Athanasius the Great

Athanasius the Great
296?-May 2, 373

Athanasius was born in Alexandria, educated with as­pirations to a Christian ministry by the bishop of Alexan­dria.  He accompanied his bishop to Nice as a young dea­con in the year 325, attending the Nicene Council.  He solely opposed the Arian heresy much to the dismay of the crown and church leaders.  This dismay was due to the fact that the council  was convened to bring unity to the Church, ultimately unity to the empire by settling the doc­trinal disputes within the church.  The council attendance was any­thing but overwhelming and the attitude was not one to promote doctrinal excellence.  The council was at­tended by three hundred eighteen bishops of the approxi­mate eighteen hundred in the entire empire.  The council was convened by the emperor to obtain sec­ular peace and not by the Church to seek doctinal clarity. [1]  

Athanasius could not sit still to watch heresy ob­tain a foothold so he singlehandedly de­fended the truth as he understood it.  His motives and convictions are exemplary and admirable.  It is no wonder he became so famous and powerful. 

His doctrine was not without its philosophical influ­ences and re­sulting mistakes.

Did the Logos dwell in an individual man, or in collec­tive humanity, a sort of Platonic idea of Man?  Athanasius certainly did not have the sort of interest in the concrete and historical situation of Christ’s earthly life which a modern investigator has.  Details of Christ’s life appear in his writings only because of their soteriological[2] significance:  he wept and was afraid in Gethsemane in order to prove that he had re­ally taken a human body and re­ally bore our weak­nesses.  Besides, there are many passages which seem to suggest that the incarnation automatically sancti­fied human nature as a whole.  On the other hand, in some passages, he certainly does not describe an au­tomatic transformation; it depends on the individual’s participation in the Logos through the Spirit, on be­ing ‘created in him’.  This may not seem far from the Pauline conception that Christians are ‘in Christ” and die and rise with him, crucify­ing the old self and ac­cepting new life; but even the language of par­ticipation has Platonic over­tones, and the most satisfactory understanding of Athanasius’ viewpoint is in terms of such philosophical presuppositions – – by this time they were common currency in intel­lectual cir­cles, so that their use implies no great philo­sophical sophistication [emphasis mine]. The human­ity of Christ in Athanasius’ thought is cer­tainly not quite ordinary humanity, if only because its relation to our hu­manity is different from that of any other man.

On many occasions, Athanasius’ exegesis is vir­tually docetic[3] and seems to us forced and unnatural.  All is sub­ordinated to the purpose of showing that the Logos in himself had the attributes of divin­ity, e.g. im­passibility [emphasis mine], omniscience, etc.  The texts implying weakness or ignorance he explains as merely referring to the incar­nation-situation. [4]

The philosophical presuppositions held in Athanasius’ theological viewpoints were common in his day, or could I say, taken for granted.  The very fact of his commitment to the impassibility of God shouts of philosophical influence.  We shall read more of Athanasuis when we discuss the creeds and councils of the Church.

Athanasius was punished five times by exile for rea­sons of jealousy, anger and political rulings, as a result of the prominence and influence that he exer­cised during his battle against the Arian heresy.  He died in peace before the battles against the Arians were completely won.

[1] McClintock and Strong, Volume VII, p. 44.

[2] Definition:  pertaining to the doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ.

[3] Definition:   Docetism, (According to Schaff) a Gnostic sect that taught that the body of Christ was not real flesh and blood, but deceptive, transient phantom, and consequently that he did not really suffer, die and rise again. 

[4] Frances M. Young, From Niceea to Chalcedon, A Guide to the Literature and its Background   (Fortress Press © 1983) p. 74.