ¢. Ar. 1159. 23, Above, pp. 12ff. The important secondary studies of this theme include those by Stricker, Merki, Wilson, and Kantorowicz, ops ci. 24, Festugitre, “Divinisation du Chrétien,” p. 94, sees in this separation the influence of two separate Pagan traditions: the Platonic Spotuots and Hermetic eixsiv, But Ladner, The Idea of Reform, p. 95, points out that the distinction is found in Platonic. thought by itself, where eixssv denotes inferiority to the archetype, while dyoiavs indicates close resem- blance. On p. 84 Ladner asserts that Irenaeus took ians, who also valued similitude over mere image. Cf. Daniélou, Gospel Message, pp. 3986, and Merki, ‘OMOIQEIE, pp. 4-30. 25. Bernard, pp. 27ff; Merki, ‘OMOIOSIE, p, 4114; Rist, pp. 217£ In this he was followed by Gregory ‘of Nyssa. See below, ch, VI 26. Ladner, The Idea of Reform, p. 89, who cites C. Gen. 2. He also points out, p. 58 that the terms are synonymous in the Bible. Cf. Festugiére, “Divinisation,”p. 98, and Gross, p. 202. 27, Irenaeus, Haer. 5.6.1 f, 2.22.1 28. Merki, ‘OMOIOZIE, p. 27. As will be seen, this spiritual nature implies rationality 29. Ibid, p.27, 30. Refs. in Schoemann, p. 341. See esp.,. Ger.2, 8,34; De Inc. 3,6, 11, 13, 14,20, See also Bernard, pp 22H Crowzel, p. 126; Stricker, pp. 93ff 31. Ladner, The Idea of Reform, p. 5. 32. Refs. in Bernard, p. 10, So also Philo, Opif, ‘Mun, 134. Osborn, p. 52, sees in this emphasis the Platonic hierarchy of God, the image of God or Logos, and the image of the image, or rational souls. CE Rep. X.476. 33. Ladner, “The Anthropology of Gregory of Nyssa," in Dumbarton Oaks Papers (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), No. 14, p65. 34. Or 6. Ar, 1.225 IIL60, Cf. Bernard, pp. 24, 9ff, 35. De syn. 36. See Balis, METOYEIA @EOY, p. 18; Merki, “OMOIEIE, pp. 164, 136; Bernard, pp. 37% Athanasius objects to Arian anthropocentrism, which places man on a level with God: Or, ¢ Ar. IILI7; De Syn 5.20, See aso Bernard, pp. 124, and Rist, p. 217. Cf. Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh, “The Centrality of Soteriology in Early Arianism.” Anglican Theological Review 59 (1977), pp. 260-78, which demonstrates that the reason Arius and his followers over this distinction from the Valent placed Christ on a level with creatures was not to exalt the Father beyond reach in an overly zealous ‘The Place of Deifcation in the Doctrinal System of Athanasius + 41 monotheism, but to raise redeemed man, along with Christ, the redeemer, to divine adoption as eot. This thesis is expanded and developed in Gregg and Grob, Eacly Arianism—A View of Salvation (Philadelphia, 1981). [Norman had this book in manuscript form, since it was not yet published when this disertaion ‘was written, We have supplied the references from the published edition.] 37. De Inc. 5. See Bernard, p. 38 Schoemann, p. 339, 38, De Ine, 2,3, 6,115 Or ©. Ar I.78. Crouzel, pp. 126ff, prefers the translation “verbifi and uses the synonym “surnaturel” Cf, Bernard, pp. 57ff, and the extended discussion in Roldanus, pp. 46-65. On the importance of participation” in Athanasius, se Alan Lee Kolp, “Participation: A Unifying Concept in the ‘Theology of Athanasius” (unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Harvard University, 1975). Kolp unfortunately did not flly se the implications of Arian soteriology on Athanasius use of participation.” 39, Above, p.40,n. 27. Bernard, pp. 132, thinks that Athanasius’ ater works did bring in more of this bodily element. Rokdanus, pp. 54 adds that although he generally adhered to the “current trichotomy” in jon, Athanasius did not go along with the strict philosophical antithesis of body and sou 40, De Inc. 12. Cf. ibid. 11 41.€. Gen. 2, Roldanus,p. 47, concludes from this passage that “logikos is, for him, identical to the knowledge of God.” and signifies a religious relation man’s constt approaching mystical-contemplative terms. Certainly the influence of Platonic idealism is at its strongest here. 42, Ibid. Gross, p. 202, designates this portrait as that of the “ideal gnostic.” CE. Wilson, pp. 4276, 434, 43, De Ine. 4. CE. ibid, 3. 44, De Inc. 5. To the comparatively incidental ‘mention of man’s creation ex nihilo in De Inc, 4, con- trast the emphasis in Or. c. Ar. IL59. Gross, p. 205, believes that the Arian controversy led Athanasius to modify this view of an ideal creation, See below, ch. V. 45, Schoemann, p. 343, 46. Roldanus, p. 59, summarizing his doctrine of the imago Dei 47, Harnack, HD UI, p. 266. 48. Or. c, Ar. 11.68; cf. 1L67. This did not mean, Roldanus points out (pp. 1976) thatthe Fall was nec- ‘essary to achieve eternal heavenly life by bringing on the redemption, “but that communion with God was very fragile and unstable?” being dependent on the changeable will of man, Cf. Or. ¢. Ar. IL7S. 49. De Inc. 4; C. Gen. 3; Or. ¢ Ar. LSI. 50. C. Gen. 3; fib, 8; De Inc. 5. 51. De Ine. 4. As he specifies further in Or ¢ Ar 11.33, to be “mortal and corruptible” means that men are “liable to suffer the consequences proper to their nature (BexTuKoi Ty {Slav TAs dboems naBAv)?” 52. De Inc. 4. CE Strater, p.21, who cites this pas- sage as evidence that Athanasius already distinguished between nature and grace before the Arian controversy. E.G. Gen, 30ff 53. This is what Bernard, p. 51, describes a the “imprecision” of Athanasius’ anthropology. See above, p. 38,7. 8 54. Roldanus, p. 98. 55. C. Gen. 336, cf. Gross, p. 205, 56, De Inc. 12. See further Bernard, pp. 27-2 Merki, “Ebenbildlichkeit,” col. 472. 57. C. Gen. 8. CE Schoemann, p. 343. 58, Strte,p. 162 59, See Louis Bouyer, Lcarnation et PEglise- Corps du Christ dans la Théologie de Saint Athanase (Paris, 1943), p.37. (60, Strater, p- 4 61. Thompson, p. xix. Cf. Dietrich Ritschl, Athanasius: Versuch einer Interpretation, Theologische Studien, Heft 76 (Zurich, 1964), who examines the question, “Ist der arianische Steeit das Zentrum vom Athanasius’ Theologie?” and concludes (p. 35) that“ cannot be denied that the ‘Erlésungslehre’ occupies @ central place in Athanasius’ theology.” (62, Harnack, HD IV, pp. 29, 33, 45, 49. This, it should be noted, isin accordance with Harnack’s ide- alized and rather tendentious picture of primitive Christianity as an ethical fellowship of brotherly love unspoiled by any complicated theological formula tions. The evaluation of Athanasius is difficult to rec- oncile with Harnack’s negative view of deification on 42 + Deifcation: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology the same principle (ibid, I, p. 45). Nevertheless, the consensus of scholarly opinion has followed his judgement on the independence of Athanasius from philosophical influences. See, e.g., Kelly, p. 243; Meijering, pp. Lfls Quasten, Patrology, II, p. 66 63. A, Gaudel, “La Théologie du Logos chez Saint Athanase;” Revue des sciences religieuses 9 (1929), p. 529. Cr. Kelly, p. 243. Prestige, pp. 212f, points out that there is no evidence of a Sabellian association of the term as originally laid down, It was not intended as“a definition of the unity of God, but solely asa def- inition of the fll and absolute deity of Christ” (64, Or.¢. Ar. L43. The primacy of soteriology over theology proper has been recognized and delineated by Gregg and Groh, “The Centrality.” pp. 272ff It is to Dr. Gregg that { am indebted for this insight, in his seminar on Athanasius at Duke University. 65, On & Ar. 1.39, 66. De Deer. 14; cf. Or Ar. 1.38; 11138, 67, Strater, p. 140. In this, he continues, Athanasius “manifestly depends on St. Irenaeus” Cf Dufourg, pp. 33; Grillmeier, p. 103, 68. Dufourg, p. 34. Schoemann, p. 350, notes that the redeemed life is more truly divine than the origi nal for Athanasius, since there is no longer the possi- bility ofa fall to mortality. See Or ¢ Ar. 1L67. Gregg and Groh, Early Arianism, p. 178, thus describe redemption in terms of a stabilization of life and the cosmic order. Cf Roldanus, pp. 1976. 69. De Ine, 16 70. J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas Il, p. 148; Harnack, HD Il p. 165; Otis, p. 100; e a. See below, ch. IV. Itshould be noted that Tixeront, pp. 149f, rec ‘ognized more in Athanasius’ view of redemption than just physical incorruption, despite his usage of the classification. 71. De Inc. 7. Gregg and Groh, Early Arianism, p 177, paraphrase this to the effect that since the Fall hhas made corruption (in both a physical and moral sense) no longer external, but essential to human nature, proper Christian attitude, is simply irrelevant to the initial reversing of the human condition, 72. Op. cit. Il, pp. 147E. 73, De Inc. 7. CE. also ibid. 13, 14, The conclusion hherefore repentance, while important to a ‘of 13 similarly combines the two aspects: the Logos ‘took “a mortal body, in order that in it death could be destroyed and men might be again renewed in the image.” 74. De Inc. 13 75, Ibid. Cf. De Inc. 49, where Athanasius uses a kind of pun to show the superiority of the Saviour ‘over Greek gods. In comparison to Asclepius, not only

    Вам также может понравиться