This is part 8 of the series blogging through the book On the Incarnation by Athanasius. You might want to start with part 1 and work your way through the series.
In the last entry we explored Athanasius’ view on mankind as beings that were created as moral creatures who enjoyed immortality through their participation with the Word Jesus. In describing how man was to enjoy God forever, Athanasius quotes Psalm 81 and asserts that we are gods.
And being incorruptible, [human beings] would have lived thereafter like God, as somewhere the Divine Scripture also signals, saying “I said you are gods, and all sons of the Most High; but you die like human beings and fall like any prince” (Ps 81.6–7).
(On the Incarnation ch 4)1
The idea of saying “we are gods” would draw the ire of most modern Christian readers. Yet consider the more famous statement from Athanasius as he wraps up his work that says the same thing in rather blunt terms.
For [the Word of God] was incarnate that we might be made god. (On the Incarnation ch 54)
Before we write off Athanasius, let’s explore this topic a bit further. It was for this very purpose that C.S. Lewis, in the preface, advises us to read the old books. To understand the outlook of a different age and see certain truths from their perspective, perhaps learning from their mistakes or seeing clearer our own.
“We might be made god”. If we were to interpret this statement in a wooden literal sense we would get Athanasius all wrong. Just as we can often err when doing the same with the Scriptures themselves. Athanasius is not claiming that humans would become deities or advocating some form of polytheism. Nor should we think that in saying “we might be made god” that he was a radical teaching something novel.
The idea that humans would be “made divine” was to suggest we would become partakers of the divine nature.
For He has become Man, that He might deify us in Himself, … and [we might become] ‘partakers of the Divine Nature,’ as blessed Peter wrote (2 Peter 1:4)
(Athanasius to Adelphius in Letter 60.4)2
The idea being referred to here is called deification or theosis. It was a commonly held idea throughout early Christianity. In fact, by the mid to late 2nd century, we find the concepts involved in theosis in many extant writings by writers living throughout the Roman Empire. From Hippolytus in Rome (Refutation of All Heresies Book 10.30), Theophilus in Antioch (To Autolycus Book 2.27), Irenaeus in Lyons (Against Heresies Book 3.19), Tertullian in Carthage (Against Hermogenes chap 5) and Clement in Alexandria (Exhortation to the Heathen chap 1, 10) we find all of them at some point describing man as being “made gods”.3 That theologians held this idea across such a large geographic area by the mid 2nd century suggests that the view was widely held even earlier as it would have taken time to spread and gain traction.
So just what was the idea behind theosis?
Theosis is not a view that is common in Western Christianity, though it is still held in Eastern Orthodoxy. It is beyond the scope of this series to explore and compare the view held today by adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy with what Athanasius or the early church held. One may assume that the basic ideas espoused by these early theologians have evolved in the millennia that have followed. Instead we will touch on the comments found in the works of Athanasius and other early theologians to flush out the basic ideas of what this doctrine entails.
For [the Word of God] was incarnate that we might be made god
As noted already, the idea of people being “made gods” does not assert that we were or would become divine beings. Instead it was understood that through participation with God we are able to share in His divine life and possess eternal life.
We saw some of this in Athanasius already when he described our mortality being “blunted” by our participation with the Word before the Fall. As one was joined with Christ we were able to enjoy immortality. A blessing that ended when we turned our focus away from the Word.
The doctrine of theosis appears to be an attempt to answer the question: how does a mortal human being become immortal? In a different work, Athanasius is writing against various Arian doctrines, particularly their denial of Jesus, being part of the Godhead, as eternally existent.
Thus both [the Jews and Arians] deny the Eternity and Godhead of the Word in consequence of those human attributes which the Saviour took on Him by reason of that flesh which He bore.
(Against the Arians Discourse 3 chap 26.27)
In defending the Eternal nature of the Word, Athanasius tries to address the question: “Why did the Word become flesh at all?” One of the reasons offered is in asking how would a mortal being become an immortal being.
And this being so, no heretic shall object, ‘Wherefore rises the flesh, being by nature mortal? and if it rises, why not hunger too and thirst, and suffer, and remain mortal? for it came from the earth, and how can its natural condition pass from it?’ since the flesh is able now to make answer to this so contentious heretic, ‘I am from earth, being by nature mortal, but afterwards I have become the Word’s flesh,’ … For if you object to my being rid of that corruption which is by nature, see that you object not to God’s Word having taken my form of servitude; for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh, and henceforward inherit life ‘everlasting.’
(Against the Arians Discourse 3 chap 26.34)4
The answer to the question, how does the moral become immortal, was that humans must be associated with the human body of our Lord. Athanasius will go on to elaborate on this concept. He suggests, if I am reading him rightly, that there is huge disconnect between the mortal nature of human beings and the immortal nature of God. These two disparate natures can’t readily be joined together. There needs to be a bridge allowing the two to be connected. Jesus, being both man and God, is the important link required to unite what we are by nature (physical mortal beings) and what God is by nature. Thus, when we are joined to him, we are “defied” and can enjoy immortality.
For man had not been deified if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very God; nor had man been brought into the Father’s presence, unless He had been His natural and true Word who had put on the body. And as we had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had been by nature human flesh, which the Word put on (for we should have had nothing common with what was foreign), so also the man had not been deified, unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and true and proper to Him. For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification might be sure.
(Against the Arians Discourse 2 chap 21.70)5
This union with Christ is the essential element to our ability to receive eternal life. We have all read passages that state that Christ is in us (2 Cor 13:5; Col 1:27). We have also read passages that we are placed in Christ (Gal 3:26-28; Eph 2:13). These ideas describe different aspects of our union with Christ and are the central concept of theosis. We find both in Athanasius.
First we see that we are defined when we are in Him.
For therefore did He assume the body originate and human, that having renewed it as its Framer, He might deify it in Himself, and thus might introduce us all into the kingdom of heaven after His likeness.
(Against the Arians Discourse 2 chap 21.70) 6
And we are also defied when He is in us.
… we are sons and gods because of the Word in us, so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is in us, which is in the Word which is in the Father.
(Against the Arians Discourse 3 chap 25.25) 7
While Athanasius, to the best of my knowledge, has not left a treatise dedicated to working out the doctrine of deification we are able to pull together these threads to capture what he believed was an essential part of the Incarnation of Jesus.
In closing this post out, we will look at two excerpts written around 150 or so years before Athanasius. The first is from Irenaeus a late 2nd century bishop who affirmed what Athanasius taught. The mortal could not receive immortality unless it was first united to that which was incorruptible and immortal. This union could only occur if that which was incorruptible and immortal, referring to Jesus, also became a physical being as we are.
But, being ignorant of Him who from the Virgin is Emmanuel, they are deprived of His gift, which is eternal life; and not receiving the incorruptible Word, they remain in mortal flesh, and are debtors to death, not obtaining the antidote of life. To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: I said, You are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but you shall die like men. … For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons?
(Against Heresies Book 3.19)8
Theophilus of Antioch was another theologian and bishop in the late 2nd century, making him a contemporary of Irenaeus. He wrote three books describing Christianity to Autolycus. He is briefly referenced in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories Book 4.24.
This post has gotten a bit long, but I found this excerpt interesting in light of Athanasius’ view that human beings are by nature mortal. In describing the nature of man, Theophilus straddles the fence. Unlike Athanasius who claimed humans were made mortal by nature, Theophilus sees humans as pliable by nature. We were neither mortal nor immortal but a being capable of either. Had mankind not transgressed, he argues, we would have been immortal and “should become God”. This, as we have learned, refers to the doctrine of theosis.
But some one will say to us, Was man made by nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we affirm this. But one will say, Was he, then, nothing? Not even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God; but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power over himself. That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him.
(To Autolycus Book 2.27)9
In closing, the doctrine of theosis was answering the question of how mortal human beings could become immortal. It placed a strong emphasis on the Incarnation of the Word becoming a human being to make this possible. While we may not want to adopt the terminology of the early church, we can (hopefully) affirm the answer they gave to that question. We receive the gift of incorruptibility and immorality when we are united with Christ.
- Athanasius, Saint, Patriarch of Alexandria. On the Incarnation: Saint Athanasius (Popular Patristics Series Book 44) (p. 50-51). St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Kindle Edition. ↩︎
- Letter 60 (To Adelphius)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806060.htm ↩︎ - Early Christian Authorities Teach Theosis
https://new-god-argument.com/support/christian-authorities-teach-theosis.html ↩︎ - https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.iv.html ↩︎
- https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/npnf204.xxi.ii.iii.viii.html ↩︎
- https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/npnf204.xxi.ii.iii.viii.html ↩︎
- https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.iii.html#fna_xxi.ii.iv.iii-p124.1 ↩︎
- https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103319.htm ↩︎
- https://ccel.org/ccel/theophilus/autolycus_ii/anf02.iv.ii.ii.xxvii.html ↩︎
Dead Heroes Don't Save 