De Incarnatione' of St Athanasius - Essay Example

Summary of De Incarnatione of St. Athanasius Prior to the Arian controversy, which started in 319, Athanasiuswas one of the most well-known theological theorists and in addition to publishing the incarnation of the word, he also had an essay titled ‘against the gentiles’. These and most of his works other essays are apologetic treatises whose objective is to contend controversial matters such as monotheism and the necessity of divine intervention for the ultimate salvation of humankind based on the Christian doctrines. He came to be known for his assertion that Jesus was the God- Man and arguing Christians to respect the notion and essential divinity implied. His career was however a rocky one since he stood firm in his beliefs even when they were in contradiction with those held by the powers that be which often lead to prosecution. He was a key participant in the council of Nicaea and although he was not a formal council member his opinions and contributions were valued and respected (Lewis, 2004). This paper undertakes to examine his writings with special emphasis on the incarnation of the word, which is one of his best-known writings. The first part attempts to condense the essay while the in the second and analysis is rendered wherein the writer expresses his impression of the arguments put forward by the saint and critically responds to them. The theory of Saint Athanasius is divided in among 9 different chapters on issues such as refutation of Jews/Gentiles creation death and resurrection as well as creation and others. The purpose of the essay is not so much to explain the underlying incarnation doctrine as it is to refute the philosophical ideals of the subject that were prevalent in the fourth century. A good illustration of this is the Arius heresy, which was debunked, in the first chapter. Athanasius posits that it is the same word that was present prior to creation that the brought about the renewal of the world. This is contradiction with the teachings of Plato who presupposes that god created the world out of already existing matter; Athanasius is in disagreement to such a claim since in his opinion it is in contradiction to the Christian reality that god is unlimited (Lewis, n.d). His position is that assuming God used pre-existing matter for creation does not make him a creator per se but rather a mere craftsman working at the behest of a higher entity which in naturally unacceptable to a Christian philosopher. Athanasius holds that God is infinite and cannot be relegated in description of definition to parameters used on finite matter which includes all there is but him. God’s presence by far transcend the power of man to understand him, he further argues that the fact that mankind has in the past deigned to make idols and worship them is evidence that they are incapable of fully conceptualizing the idea of God. He proposes that it is the effect of mankind’s transgressions that made people fall out of favor with God but out of his love he sent his son to suffer among them so those that believe in him may get salvation. God sent men to teach others about the creator and one of the key questions he proposes is what God with all his power should do about a creation that is aware of his existence but stubbornly insists on ignoring or hiding from this reality. He argues that in the contemporary setting God has no need to turn into a human since even if he was to live among them and they repent, it would not really matter because repentance is only useful if people also make a personal commitment to stop sinning. Athanasius is careful to warn believers against exploiting the provision for elegance and instance forgiveness to keep erring since they know they will repent and sin again (Khaled, 1998). Repentance, he argues, does not turn convert corruption into incorruption, one has to stop committing the transgressions if the hope to receive true forgiveness (Lewis, n.d). He is the only one who can recreate all, the mediator between man and the heavenly father, the son of God has the power to teach about his father, and that is why Jesus took the form of human body but only through a virgin unblemished by any man through intercourse. The death of Jesus of the cross was in fulfilment of the penalties of death as required for man due to his sinful nature; consequently, Satan lost all his power over men, which he previously acquired by virtue of their corruption and vices (OCollins, 1995). By offering up his body in man’s likeness, he wanted to symbolize a new beginning in the way of hope and resurrection in his human form he is vulnerable to death that is necessary as its witnessing was meant to be a key turning point in the history of humanity. If he had simply been sacrificed in obscurity, the way Abraham would have sacrificed his son Isaak, his death would have lost all its significance and he would be deemed just as an ordinary man who lived and died on the planet. Athanasius pursues as specific question about the physical death of Crist and applies the teaching of the Old Testament to explicate on the issue of the Jewish refutation. He proposes that they may be refuted though the teachings from divine works since in the old testament there are numerous predictions and allusions to the saviour whose description Jesus fit perfectly (Lewis, n.d). He refutes the gentile’s faith in greed gods and goddess arguing that they are simply a figment of pagan imaginations and to this end he endeavours to give a rational and explicable account of God. The Old Testament is very categorical about the death of Jesus, despite the fact that the Jews claim otherwise he argues that it would be impossible for anyone to have competent read the scripture and claim ignorance on the matter. Isaiah predicts his submission in the face of death saying he will be led to his death as calmly as lamb being led to slaughter. His lineage is also predicted in the Old Testament and in fact most of what happens to him cannot have caught the Jews by surprise with the benefit of hindsight since they evidently knew about it for centuries. The prophesies are clear that when the saviour comes the blind will see the lame will walk, stammers will speak distinctly and many more miracles are mentions, Athanasius queries in respect to this, did not Naima the leper receive cleansing, the prophets before Jesus were recognized for their actions? Elisha and Elijah are known for having raised the death and healed leapers among other miracles, however none of them ever gave sight to the blind in as much as it was explicitly prophesied that the saviour will give sight to the blind. How then can they simply ignore the significance of his actions? Their silence on this matter can be interpreted as an assumption that the events never actually took place at all; this is in contradiction with the facts since the Jews themselves saw them and testified that such things had never happened before (OCollins, 1995). Since the world was created they exclaimed it has never been heard that anyone should open the eyes of the blind. In his refutation, he insists that it is illogical for anyone to fight such plain facts especially since they were the primary witness to the events. When he takes a position on the superiority of God because he is limitless and therefore should not be taken for a craftsman, he set a precedence for religious philosophers who later came to formulate ontological theories based his superiority. This theory is akin to Anselm’s in which he claims that God is a being greater than which no other can be conceived, it is on this basis that most ontological arguments for gods existence commence. While he may not have directly influenced all the ontological philosophers, the impression of his work on their arguments is undeniable. In this regard, his reasoning is evidently way ahead of his times and in as much as it has been severally refuted and opposed, it still holds sway with numerous philosophers and believers (Greene, 2004). Nonetheless one can’t ignore the fact that being a confessional theist his arguments are mostly based on faith rather than rationality. It can however be opposed on the basis that; assuming that god was the master creator and he did not commence his work from an already existing product how did he come to exists himself. Supporters of his arguments may claim that he is infinite and that he was always there, however this ultimately flies in the face of a logical argument given that the his occurrence and existence must have been caused and he cannot very well have caused himself. On the refutation of Jews, he brings out several arguments that have proven controversial among them and even Christians. His argument is framed in form of questions designed to make the lack of faith among the Jews appear to be ridiculous and illogical in the face of such overwhelming evidences. However, when one takes a critical view of his argument they will hardly fail to notice he does not try to answer any of these questions and only leaves them floating to create the right dramatic impression. How can they not believe, he implies yet they lived among him every day of his life? The audience is supposed to infer from this question that they had no reason to doubt the existence of Christ or his power. However, suppose someone did actually attempted to respond to that purportedly rhetorical question, how far would Athanasius’s logic carry? A possible reason they may not believe is that they have different records from those the Christians have of the life and times of Jesus, they do not argue that he did not do all those things he is supposed to have done possible because they are not aware of them. One of the popular contemporary theories that may explain the discrepancy in information propounds that the bible that the likes of Athanasius’ refer to was actually compiled in part by non-Christians who may have chosen the gospels describing the life of Christ with an ulterior motive (Lewis, n.d). Alternatively, one can simply ask the same question and turn it around but as a real philosophical question begging and answer rather than rhetorical one. Why is it that the people who were supposed to have lived with Jesus, witnessed first-hand his actions refuse to recognize his godliness? How it is that most of his believers are those who have only heard about him from third parties? It is also worth noting that he does not venture into the real issues why Jews rejected Jesus, it is not that they did not believe in his existence but because they determined he never fulfilled what the messiah was expected to. Athanasius selectively chooses what prophesies about Jesus were fulfilled ignoring those that were not fulfilled and which to the Jews make it self-evident that he is not the messiah. For example, they expected he would bring universal peace, gather all Jews in the Promised Land and build the second temple, as far as the Jews were concerned not anyone who does not fulfil this can be the messiah. While it is arguable that both arguments have their merit, Athanasius selectively choses from available evidences to cast doubt into the logic Jews apply in disbelieving in Jesus. Anybody who has a background in Judaism would find it relatively simple to refute his arguments but the target audience who were actually Christians not Jews are unlikely to venture into contradictory arguments given that the intention of the argument was to justify Christian beliefs and undermine Jewish ones. Ultimately, while Athanasius was without doubt a remarkable philosopher, his arguments tended to be one sided given his unwavering loyalty to the Christian faith, which tended to make him subjective in the face of rational questions. References Greene, C. J. 2004. “Christology in Cultural Perspective: Marking out the horizons”. Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Khaled A. 1998. Athanasius. The coherence of his thought. London: Routledge Lewis, A. 2004. Nicaea and its Legacy. An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford Oxford: Oxford. Lewis, C.S. n.d. Athanasius. “On the Incarnation. The treatise De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, with an introduction by C.S”.  London: Mowbray  OCollins, G. 1995. Christology: a biblical, historical, and systematic study of Jesus (pp. 248-249). Oxford; Oxford University Press. Read More