Tim Stanyon
How adequately did Athanasius make sense of the need for Jesus to die on the cross? Discuss with reference to his On the Incarnation of the Word and in light of the engagement of Christian writers with pagan objections to Christianity.
Adequacy is a fairly loose term, in that it is not so easy to measure. However, concerning how Athanasius makes sense of the need for Jesus to die on the cross one will have to understand how the term adequacy might be applied and measured in order to answer the question. Williams (2004, 158) writes, “Few if any intellectual crises are precipitated by purely intellectual factors.” Though Williams comment may not translate so smoothly onto Athanasius position at the time he was writing ‘De Incarnatione’ it highlights the importance of understanding the patristic works from a point of view that takes into account the origins of those works and for what purposes they were produced. The adequacy, then, of Athanasius’ understanding of Jesus’ need to die on the cross cannot or at least should not be measured on a purely intellectual level. Thus, in trying to come to a conclusion regarding the question one will need to investigate the context in which Athanasius was writing (particularly in ‘De Incarnatione’). Following this, the grounds will be laid for understanding how well Athanasius meets intellectual factors and how well he meets other factors specific to the context in light of Christian engagement with pagan objections to Christianity. Therefore, once all of this has been taken into account, a balanced conclusion can be drawn regarding Athanasius’ explanation of Jesus’ death and in light of Christian engagement with pagan objections to Christianity.
Context
Context is of great importance, indeed anyone wishing to do any remotely accurate patristic study should be conscious of it at all times. One must get into the shoes of Athanasius and attempt to understand the world in which he lived. On entering into a discussion of context in regards to patristic study we should not be expecting anything like the complex theological treatises and heavy hard-back volumes we might expect from modern theology. Aulen (1965, 47) acknowledges that, “many features in the patristic teaching should awaken disgust…” and of the “naïve simplicity…” associated with early Christian theological documents. But he rightly says that on this basis it is still not justifiable, “to cast this teaching summarily aside.” (Aulen, 1965, 47). Thus the intellectual adequacy of Athanasius’ time cannot and must not be confused with a modern intellectual adequacy.
The intellectual arena and the primary intellectual objections of the time came from the pagan philosophers, the majority of which were Platonists (Drobner, 2008, 681). Neo-Platonists and their conception of an unchanging God disallowed any form of incarnation; to them rituals like the practice of sacrifice were “utterly illogical” (Young, 1975, 39). In order for Athanasius to adequately make sense of Jesus’ death on the cross it was these philosophical objections that he had to meet if he was to make any intellectual headway.
Concerning Christian theology, the period of church councils was in full swing (Behr, 2004, 21). Though these various councils were devised to reach some sort of theological agreement on controversial issues, vehement theological conflict and widely divergent theological standpoints were unavoidable (Behr, 2004, 21). Thus, theologically, although Athanasius would have had a small library of Christian material devoted to understanding Christ’s death (Young, 2010, 53) theology was in a fragile and somewhat volatile state.
But, as was noted in the introduction, intellectual factors are also accompanied by further factors specific to context. If one is to comprehend the adequacy of Athanasius’ understanding of the cross, one must understand the nature and the purpose of the documents in which this understanding is manifest. The majority of this essay will therefore be devoted to his most relevant work, ‘De Incarnatione’. As Behr (2004, 168) makes clear, ‘De Incarnatione’ along with its preceding volume ‘Contra Gentes’ “is not a treatise on disputed points of abstract theology”. As Athanasius himself writes, to Macarius to whom the works are written, “come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ” (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm), and to answer those who think “faith in Christ unreasonable” (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm). ‘De Incarnatione’ as well as ‘Contra Gentes’, is therefore written in order to outline the basics of the Christian faith clearly. It is not supposed to be a dry, philosophical or theological decree but a document “capable of inspiring faith in real men and women.”(Behr, 2004, 168), but also supplying a practical apologetic for defending and communicating the Christian faith in a largely pagan setting, thus we might identify the work as missional. How well Athanasius meets all of the areas highlighted by the context in which he was writing will be the core areas upon which adequacy shall be defined in this essay.
Intellectual Engagement
Athanasius’ intellectual engagement with the issue of Jesus’ death and its adequacy can now properly be investigated. This is to be demonstrated through his engagement with the two fields of philosophy and theology. Philosophically, Athanasius is nothing less than thorough in paving the way for his section on the meaning of Jesus’ death midway through ‘De Incarnatione’. Throughout the whole of ‘Contra Gentes’ his objective is to provide “a sufficient account of the error of the heathen concerning idols” (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm cf. Weinandy, 2007, 13) and it is from this that he announces the alternative, that being the Gospel. Thus Athanasius can be said to have engaged intellectually with pagan philosophy throughout his two volume work. Indeed in explaining Jesus’ death he does not retreat in meeting with pagan objections, including those of the Neo-Platonists as seen in chapter 41 of ‘De Incarnatione’ (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm. Cf. Anatolios, 1998, 68-69) Common objections from the likes of Celsus, even though they were initially voiced a number of years before Athanasius’ birth have been taken into account. Celsus writes in relation to Jesus withdrawal to Egypt with Mary and Joseph that, “it was not fit that God should be afraid of death.” (Taylor, 2011, www.gutenberg.org/files/37696/37696-h/37696-h.htm) Athanasius, to combat such objections, reveals that Christ had to die in a certain way, that way being on the cross (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm). The reason Celsus’ objection fails, then, is that he has misinterpreted the very reason for Jesus’ incarnation in the first place, that being his death in the place of the rest of humanity (see ch. 22.). Indeed, Athanasius spends four chapters (21-24) anticipating pagan objections to the nature of Christ’s death. Young (2010, 54) points out that Athanasius’ interpretation and supposed refutation of pagan philosophy in ‘Contra Gentes’ gives rise to his two main concerns, these being 1) human irrationality, and 2) human mortality. For Athanasius the incarnation of Jesus and the cross upon which he died were inextricably linked in the solution to these problems. God’s image was renewed in the incarnation revealing the inadequacy of pagan idol worship and in his death Jesus died the death deserved by humanity, thus solving the problem of mortality (Young, 2010, 54). Athanasius can therefore write that, “death is no longer terrible; for all who believe in Christ tread him under as nought, and choose rather to die than to deny their faith in Christ.” (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm). Athanasius’ understanding of why Jesus needed to die as regards his explanation in ‘De Incarnatione’ is directly linked to the points he makes in ‘Contra Gentes’ the main concerns mentioned and their solution. The problems that he discusses in this earlier volume are the main concerns that needed to be answered through soteriology, thus he shapes his soteriology in and around answering these problems.
On a theological level, Athanasius can be said to have engaged with a developing tradition concerning atonement. Although his work is somewhat dated, Aulen (1965, 38) shows that the majority of early church fathers adopt very similar views of the atonement. What is significant and peculiar to Athanasius is his emphasis on death in contrast with the likes of Chrysostom who spends much of his time concerned to communicate Jesus’ defeating of the Devil by the cross (Aulen, 1965, 43, 51). Many have thought this to be a deficiency in Athanasius’ work as concentrating on death’s defeat at the expense of leaving out any detailed articulation concerning the defeat of sin (Young, 55, 2010) and they may seem to have a point. However, though Athanasius spends much of ‘De Incarnatione’ concerned with the subject of death he does, at points, refer briefly to ideas relating to the redeeming of sinners and in engagement with Christ’s death in relation to the effect of this death upon the Devil (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm). Young (2010, 65) points out that death, in Athanasius’ understanding is indeed the consequence of sin and so Athanasius should not be misrepresented as having divorced redemption or salvation from sin in trying to make sense of Jesus’ death on the cross. This emphasis on death is highly important as it highlights how important the role of death is in Athanasius’ theology of atonement and atonement theory in general, in contrast with the earlier theologians who never managed to articulate this aspect of theology in the same way (McIntyre, 1992, 5).
Despite all this, however, there are clearly theological discrepancies. Christological ambiguity is a continuing problem (Weinandy, 2007, 47). Furthermore, mention of the Holy Spirit and the role it plays in the death of Christ is severely lacking (Weinandy, 2007, 48), though we know from his other works that Athanasius’ understanding of the role of the Spirit would develop in much more detail later on in his life. Even so, though it can be understood why there are certain theological deficiencies due to the state of the period’s theological development, this does not excuse the fact that Athanasius has left significant chunks of integral theology out of his understanding of Jesus’ death. Thus Athanasius has made an effort to engage with contemporary philosophy and theological tradition but he has missed out, or at least not emphasised enough, important aspects of theology concerning Jesus’ death.
Achieving his purpose
As was laid out initially, adequacy should not be measured on a purely intellectual level as seen in Athanasius’ engagement with philosophy and theology. His purposes are to lay out the core elements of the Christian faith within an anti-pagan apologetic to encourage Macarius. It has been seen clearly that Athanasius has spent a good amount of time dealing with pagan intellectualism for equipping Macarius missionally in a pagan context and his avoidance of complex abstract debates within the theology of his period has been noted. This avoidance can be explained in that Athanasius has helped Macarius by simplifying things in order to equip him more efficiently. If Athanasius had really meant ‘De Incarnatione’ to engage deeply with the whole concept of the incarnation on more of a theoretical level we would expect to see a document more similar to his ‘Discourses Against the Arians’ (Newman and Robertson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm). Therefore Athanasius has a good reason for avoiding the problems of the work highlighted earlier, in that he has purposefully avoided troublesome areas of controversial theology. Of course, in refuting pagan objections to Christianity Athanasius will have encouraged Macarius already. Behr (2004, 203) points out that in his understanding of Jesus’ death; Athanasius takes two approaches in his explanation of the event, these being the refutation of pagans and the encouraging of Christians. Having dealt with the death of Christ within an apologetic aimed at the refutation of pagans in chapters 21-24 Athanasius then moves on to look at Christian inquiries into the meaning of Jesus’ death. Athanasius writes,
“But if any of our own people also inquire, not from love of debate, but from love of learning, why He suffered death in none other way save on the Cross, let him also be told that no other way than this was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for our sakes.” (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm)
He clearly outlines the importance of responding to believers. In chapter 25 of ‘De Incarnatione’ Athanasius explains the death of Jesus in relation to scripture and its relevance to those who already believe (Robinson, 1892, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm). Thus we see that not only is Athanasius seeking to disprove the objections of the pagans but to encourage his Christian brothers and sisters in their faith. The fact that he spends a good chapter interpreting the death of Christ within a scriptural context consciously for their benefit gives evidence of his yearning to care for and encourage other Christians. Although, as was noted earlier, Athanasius does indeed leave out certain theological details in his explanation of the death of Jesus, he intends not to overwhelm the reader with jargon but to outline the faith.
It has been acknowledged then, that in answering the question of how adequately Athanasius makes sense of the need for Jesus to die on the cross, adequacy must be understood from the perspective of Athanasius’ period. In realising this it has been seen that Athanasius meets the intellectualism of his day without hesitation. He makes use of the philosophical and theological tradition before him and in attempting to refute pagan objections towards the Christian faith he has sought not only to counter these attacks but to simultaneously encourage his fellow Christians. However, noting the practical purposes of ‘De Incarnatione’ it has been seen that there is an avoidance of more abstract theological ideas in relation to the death of Christ. Thus there are certain important theological deficiencies that still need to be addressed for Athanasius. Nevertheless, one can still be sure, despite these negative points regarding Athanasius understanding of Jesus’ death, that he has done as well as he can in keeping with the purpose of ‘De Incarnatione’. Indeed, had he not been successful in some sense regarding this matter he should not have had the “legendary” impact that has been accorded to him (Behr, 2004, 163).
Word Count: 2199
Bibliography
Anatolios, K. (1998). Athanasius: The Coherence of his Thought. London: Routledge.
Aulen, G. (1965). Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement. London: SPCK.
Behr, J. (2004). Formation of Christian Theology, Volume 2: The Nicene Faith, Part 1. New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Drobner, H.R. (2008). Christian Philosophy. In S.A. Harvey and D.G. Hunter (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (pp 672-690). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McIntyre, J. (1992). The Shape of Soteriology. Edinburgh: T&T Clarke.
Newman, J. H. and Robinson, A. (1892). Discourse 1 Against the Arians. Retrieved February 27, 2012, from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm
Taylor, T. (2011). Arguments Of Celsus, Porphyry, And The Emperor Julian, Against The Christians Also Extracts from Diodorus Siculus, Josephus, and Tacitus, Relating to the Jews, Together with an Appendix. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from www.gutenberg.org/files/37696/37696-h/37696-h.htm Robinson, A. (1892). On the Incarnation of the Word. Buffalo. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm
Robinson, A. (1892). Against the Heathen. Buffalo. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from
Weinandy, T.G. (2007). Athanasius: A Theological Introduction. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Williams, R. (2004). Athanasius and the Arian Crisis. In G.R. Evans (Ed.), The First Christian Theologians (pp 157-167).Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Young, F.M. (2010). From Nicaea to Chalcedon. (2nded). London: SCM Press.
Young, F.M. (1975). Sacrifice and the Death of Christ. London: SCM Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment