Introduction
Throughout the annals of Christian
history God has chosen men and women to exact his will in very direct and
profound ways. Athanasius was one such man and he faced the greatest heresy of
his time, Arianism. With very great effort Athanasius ensured that truth,
namely Christ as the incarnate Son of God, he who was one with God, who was in
fact God and who could be found if sought, would come to the forefront amidst a
potential turn in Christian thought, belief, and worship. This paper will show
that without Athanasius’ tireless and unwavering efforts, Christianity may have
taken that turn which could have led modern believer’s to accept the idea that
they worship a created being rather than the Creator of all heaven and earth.
Athanasius
would suffer immensely for his work against Arianism. He would endure false
accusations, a host of enemies (to include emperors), condemnation, banishment,[1] and loneliness; Bryan M.
Liftin writes, “the ancient Christians portrayed him as a solitary resistance
fighter standing firm while the waters of heresy raged about him.”[2] His was not an easy life nor
was it an easy battle but the fight was well worth it considering the condition
of Christianity was at stake and even though, “Athanasius seemed to stand alone
against a world that had gone completely Arian,”[3] Athanasius contra mundum.
Of those who would rage war against Arianism however, “Athanasius was to be
feared the most.”[4]
Athanasius’ keen and anointed
ability to grasp God’s word allowed him to see things others could not. It is
in this vein that he would begin to trump the Arianistic view. Interestingly,
most scholars agree that Athanasius did not receive a formal theological
education; however, he was taken under the tutelage of Alexander of Alexandria
with whom he would learn much. Although Athanasius would not witness Arianism
abolished entirely in his life time his understanding of scripture, the Trinity,
and his work advocating on behalf of the Nicene Creed would most certainly lead
the way.
Athanasius was born ca. 295-299. Gonzalez
writes that Athanasius spoke Coptic and that this was the language of the first
inhabitants in Alexandria.[5] They were a people conquered
by the Greeks and the Romans, and since Athanasius’ skin was dark he may have
been a Copt, a people group belonging to the lower classes in Egypt.[6] J. F. Johnson writes he
was thought to be the son of “well-to-do parents, but in later years Athanasius
made it clear that he was a poor man.”[7] However, Khaled Anatolios
writes,
the Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria,
composed by the tenth-century Egyptian bishop Severus Ibn al-Muqaffa, indicates
that his parents were not Christians, describing the young Athanasius as “the
son of an eminent woman who was a worshipper of idols and very rich.[8]
Whether Athanasius was wealthy or not is unclear, what is
clear is that he never claimed to be from a wealthy family nor have any special
upbringing. What is also clear is that he caught the attention of one of the
most powerful bishops in all of Rome – Alexander, bishop of Alexandria.
Alexander of Alexandria
Before Athanasius owned the
fight over the Arianist view of Christ, Alexander of Alexandria too was a
formidable foe of Arianism; it was on his watch, so to speak, that the Arian
controversy was birthed. Alexandria was a city at the center of some of the
most important economic activities of the Roman Empire. It was a vital shipping
hub connecting Rome to markets in various major cities throughout the Mediterranean.[9] It was a great
manufacturing area producing ships, papyrus, and grain.[10] “Alexandria was also a
major center of culture for the whole Roman Empire.”[11] In short, Alexandria was
a major player in the world and whatever may come out of such an arena would
surely impact and influence the rest of the world. So then, the impact /
influence of a religious controversy could resound greatly and cause a
catastrophic shift in the minds of people already simple in their religious
thought processes. Not unlike in the twenty-first century.
Athanasius understood that everything
that held the Christian faith together was the fact of the incarnation of God
in Jesus Christ. Gonzalez states that even before the controversy surrounding
Arianism, Athanasius’ works Against the
Gentiles and On the Incarnation of
the Word, show his “deep conviction that [this is] the central fact of
Christian faith.”[12] The Bible teaches that
every person in Christ is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), the only way Christ can
recreate a thing is if he had the ability to create a thing in the first place;
therefore, he must be God. And this is what Arianism worked feverishly to
refute, that Christ and God were not one and the same, rather that Christ was a
created being. Alexander may not have seen it quite the way Athanasius did but
he certainly knew enough to know that the views of the Arianist was erroneous.
Arianism
Arius was a North African priest
and a deacon (presbyter) with great influence; Ferguson writes “he was a
leading member of the Alexandrian clergy as a presbyter of a church in the
harbor area.” [13]
He was a popular pastor, if not a contentious one, and possessed an ardent
sense of the logical. Bishop Alexander was his superior. Arius began to teach, perhaps
after listening to a sermon of Alexander’s and considering him a heretic, “strange
ideas about Christ” writes Litfin, offering “a new doctrine that had never been
officially taught in the church: the Son of God is a created being, not eternal
at all.”[14]
And herein is the controversy, the
infamous quote of Arius stating – “there was when Christ was not.” This teaching
of Arius was brought to Alexander’s attention in 318 and instead of making
assumptions and perhaps reacting to this potentially harmful, and clear heresy
in a negative and destructive manner, he chose a decisive route of action to
investigate the issue and gain a further understanding of it. Litfin states
that Alexander expressed his stance by stating there is “a fundamental unity between the Father and the Son
which must not be breached.”[15]
This issue
of Jesus Christ’s position stems from the teachings of Origen, teachings that
unfortunately could be misconstrued because of verbiage. Origen used a metaphor
of “begetting” to relate Christ incarnate, and pre-existing Christ to God, this,
writes Ferguson, “assures that the Logos was of the same nature as the Father.”
[16] In doing so Ferguson
continues, Origen’s thought process “still posited a subordination of the Son
to the Father.”[17]
This (partly this) allows Arius to create what he believes is a logical
correlation that posits Christ is not the same as Father God and thus cannot be
considered one with him, a form of Monarchism. In jeopardy was the divinity of
the Logos. Arius goes on to claim that Jesus Christ, the Savior of all
humanity, was a creation of God; the first of all creation, but a creation
nonetheless.
Arius was
not without his supporters. Most notably was Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius
believed that Christ was the mediator between God and humanity because God the
Father is unapproachable and so Christ could not be one and the same with God
the Father or else he would be unnecessary as a mediator.[18] God states clearly in his
Word that he is approachable and that humanity can draw near to him, (Psa.
73:28; Jer. 30:21).
Constantine
Al the
debating and backbiting that surrounds this controversy finally makes it to
Constantine, empower of the Roman Empire. An empower that was eager to make,
and did so, Christianity the religion of the empire. A rift in his goals such
as this was unacceptable. Constantine sends Hosius of Cordova to investigate
the matter. A synod in Antioch takes
place and they condemn Eusebius and appoint Eustathius bishop at Antioch.[19] Emporer Constantine takes advantage of this
situation, along with celebrating twenty years as emperor and sends forth a
royal invitation to have more than three hundred bishops from the East convene
at Nicaea to discuss theological matters and hopefully come to an amicable
conclusion to the bickering surrounding the Arian controversy.
Council of Nicaea, 325
The first
of its kind, the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea marked the gathering of some
three hundred bishops from the East, to include a small number of bishops from
the West (the problem of Arianism was not a prevalent concern to them), to
discuss the pressing issue of the day which was Arianism, the “theological
legacy of Origen concerning the relation of the Son to the Father.”[20] Blaising makes an incredible
point about the thought process of Arianism – since Arianist believe God
created Jesus and that he was not “of the same substance,” then he, like every
other created human being, was “subject to moral change. And because of the
extreme transcendence of God, in the final respect the Son has no real
communion or knowledge of the Father at all.”[21]
This again is an incredible idea.
This would completely eradicate every single Christian belief. There would be
no sacrifice, no death on a cross for the sins of human kind, there would be no
resurrection, no atonement, no forgiveness, none of it, and why? Because Jesus,
as a created being, would be subject to moral change – he could sin. In John
21, Jesus asks the Father to make his chosen people one as he and the Father
are one. Even as a child, when found at the Temple by his parents, Jesus states
he has to be about his Father’s business (Luke 2:49). On the Cross, just before
Jesus breathes his last breath he cries out, “Father, forgive them,
for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34a). Clearly Jesus has an
intimate relationship with his Father. Also, in 2 Cor. 5:21, the Bible states
that Jesus was without sin.
Many of the Bishops present at this
inaugural ecumenical council at Nicaea were the very same men that had been
terrible persecuted in the past for their beliefs. Many were maimed, tortured,
blinded, and so on. And here they were, invited by the Emperor of the Roman
Empire, brought to Nicaea on his dime as it were ready to judge some of the issues
facing the church at that time; “but the most difficult issue that the council
had to face,” states Gonzalez, “was the Arian controversy.”[22] What is
most interesting is that Arius, the ring leader of Arianism, was not a bishop
as so was not afforded entry into the meeting; it was Eusebius of Nicomedia
that was his spokes person.[23] There
were in attendance varying groups of bishops with varying thoughts on the issue
of Arianism, a small group led by Alexander of Alexandria believed that this
controversy “threatened the very core of the Christian faith, and…it was
necessary to condemn it in no uncertain terms.”[24] In
attendance, just a deacon, was who would soon become the great defender of the
Nicene Creed, Athanasius of Alexandria.
Eusebuis of Nicomedia, the
spokesperson for the Arian faction, presents his ideology of faith that is far
removed from what was traditional orthodoxy. “The disapproval was so strong,”
writes Blaising, “that most of the Arian party abandoned their support of the
document and it was torn to shreds before the eyes of everyone present.”[25] In
order to once and for all dispel the teaching of Arianism, the Council of
Nicaea espoused the word homoousios –
of the same substance; this was a word not found in scripture, but it was used
because the Arians were masters at using scripture to make their claims.
This word
is also important as it establishes the foundation of the agreed upon Nicene
Creed. And “in its most important sentence,” writes Litfin, “it claimed that
Christ was “of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true
God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.”[26] Homoousios (of the same
substance) is the Greek word for consubstantial, a word the Arianist did not
appreciate because it takes away the idea that Christ is a being created by God
rather than a being one with God. The Catholic Church would soon after condemn
anyone who believed along the lines of the Arianist.
Athanasius
In 328
Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria; he was the natural choice after
Alexander died. The work at Nicaea began to show signs of trouble and it was
Athanasius who would become its greatest supporter ensuring that the Nicene Creed
was upheld. In fact, it was because of Athanasius’ tireless work that Arianism
did not create enough momentum to continue in its path to changing the
Christian worldview. It was coming to light that the word homoousios was not a reliable word. There would be somewhat of a
resurgence of Arianism, “more an anti-Nicene reaction…than a pro-Arian
development” writes, Ferguson.[27]
In 335
Athanasius was exiled by a council at Tyre. He was proving to be too much of a
force against Arianism and for the work of the Council of Nicaea. It would be
his writings that would cause the most trouble for the Arianist view, and
through them Athanasius would establish the foundation of right theology –
monotheism, and soteriology, by which Arianism would finally see its downfall.
Ferguson outlines Athanasius’ main works as polemical pieces set against
Arianism very specifically: Orations
against the Arians, Apology against the Arians, and Defense of the Nicene
Definition.[28]
In On the Incarnation, Athanasius
seeks to establish that the incarnation of Christ is the only means to salvation;
Christ has to be God in order to see a sinner be recreated for only he that
created in the first place can recreate.
Athanasius
taught that God could be known. He is quoted as saying, “He was made man so
that we might be made God.” In Contra
Gentiles, Athanasius presents his thoughts on how God can in fact be known
through the soul and through nature; this refutes the idea that God cannot be
known as presumed by the Arianist. “God may be known through the human soul,
for
‘although God himself is above all, the road that leads to
him so not far, nor even outside ourselves, but is within us, and it is
possible to find it by ourselves.’”[29] Johnson writes that Athanasius
relied on the principles of monotheism and the doctrine of redemption to
prepare his arguments against Arianism.
Athanasius
would be exiled five times by various emperors and synods. He would find refuge
everywhere he found himself. Some sixteen years of his career did he lose to
these, but more often he had ample times of peace by which to write and fight
the heresy that could have potentially changed the face of Christianity.
Athanasius had allies as well. Although it seemed it was Athanasius Contra
Mundum, there emerged steadfast theologians that would continue in his cause –
the Great Cappadocians.
[1]
Five times he would be exiled spending almost 16 years away from his position
as Bishop of Alexandria over the course of a 45 plus year career.
[2]
Bryan M. Litfin, Getting to know the
Church Fathers, (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007), 167.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of
Christianity, Vol. I: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, (New
York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010), 200.
[5]
Ibid., 199.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
J. F. Johnson, “Athanasius,”
in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell,
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 111.
[8] Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius, (New York: Routledge, 2004),
2,
[9]
Ibid., 1.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Gonzalez, 200.
[13]
Everett Ferguson, Church History, Volume
One: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013),
192.
[14]
Litfin, 173.
[15]
Ibid.
[16]
Ferguson, 192.
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
Jon M. Robertson, "Mediation in Eusebius of
Caesarea." In Christ as
Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of
Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2007), Oxford Scholarship Online, 2007. doi:
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199212606.003.0003.
[19]
Ferguson, 193.
[20]
C. Blaising, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 839.
[21]
Ibid.
[22]
Gonzalez, 187.
[23]
Ibid.
[24]
Ibid.
[25]
Blaising, 839.
[26]
Litfin, 177.
[27]
Ferguson, 200.
[28]
Ibid, 205.
[29]
Johnson, 111.
Bibliography
Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius. New
York, NY: Routledge, 2004.
Barnes, D.
Timothy. Anathasius and Constantius:
Theology and Politics in the Constantinian
Empire.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. http://quod.lib.umich.edu.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb01088.
Ernest,
James D. “Athanasius of Alexandria: The
Scope of Scripture in Polemical and Pastoral
Context.” Vigiliae Christianae,
Vol. 47, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 341-362.
Gwynn, David M.
"Introduction." In The
Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria
and the Construction of the `Arian Controversy'.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2007. doi:
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199205554.003.0001.
Leithart, Peter J. Athanasius.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group,
Litfin, Bryan M. Getting
to Know the Church Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2007.
Robertson, Jon M. "Mediation
in Athanasius of Alexandria." In Christ
as Mediator: A Study of
The Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of
Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2007. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2007. doi:
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199212606.003.0005.
No comments:
Post a Comment