89 twombly humanity of christ in athanasius

8/2/2019 89 Twombly Humanity of Christ in Athanasius

1/11

THE PATRIS TIC AND BYZANTINE REVIEWDevoted to Patr lst lc Tbeology and Eastern Church HistoryVOLUME 8 1989 NUMBER 3

EditorCONSTANTINE N. TSIRPANLIS, PH.D., TH.D.

Assis tant to the EditorCHRISTINE PAPPAS

Book Review EditorsJOHN E. REXINE, PH.D.

HENRY O. THOMPSON, PH.D.EDITORIAL BOARD

HARRY J. MAGOULIASARISTEIDES PAPADAKISCHARLES B. ASHANINJOHN REUMANNJEAN B. LAPORTEApOSTOLOS ATHANASSAKISPETRO B.T. BILANIUK

The Patristic and Byzantine Review (PER), is published triannuallyby the American Institute for Patristic and Byzantine Studies, Inc. (AIPBS).Patristic and Byzantine Review publishes original papers and reviewsin the fields of Patristics, Orthodox Theology, Byzantine History, EasternChurch History, and related Biblical, classical and philosophical studies.PER wi ll not conside r art icl es tha t have been publi shed or that are beingconsidered for publication elsewhere.Manuscript s should be typed double-spaced, with footnotes (al sodouble-spaced) placed at the end of the manuscript. Authors shouldretain a ca rbon copy, and enc lose a sel f-addressed stamped envelope.Two copies of any article should be submitted.Al l manuscripts, books for review, subscription orders, and editorialand business correspondence should be sent to: The, Patristic and Byzan-tine Review, RR 1, Box 353-A, Minuet Lane, Kingston, NY 12401.Tel.: 914 - 336-8797.Subsc ription ra tes, which include AIl'BS membership are $40 forone year: $20 student (faculty signature required). Individual i ssues:$20 each.


2/11

HISTORYIn M ay, 1981, a new center for research in New York City, known as theAMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR PATRISTIC AND BYZANTINE STUDIES,was founded' by a group of U niversity and Theological Sem inary Professorsh ead ed b y P ro fess or C on stan tin e N . T sirp anlis.The aim of the Institute is to prom ote scholarly research and publicationof the writings of the Eastern Church Fathers, as well as of other ecclesias-tical authors, historians, literary figures and philosophers of the OrthodoxOhurch of the Byzantine and post-Byzantine period, who are still unknownto B ng lish -sp ea kin g co un trie s, s in ce th eir w ork s rem ain u ntra nsla ted .Several distinguished American and Greek university professors andscholars of international reputation have becom e members of the AdvisoryB oard. The Institute is affiliated w ith E uropean, G reek and A merican universi-ties. The Fellow s of the Institute w ill be granted special residential and libraryfacilities. The Institute sponsors sem inars and annual conferences as w ell as at ri an n ua l p e ri o di ca l. The Patrist ic and Byzantine Review is d ev oted to P atristicT heo lo gy a nd C hu rc h a nd B yz an tin e H isto ry .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AR TICLESTHE FATHERS AND THE ApOCALYPSE:

A PSYCHOLOGICAL OVERVIEWThe Rt. Rev. Dr. Chrysostomos .CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA'S NOMOS THEOLOGY:

THE SHADOW, OR THE TRUE IMAGE OFTHINGS TO COME?Canon William Richardson .

INFLUENCES OF ANCIENT GREEK THOUGHT ONTHE HERESY OF ARIANISM (111 Greek)Prof. Andreas Theodorou .j THE NATURE OF CHRIST'S HUMi\ .NITA STUDY IN ATHANASIUSDr. Charles C. Twombly ........................

OFFICERSC ON ST ANT IN E N . T SI RP ANL lS , P H.D ., T H .D ., President-Founder, Professor ofChurch History, Patrist ics and Orthodox Theology, V.T.S. (Kingston, N.Y.)'J OH N E . R EX IN E, P H.D ., Vice-PresidentCHR IST INE PAPPAS, Secretary-Treasurer

ADVISORY BOARDT he P atriarc h a nd P op e o f A le xan dria P AR TH EN IO S IIIP ET ER T O P PI NG , D um ba rto n O ak sS IDNEYGR IF FI TH , C at ho li c Un iv er si ty o f Ame ri caD IM ITR IK I T SI KI S, Un iv er si ty o f O tt aw aJ OHN E . R EXINE, C o lg at e Un iv er si tyJOHNFLEMING ,P r i nc e to n Un i ve rs it yTHOMASSP IDL IK , P on ti fi ci o I st it ut o O ri en ta le ( Roma)DIMITER ANGELOV,Pro fe s sor (Sofia, Bulgaria)HENRY CHADWICK ,Un iv er si ty o f C amb ri dg eJ OHANNESKODER , Pr of es so r (W ie n, A u st ri a)Me tr op ol it an DR . CHRYSOSTOMOSKONSTANTIN IDE S, o f My ra ( Is ta nb ul )F. A rchbishop DR. M ETHODIOS FouYAs, England .M e tro po lit an EM IL IANOS T IM IAD IS , W o rld C ou nc il o f C hu rc he s, G en ev aB is ho p DR . K A L LI ST OSWAR ~, O x~ or d p ni ve rs it y .. .A NDR E DE HALL EUX ,C ath ol ic U ni ve rs it y o f LouvainDIMITR IOBOLENSKY,Ox f or d Un iv e rs it yJ OHNK ARM IR IS ,P re si de nt, A ca de my o f A th en sEVANGELOSTHEODOROU,De a n, A t h en s Un iv e rs it yANDREASTHEODOROU,A t he ns Un iv er si tyDUMITRUSTANILOAE,RomaniaRE INHARTSTAATS,Un iv e rs it y o f He i de lb e rgSEBASTIA NMA TCZAK,S t. J oh n' s U n iv er si tyA LE XIS K NIA ZE FF ,R ec to r, " St. S erg i u s" O rth od ox T he olo gic al In stitu te (P aris)S PEROSVRYONIS,New Yo r k Un i ve rs it yG . C . S T EAD ,Un iv er si ty o f C amb ri dg eG EORGEH . TAVARD ,T he M e th od is t T he olo gi ca l School i n O hioIHOR SEVCENKO ,Ha rv a rd Un i ve rs it yJOHANNESIRMSCHER,A cadem y of Science (Berlin) .HENRY CROUZEL,Ins ti tut Cathollque d e Tou lo u seH. J. W. DR IJ V ER S ,R ij ks un iv er si te it t e GroningenC . R IGG I, Un i ve rs it a P on ti fi ci a S al es ia na (Rorna)MICHAEL VANESBROECK,P on ti fi ci o I ns tit uto O rie nta le ( Ro ma )B R IG . G EN . P ERI CL E SVOULT SOS , PH .D ., N . L. G. A .W . V. A . ( N .Y . C. )

NOTES AND COMMENTSShould Church Leaders Tamper With Politics? .. , .An Orthodox View On Women's Ordination .

BOOK REVIEWSJON F. DECHOW, Dogma and Mysticism in EarlyChristianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacyof Origem(Constantine N. Tsirpanlis) .............. " .Saint Gregory Palamas: The One Hundredand Fifty Chapters(Constantine N. Tslrpanlis) ......................Church and Theology: An Ecclesiasticaland Theological Review(Constantine N. Tsirpanlis) ......................Texts and Studies: A Review for Hellenism in Dlaspora(Constantine N. Tsirpanlis) .

181

189

2 0 1

2 2 7

2 4 32 4 6

2 5 1

2 5 2

2 5 3

2 5 3

179


3/11

J. M. HUSSEY,The Orthodox Church inThe Byzantine Empire(Constantine N. Tsirpanlis) ....................... 254Justinian's Institutes(Constantine N. Tsirpanlis) 256Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works(Hell:~atreachesbeyond normal c gnition; that we are dealing WIth areas \t~at touchon the question of how we know things and on the great iS~}Iethat

, ' ,~*A paper ead at the Ninth International Patristic and Byzantine Sym.posium, Octo r 7, 1989, at Princeton University. '

181


4/11

The Journal of'Modern Greek StudiesOfficial Publicationof the Modern Greek Studies AssociationErnes ti ne Fr i ed l, Ed i tor

Praised as "a magni ficent scholarly journal" by Choice magazine,the J ou rn al o j M od er n G re ek S tu die s is the only scholarlyperiodical to focus exclusively on contemporary Greece. The jour- ,nal publishes first-rate cri tical analyses of Greek social, cultural,and pol iti cal affai rs , cover ing the per iod from late Byzant ineEmpire to the present. Contributors include internationallyrecognized scholars in the fields of history, l iterature,anthropology, polit ical science, Byzantine studies, and the classics.Sponsored by the Modern Greek Studies Association. Publishedtwice a year in May and O ctober. .

- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -S ta rt y ou r s ub sc ri pt io n t od ay !The Journal of Modem Greek Studieso $19 .DO/y ea r i n di vi d ua ls 0 $3 9. 00 i ns tit ut io ns

EA 9

lThis theme is developed throughout the various essays in Torrance'sThe010~Y i Reconciliation (Grand Rapids, 1976) but most especially inchapte , "Athanasius: A Study in the Foundations of Classical Theology,"215-26 . , k ; - J . f ? . - ,

payment options!o Check or money order enclosed, payable to The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.o Bill VISA 0 BillMasterCardCard # --'-_Exp. date _SignatureName

THE NATURE OF CHRIST'S HUMANITY:A STUDY IN ATHANASIUS

byDr. Charles C. TwomblyThe significance of Athanasius in establishing Nicene orthodoxyover the various forms of Arianism is universally acknowledged.But that significance is somewhat diminished for many scholarsbecause Athanasius's Christology appears to them to contain an in-adequate development of Christ's humanity. It is argued that a

human soul in Christ is missing altogether or that it is present buthas no active function. In either case, Athanasius would seem to'represent an incipient Apollinarianism in which the divine Logos, forall practical purposes, takes over the functions of a human mind.In recent years, this scholarly "orthodoxy" has been challengedby Thomas F. Torrance, who claims that the emphasis Athanasiusplaces on Christ's role as high priest, in which he takes unto himselfthe full character of humanity so that he can offerwhat is ours to God,not only requires a human soul but, in some sense, an active one aswell.' Itwill be the purpose of this paper to test Torrance's argument(1) by pitting him against Aloys Grillmeier, a leading contemporaryexponent of the prevailing scholarly opinion and (2) by examining

crucial passages in the writings of Athanasius, but chiefly the Ora-tiones contra Arianos, the principal document from which Torrancederives his argument.Before plunging into the debate, we need to layout two othermatters. The remainder of this section will contain a brief sketch ofearlier scholarly opinion as a way of setting the stage for more recentdiscussion, and the following section will present an overview of

Address

P re pa ym e nt r eq ui re d, F or ei gn p os ta ge . . $3 .5 0. C an ad a a nd M e xi co : $ 3. 50 o ut si deN or th A me ri ca . P ay me nt m us t b e d ra wn o rr II U .S . b an k o r m ad e b y i nt er na ti on alm o ne y o rd er . M ar yl an d r es id en ts a dd 5% s al e s l a x.

M ai l t o:T he J oh ns H op ki ns U ni ve rs it y P re ss , J ou rn al s D iv is io n7 01 W . 4 0th S t., S uite 2 75B a lt im o re , M a ry la nd 2 12 1 1

227


5/11

228 THE PATRISTIC AND BYZANTINE REVIEW The Nature of Christ's Humanity 229

Christ's Soul in Patristic Thoughts

figures like Irenaeus and Tertullian defined their understandings ofChrist's humanity. Both of these early Christian thinkers affirmedthe wholeness of Christ's humanity, a wholeness which entailed bothbody and soul. As the larger context reveals, this is what Irenaeusis affirming when he claims that Christ "became what we are in orderthat he might bring us to be even what he is himself.:" Tertullianechoes the same theme. But in both cases, the accent is placed onthe flesh, not because the soul is less important, but because, in thedocetic atmosphere of Gnosticism, it was the body that was at issue.For this reason, Tertullian can say, "The salvation of the soul Ibelieve needs no discussion; for almost all heretics, in whateverway they accept it, at least do not deny it."? Already, according toMaurice Wiles, we have in Tertull ian the ant i-Apoll inarian principleof Gregory Nazianzen: "What is not assumed is not healed.?" OtherLatin writers such as Hippolytus and Hilary likewise affirm a huinansoul, although Novatian perhaps denies it."

In the East, Origen seems to have shared the same soteriologicalconcern that propelled Tertullian. In his Dialogue with Herakleides,he maintained: "The whole man would not have been saved unlesshe had taken upon himself the whole man.t"? But Origen, with hispeculiar notion about the pre-existence of Christ's human soul (apre-existence it shared with all souls), affirmed other things as well:he maintained the complete perfection of Christ's soul, as distinctfrom thepremundane fall of other souls, and saw for it a mediatingrole linking Logos and flesh in a union which might otherwise havebeen impossible.

An interesting development takes. place after Origen, Reactingto the adoptionistic tendencies of Paul of Samosata, who insisted ona sharp break between the Logos and the human person who wasJesus, Origenists like Malchion and Pamphilus became increasinglyuneasy with the notion of a human soul, because its presence ap-peared to compromise the unity of the person of Christ. And yet thenotion could not be simply opposed because it was so firmly em-bedded in the language of Scripture. It therefore tended to be ignoredrather than openly repudiated.entitled "The Nature of the Early Debate about Christ's Human Soul," Journalo f E c cl es ia s ti ca l H i st o ry , XVI (1965), 139151.Additional discussion is foundin Wiles's The Making pf Chri st ian Doctr ine (Cambridge, 1967), 5659.6Ad ve r su s Ha e re s es , V. i , 1. (Quoted in Wiles, "Ear ly Debate," 140).7De Res. Carn., ii. (Quoted in Wiles, op. cit., 141).8Wiles, lococi t .9 Ib id . , 141 -142 .

lOQuoted,i bi d ., 1 4 2.

various Patristic understandings of Christ's humanity with regard tothe presence or absence of a human soul." ,The initial debate over Athanasius's understanding might bedated somewhat roughly as beginning at the turn of the century.

Following an earlier lead given by F. C. Baur, two studies appearedin 1899 by ~. Hoss and A. Stillcken." Both concluded that Athana-sius gave no recognition of Christ having a human soul. G. Voisin,in the following year, on the basis of a study of Athanasius's anthro-pology, concluded that a human soul in Christ was truly implied, ifnot expl icitly aff irmed. General ly speaking, Voisin's rebuttal has notwon much assent. The more recent (1947') study of M. Richard,focusing on a small section of Contra Arianos (III: 35-37), concludesin favor of the negative assessment of Hoss and Stillcken. Richard'sargument' is based largely on the apparent reluctance of Athanasius,in the face of Arian denials of both Christ's divinity and his human-ity, to affirm the humanity as fully and clearly as he does the divinity.The assumption Richard makes is that, since Athanasius was atpains to point out the errors of the Arians and to distinguish thoseerrors from the orthodox position, he must have shared the Ariannotion that Christ's humanity was somehow other than ours. Grill-meier's position, which will be set forth more fully in a later section,sees the possibility of an evolution in Athanasius's thought, an evo-lution which may have come to acknowledge a human soul butnever found any theological function for it.

. The general drift of modern scholarship, then, .ls to see thehuman soul in Christ, for Athanasius, as either non-existent 01' ofnegligible significance. It is against this drift that Torrance makeshis counter case. Before we present that case, however, we need tolayout a brief history of changing notions of Christ's soul inpatristicthought.

Gnostic ism provided the backdrop against which second-century2The material for this sketch is drawn from the helpful discussions ofJohannes Quasten, Patrology, Volume III (Westminster, 1960, 7276: andAloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition (New York, 1965), 195.196.3Complete bibliographical references to these and the remaining studiesall~ded to in thi s section will be found in Quasten, op, cit., 76; and Grill-meter, op. cit ., 195-196.4Setforth in Grillmeier, loco ci t .5This section relies mainly on Maurice Wiles's exceedingly useful essay


6/11

230 THE PATRISTIC AND BYZANTINE REVIEW The Nature of Christ's Humanity 231It is .this development which, according to Wiles, prepared thecommon ground upon which such fierce opponents as the Ariansand Athanasius stood. He notes, with Grillmeier and Richard thath A , ,w en nus wished to show the creatureliness of the Logos, he didnet bethel' to deny the human soul of Christ first; and when Athana-

sius attacked the notion of creatureliness, he did not do so on thebasis of Christ's full humanity."! As will be noted later Torrancedissents from this interpretation, but, at this point, it can be seento have at least surface plausibility.It should be pointed out that another trajectory, a minoritydevelopment, was revealing itself at this time. Eustathius of Antioch,harking back to Tertullian and Origen, affirmed the full humanityof Christ, equating "flesh" with both body and soul. That an extremeform of this position emerged as the so-called Nestorian heresy isnet part of our present story. What is germane is that the two tra-jectories seem to have achieved something of a merger at the synodof Alexandria, in 362, over which Athanasius presided. Out of this

synod came Athanasius's Tomus ad Antiochenos, with its oft-quotedparagraph seven, a passage of disputed meaning which appears tobe affirming the full humanity, body and soul, of Christ. We willlook mere closely at that later. At this point, we note that Wilessees, in the Tomus, Athanasius in the process of bringing togethertwo different viewpoints which had arisen in the first place becausethey attempted to understand Christ in relation to two quite differentissues.P Those whose primary concern was with the unity of Christ'sperson and the unique character of the incarnation had feared that ahu~an soul might reduce Christ to the level of an inspired prophet;while those whose primary concern was with salvation saw in theabsence of a soul the possibility that the whole of human nature hadnot been brought into the realm of redemption. Wiles asserts that,though Athanasius never seems to have made theological use ofChrist' s human soul, he nevertheless can be credited with helping:~ reu?it~ soteriological and incarnational perspectives." For Wiles,the significance of the Tomus ad Antiochenos is that it reveals theresurrection of the original soteriological argument as the one wayin which the main body of the Eastern Church was enabled to. feelat all at home with the idea of Christ's human soul."14The story~thy point is not our prin.cipal concern buttu, 145. \#'\~l2Ibid., 147~148.- \tu, 147.l4Ibid., 148.

should be alluded to briefly. Apollinaris, of course, opposed a humansoul but did so, apparently, on soteriological grounds. For him,souls are inherently prone to errol' and inconstancy; if Christ hadpossessed one, he could not truly be savior. But by Apo1linaris'stime, the "not assumed, not healed" equation, which was a threadrunning from Gregory Nazianzen all the way back to Irenaeus andperhaps further, had become a settled conviction. And entailed inthis conviction was the assumption that the human soul neededhealing asmuch as the "flesh."Later patristic thinkers, whether "Antiochene" D r "Alexan-drian," agreed then on the presence of a human soul in Christ andmerely differed on whether its role was largely active or passive. Thesoteriological issue, in either case, was seen as fundamental.

Aloys Grillmeier: A Passive Human Soul?Readers of Grillmeier know how extensively he uses two frame-works, Logos-sarx and Logos-anthropos, to delineate the variousChristological positions. He finds the first framework spacious enoughto include Arius, Athanasius, Apollinaris and the Alexandriansgenerally." Since Athanasius was certainly concerned for the unityof Christ's person and would certainly have repudiated the notionof two subjects, such a chara.cterization does not seem unjust.What Grillmeier attempts to do in his analysis of Athanasius'sChristology, an analysis by the way which is taken up entirely withthe issue of the human soul, is to reopen the whole issue of theunderstanding of Christ's humanity and to do so in a way whichrefuses to prejudge the matter on the basis of arguments from silence.Grillmeier believes that the silence to which M. Richard appealed,for instance, needed positive substantiation."Grillmeier sees at work in Athanasius a strong commitment tothe Stoic-Alexandrine Logos doctrine, in which the Logos is seenas "the force from which all life and all movement comes.''" Withinthis frame, the human soul is a microcosmic logos, doing for the bodywhat the Logos does for the world (including bodies) as a whole."Since it is, in a real sense, a copy of the greater Logos, the pressingChristological question becomes, did the Logos completely over-

15Grillmeier, op, clt., 193.l6Ibid., 195-196.uu; 197.18This discussion is based on the section in Grillmeier's work entitled"The Act iv ity of the Logos in Christ 's Humanity," 197-203.


7/11

232 THE PATRISTIC AND BYZANTINE REVIEWwhelm, if not entirely replace, the human soul in Christ? As Grill-meier states, "St. Athanasius' view might be put, in these words:Where the original itself appears with all its power, the copy, withits secondary and derived power, must at least surrender its function,even if it does not give place altogether.P'" But, at this point in hisanalysis, Gri llmeier refrains from drawing the ful l implications of thisline of reasoning and merely concludes that Athanasius tends toforget the human soul in his concern for the life-giving power ofthe Logos."

It perplexes Grillmeier, however, as it has other scholars, whyAthanasius did not make an aggressive attack upon certain vulner-able features of Arianism. The Arians, for instance, took the varioussigns of Christ's humanity (suffering, ignorance, hunger, etc.) assigns of his basic creatureliness. Athanasius could have met those

. charges by attributing manifestations of finitude to a fully humannature. Instead, he seemed to dodge the issue by making indicationsof weakness in Christ to be mere appearances or somehow to belocated entirely in the flesh. Grillmeier expresses the matter in thisfashion:

Athanasius displays a general tendency to weaken thecharacter of certain of Christ's inner experiences whichmight be attributed to a human soul so as to dissociatethe Logos from them from the start. Thus Christ's anguishwas only "feigned," and not real anguish; his ignoranceWas no real ignorance, but only an ignoratia d e ju re , whichwas proper to the human nature from the start. Not onlydoes such a qualification relieve the pressure on the Logositself, but it also raises the possibility of representing thehuman sarx of Christ as the subject of such affections as weshould properly ascribe to the soul. As a result, we haveAthanasius' remarkable procedure of making the "flesh"of Chris t the physical subject of experiences which normallyhave their place in the soul. He can speak of an "ignoranceof the flesh" in which the term "sarx" clearly begs thewhole question."

Several problematic features of Athanasius' position are nicely laidout here. But it may be that Grillrneier's own statement of theproblems begs a few questions as well. What, for instance, does

19Grillmeier, op, cit., 198.201bid., 199.iu, 202-203.

T he N atu re o f C hr is t's H um an ity 233flesh really mean for Athanasius? G. Voisin, an early defender ofthe position that Athanasius affirmed a human soul in Christ, triedto build his case on the way certain words like "anthropos" wereused by Athanasius.P Grillmeier points out some of the obviousdrawbacks of this approach, noting the imprecision with which manywords were used at this stage of theological discussion. Cyril, forinstance, would later on use the term "flesh" to refer to Christ'sentire humanity, body and soul; at the same time, Eusebius ofCaesarea and Apollinaris could speak of "man" (human) to indicateChrist's soulless body. But, granted the terminological ambiguity,why might not Athanasius have meant something like Cyril whenhe at tributed ignorance to Christ's flesh? This question is interjectedat this point, not to be answered, but to suggest a possible way ofopening up the discussion and revealing multiple possibilities ininterpreting Athanasius,

But there are additional considerations pointing in the directionof a soulless body, and Grillmeier notes these. Prominent amongthem is the way Athanasius describes Christ's death. There are pass-ages'" which suggest that in the dying the Logos was separated fromthe body, the former descending to Hades and the latter remainingin the tomb. Even here, however, there are ambiguities. To illus-trate this division of Logos and sarx, Grillmeier cites a passage fromc on tr a A r ia n os (III: 57). It contains Athanasius's comments on twopassages: John 12;27 ("Now is my soul troubled.") and John10: 18 ("I have power to lay my soul down, and I have power totake it up again."). In reference to these, Athanasius says: 24

For to be tro uble d Was proper to the fle sh, and tohave power to lay down his life and take it again, when hewill, was no property of men but of the Word's power.For man dies, not by his own power, but by necessity ofnature and against his will; but the Lord, being himselfimmorta l, had power as God to becom e separate from thebody and to take it again when he would.

Grillmeier notes, significantly, that Athanasius understands thebiblical word, "soul," in this context, to mean merely "life." And hepoints out how nicely the separation of God from the body fits into a straightforward Logos-sarx scheme. But he makes nothing of

22See the discussion in the first section.23SeeGrillmeier, op. cit., 204-205.24lbid., 204 (emphasis added).


8/11

234 THE PATRISTIC AND BYZANTINE REVIEW The Nature of Christ's Humanity 235the opening phrase: "For to be troubled was proper to the flesh."Is a mere body capable of being troubled? Do we have here "an-other" instance of Athanasius attributing to the flesh what is ordin-arily attributed to the soul? Or does Athanasius's understanding of"flesh" include some notion of soul as well? These are questions tokeep in mind as we go through the next two sections.We conclude this section by looking briefly at a famous andcontroversial passage in Athanasius's Tomus ad Antiochenos, TheTomus was written as a summation of the deliberations of the synodof Alexandria, which Athanasius had convened in 362, in order todraw various factions together. Grillmeier draws our attention toa significant part of the passage just alluded to:25

For they confessed also that the Savior had not a bodywithout a soul, nor without sense or intelligence; for it wasnot possible, when the Lord had become man for us, thatHis body should be without intelligence: nor was the sal-vation effected in the Word himself a salvation of bodyonly, but of soul also.

So despite his clear exclusion of the soul of Christas a "theological factor" we may still consider it possiblethat his picture of Christ knew a human soul as a "physicalfactor." The Tomus of 362 is an indication of this possi-bility, but the last word has probably not yet been spoken.

Thomas F. Torrance: Vicarious HumanityOne effort at a last word is that of T. F. Torrance, who, byfocusing on the emphasis Athanasius places on Christ acting as a"human" on our behalf has offered the possibility of a new way ofinterpreting Athanasius: This section will giv.e a brief expo~itionof his views before we turn to crucial passages 111he contra Arianosupon which he bases his case.Torrance's thought is complex and involves a whole rang~ ofissues far transcending the matter of interpreting the nature of Chnst'shumanity in Athanasius, Of necessity, we will limit ourselves tofocusing on two major areas: the nature of "flesh" and the nature ofvicarious humanity.Modern interpreters of Athanasius seize on the almost completeabsence, in Athanasius, of references to Christ's soul. The apparentlyclear-cut statements of Tomus ad Antiochenos are, as our last sec-tion indicated, subject to various interpretations. T~rrance h.as a

different way of approaching the issue based on hIS analysis ofAthanasius as having performed a monumental feat, that of over-coming Hellenistic dualism and establishin~ Christian doctrine. on 'anon-dualistic basis." The dualism Athanasius combatted had impli-cations for many areas of theology, but can be seen perhaps moststrikingly in Arianism. There, what God is intrinsically was cut offfrom God's own Logos who, as a creature, belonged with us, leav~ngGod ultimately unknowable. Torrance sees the dualism WhIChAthanasius (and Cyril) set aside as coming back into Westerntheology and becoming firmly embedded there in the thought. ofAugustine, who saw reality divided into intelligible and sensiblerealms, somewhat in opposition to each other 01' at least not mutu-ally transparent. . . . . .This continuing dualistic mode of th111k111gorrance sees atwork in Grillmeier and others, who work with distinctions likeLogos-sarx and Logos-anthropos as if they were the only frameworkswithin which the early Christological positions could be understood.PThe tendency of such frameworks is perhaps to assume such a d.is-junction between the spiritual and natural worlds that a body WIthits own soul would, almost of necessity, have to be an independentsubject; while for God the Logos to be the sUb)ect of a body wouldapparently require the absence or at least quiescence of a humansoul.

2BSeenote one.29Torrance, op, cit., 225-226, 229.

On the surface, this would seem a clear affirmation of the presenceand importance of a human soul in Christ. But Grillmeier arguesthat the disputed phrase (on oo aWl-la cX:tjJuxov)can as plausiblybe translated "not a lifeless body" as "not a body without a soul."26Whether a case can be made for leaning either one way or the otherwill be mentioned later. Here, we note that Grillmeier concludes, inlight of what is perhaps Athanasius's clearest statement on the mat-ter, that it is still uncertain whether Athanasius affirmed a soul. Hisassessment is this: 27

251 u se the translation found in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace's editionof the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), Volume IV: St.Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Grand Rapids, n.d.), 485. The refer-ence is to Tomus ad Antiochenos, 7.26Grillmeier, GP. cit., 213-214.tu, 216.


9/11

236 THE PATRISTIC AND BYZANTINE REVIEWOne might argue that it is because of the rigidity of the aboveframeworks that Grillmeier stumbles over phrases like "ignorance ofthe flesh." Rather than re-working his conceptual scheme, Grillmeierattributes some kind of confusion to Athanasius. Torrance, on theother hand, sees in the attribution of various mental and emotional

qualities to ! j;~y "flesh" a basis for affirming that Athanasius fre-quently uses "flesh," in a fashion reminiscent of the Bible, to meanfull humanity, body and soul." A few examples will have to sufficeat this point. In Contra Arianos, in reference to John's claim that"the Word became flesh," Athanasius notes that it is "the custom ofScripture to call man by the name of 'flesh'" and then illustratesthis by a quotation from Joel in which humankind is obviously thereferent." A similar Use of "flesh" is seen in the Letter to Epictetusin which Athanasius states that "He [Christ] assumed on our behalfliving flesh, and has become Man. For to say 'the Word becameflesh' is equivalent to saying 'the Word has become man.' "32 Onthe basis of passages like these, then, Torrance sees a rather differ-ent significance in a phrase like "ignorance of the flesh." He finds itunnecessary to suggest that Athanasius has transferred to the bodyemotions which properly belong to the soul. Such a transfer, apartfrom its basic implausibility, would indicate a dualistic split betweenmind and body, a split which is contrary to the non-dualistic ap-proach, Torrance. argues, is characteristic of Athanasius's thought.

But the primary point Torrance attempts to make is that Christas fully human had an important role to perform on our behalf andas our representative. In his understanding, Athanasius maintainedthat'"in the Incarnation the Son of God ministered not only ofthe things of God to man but ministered of the things ofman to God. That is to say, he understood the humanityof him Who is not only Apostle from God but High Priesttaken from among men, and the saving work of Christ interms of his human as well as his divine agency-it is thehuman priesthood and the saving mediatorship of JesusChrist in and through his human kinship with us thatAthanasius found so significant.30lbid., 226. Numerous cita tions from Athanasius are given in footnotetwo. 31II1:30j Schaff and Wace, op. cit., 410.32Ad Epictetum, 8. Schaff and Wace, op. cit., 573.33Torrance, op, cit., 228 (emphasis in original).

The Nature of Christ's Humanity 237In order to act on behalf of humanity, then, Christ must hin~self behuman. Torrance proceeds to argue in this fashion, emploYl~g notso much the surface meanings of various pas~ages as attempting topenetrate behind these surfac~s to the unde~lYlllgtheological reason-ing that connects them and gives them their full meaning. .

This way of dealing with the issue gives to his argumentation arather indirect basis. Rather than being able to find. s~ppo~t f?rChrist's full humanity in dear-cut statements, he ?n~s it implied ~nthe numerous passages dealing with the Word's life 111 t~e ~esh.' 111which the Word undergoes various things for our sakes. ThISvicanousexperience which the Word undergoes is so ~mportant beca~se,according to Torrance's interpretatio~ of Ath~n.s~us,the. r~demph?nwhich we receive takes place primarily and initially within the 111-carnate Logos 34 According to the Tomus ad Antiochenos, "the sal-. , h L hi If "35vation of soul and body were worked out 111 t e ogos rmseu.Grillmeier, working as he does out of a different conceptual scheme,takes these same words to imply that the Logos accomplished ourredemption in a fashion that did not require our participation. Whatwas accomplished within the Logos becomes the subsequent causeof the redemption of the whole person, but does not apparently. Christ 36require the presence of the whole person 11 1 ns .

For Torrance, however, the interpretation Gri1~m~ier gives ishopelessly dualistic ~nd, .the~efore,. .fals~ to. AthanaslUs.s own con-ceptuality. What is implied 1 11 Grillmeier IS a separation betweenChrist and the rest of humanity, so that Christ can only save us by,so to speak, acting upon us from the outside. This is how Torranceputs it:37

In the Western Church, owing partly to the reintro-duction of dualism into theology through St. Augustine, andpartly to the anthropocentric an~ forensic cast ?f mind de-riving from Tertullian, the doctrine of ~edemptlOntends .tobe expounded in terms of external relations between Christand sinful people, and so the judicial element assumes arole of predominant significance. This is even ~~or~pro-nounced in Protestant theology, where the rehabilitation ofAugustinian dualism, in the new dy~amic ?utlook of thepost-Reformation world, led to an mcreasmg number ofue; 229.35Tomus ad Ant iochenos 7 .36Grillmeier, op. cit ., 211.37Torrance, op, cit., 230, (emphasis added).


10/11

23 8 THE PATRISTIC AND BYZANTINE REVIEW The Nature of Christ's Humanity 23 9monogtaphs on the atonement. That sort of thing didnot, and could not, arise in Greek patristic thought becausein its non-dualistic outlook Incarnation and Redemptionare inseparably one. For Athanasius, i t is everywhere ap-parent, the incarnational assumption of our fallen AdamichumanityJrom the Virgin Mary was essentially a sanctifyingand redeeming event, for what Christ took up into himself,the whole man, he healed and renewed through his ownholy life of obedient Sonship in the flesh, and his vicariousdeath and resurrection.

the affections of the body were proper to Him alone,though they did not touch Him according to His Godhead.(Contra Arianos, III:32).

From Torrance's point of view, the Incarnation, both in its narrowersense, as the initial uniting of humanity and divinity, and in' itslarger sense as embracing the whole of Christ's life, is itself redemp-tive and, as such, requires the presence of full humanity. How suchan understanding is illustrated, or otherwise, in Athanasius, will beexamined now.

Athanasius's concern to state that human flesh was put on "whole"suggests that something more than a mere body was involved in theIncarnation. That that something more was a human soul is sug-gested by the term "affections." Humanness in its wholeness seemsessential in Athanasius's soteriological scheme: in the followingparagraph, we read: " ... had not the properties of the flesh beenascribed to the Word, man had not been thoroughly delivered fromthem" (III: 33). This is "not assumed, not healed" language pointingto human salvation as taking place within the life of the incarnateLogos.

B. Christ's Growth as a HumanChrist's Vicarious Humanity: Select Passages fromCONTRA ARIANOS

And as we said that He suffered in the flesh, andhungered in the flesh, and was fatigued in the flesh, soalso reasonably may He be said to have advanced in theflesh.... but the manhood advanced in Wisdom, transcend-ing by degrees human nature, and being deified . . .(III:S3).The illustrative passages examined in this section are drawnfrom the citations upon which Torrance builds his case. Needlessto say, each passage has a larger context, ultimately the whole ofthe Contra Arianos and, beyond that, Athanasius's entire corpus.This is pointed out merely to mark how exceedingly tentative anyconclusions must be which are erected on such a slender base. Atthe same time, however, there is a clarity to many of Athanasius's

utterances which might well give us confidence that the conclusionswe do reach will not be overturned by more intensive study. Thepassages" that follow are grouped around certain themes: Christ'saffections, his growth, his ignorance and his death.

The thrust of this passage seems to offset Grillmeier's contentionthat Jesus's growth in wisdom, along with the other "human" traitsbe manifested, was somehow a charade and, therefore, not rea1.(See pages 231-2, supra.) Once again, the humanity of Jesus is seenas undergoing transformation "on our behalf." Growth is, therefore,not so much the progressive unveiling of the incarnate Logos tohumankind as it is the progressive deification of human nature in the"representative" person (cf. II:76).

A. Christ's Human AffectionsIt became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to putit on whole with the affections proper to it; that as wesay that the body was His own, so also we may say that

C. Christ's Ignorance... He made this [declaration of ignorance] as man byreason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word'sdeficiency, but of that human nature whose property it isto be ignorant. . . . for since He was made man, He is notashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant, to sayS8All are taken from the translation found in Schaff and Wace, op. cit.,306-447.


11/11

240 THE PATRISTIC AND BYZANTINE REVIEW~~Iknow not," that He may show that knowing as God,He is but ignorant according to the flesh (III :43 ) .

On Grillrneier's reckoning, the Word can only "feign" ignorancebecause it has not really taken unto itself the limitations of a humanmind. Torrance's approach provides a way of understanding theignorance of Jesus as real, though voluntarily assumed. This real,but voluntary, character of Jesus's ignorance is illustrated for Athana-sius in the raising of Lazarus; for the same one who raised this manfrom the dead had first to ask where he was laid. Why did he needto do this? According to Athanasius, " ... for the All~holy Wordof God, who endured all things for our sakes, did this, that so carry-ing our ignorance, He might vouchsafe to us the knowledge of 'His... Father, and of Himself ... " (III:38), a knowledge ( we aretold later) by which "He might hallow and deify" us (111:39). Thevicarious assumption of our whole humanity, so that it might betransformed within the Logos, again stands out as the most effectiveway of understanding passages such as this.D. Christ's Death

Since then the Word, being the Image of the Fatherand immortal, took the form of the servant, and as manunderwent for us death in His flesh, that thereby He mightoffer Himself for us through death to the Father . .. (1:41).If we are offered to the Father through Christ's death, then we, insome real sense, must be present in that death. This profoundlyvicarious element is missing in Grillmeier, who seems to see Christ 'sredemptive activity as something which he did within himself, 'whichsubsequently becomes available as a power acting on humankind asan "external" force. For Torrance, the vicarious activity of Christconsists not in something done "in Ourplace" but "for us." Christ'srole is not that of "substitute" but of "deifier." And as deifier, hemust take on all that is ours.

Concluding RemarksThe few fragments of the Contra Arianos which we have brieflycommented on can hardly be claimed as having established' Tor-

rance's case. But the mark of a good theory is that it makes the best

The Nature of Christ's Humanitysense of the known evidence. From that standpoint, it seems to methat Torrance offers an explanation for elements in Athanasius thatGrillmeier's approach fails to account for. By focusing on Christ' srole as vicarious representative of humankind, he throws light on thecharacter of Christ's humanity. Grillmeier, by focusing more nar-rowly on the issue of a human soul, seems to miss the fruitful impli-cations arising out of the larger theme. Perhaps he represents thedanger of someone who forces a rather rigid (and perhaps alien)scheme on another's thought without letting that thought suggestthe categories by which it might best be understood.

DON'T MISS THE BOAT-b ecom e a SUBSCRIBER !

Please accept our invitation to receive ARGOat a special rate ... Six exciting issues for just $18.That's 25% off the cover price!

A ._.R ._.G .. 0 THE MAGAZINE OF GREEK HISTORY,HERITAGE AND CULTURE

2170 BROADWAY /SUITE 2122NEW YORK, NY 10024212 / 691~4321

NAMEADDRESSCITY ..,._;__ STATE _,_ ZIP _TEL. (__ )10 pAYMENT ENCLOSED o PLEASE BILL [ME

241

89 twombly humanity of christ in athanasius

Documents