This chapter was a great reminder of Christs sacrifice and some of the reasoning that goes along with why He did what He did.
My question to you is:
Was Athanasius a Universalist?
On page 51 he says -
“Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death…”
All either means everyone (which would be true biblically as Romans 3:23 says) or it means all of us believers, but It seems to me he is referencing all of humanity because he says all of our bodies which we know is true of unbelievers as well.
He goes on to say -
“This He did out of sheer love for us so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men”
The unspecific words he uses here makes me think he’s talking of humanity as a whole and not believers. It would have been very easy to qualify this statement of “men” to “men who have put their faith in Jesus”. Because his previous “all” and his later “all” are not qualified by words like believers or unbelievers, this leads me to believe he made no distinction in his own theology and was universalist.
He also says on page 52 that he thinks Christs death has put an end to corruption for all others. Again this is a weird way to put this if he wasn’t a universalist.
We as Christian’s believe death has no hold on us because of what Christ accomplished on the cross. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would say death still has a hold on unbelievers but Athanasius seems to believe that the “corruption of death has ceased to be” (p. 53). Maybe my theology is wrong here so correct me if I’m off base.
Sorry for the long response but I wanted to bring up most of what I noticed while reading. Let me know what you think!
Good questions! I would say Athanasius was likely not a universalist for the same reason that the Apostle John is not a universalist for making a statement like, "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3:17)
Now, in the surrounding verses, John makes it clear he does not mean that every person in the entire world will be saved, but that only those who believe will be saved. But if you just read verse 17 in isolation, you might conclude that John was a universalist. We have to understand what John means when he uses words like "world." Or even when Paul makes a statement like, "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (1 Tim. 4:10) Paul was not a universalist, but unless we understand what he means when he says "Savior of all people," we might think he had some universalist theology.
All this to say, I think Athanasius is using broad terms like "men" and "all" and "us" in the same way John and Paul are using the terms "world" and "all people."
Also, not only do we believe there will be a resurrection of believers to eternal life, we also believe there will be a resurrection of unbelievers to eternal judgement: "28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when ball who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:28-29)
So this idea could also be a factor in Athanasius thinking about the implications of Christ's resurrection, not only in its implications on believers' rising, but also unbelievers' rising. Athanasius was clearly VERY influenced by John's gospel, and as such, his writing reflects a lot of the patterns of John's thinking and language. And I think it would be pretty unlikely a person so steeped in John's gospel would come to the conclusion that all people will receive eternal life; John is pretty clear that is not the case: "18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (John 3:18)
I'll be seeing you on Thursday, let's talk more about it then!!
It will also be helpful for us to establish some working definitions of "death" and "corruption," because Athanasius is using them probably a little differently than we much immediately think.
Okay this chapter spurred on so many thoughts! Here's some word vomit!!
- I loved Page 48-49. Restorer and Redeemer is who God is; it is His nature. He had no other choice but to intervene and save because it's what He does. He restores. He redeems. He makes new. There is no way He could've neglected us and left us to our own destruction because it goes against the very character of God. Praise God!
- Page 50 explains why we needed Jesus to know God deeper. He stooped to our level to show us Himself in a way we can understand and grasp. He wants to be known! He wants to be near! He is not a far-off God. Praise God!
- Page 51 says, "make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus, he would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire." And it just had me thinking, do I live like this is true? Do I live like death has no claim on me because of Christ's death and resurrection? It's so empowering to remember this truth!
And now for my many, many questions 😄
- Right at the beginning of the chapter he explains how the human race is in the process of destruction, was disappearing, and God's work was being undone. I could think of two different views Athanasius could hold (maybe there's more). Do you think Athanasius held the view that humanity is progressively getting worse and worse and growing deeper and deeper into sin as the generations come (pessimistic end times view)? Or do you think he is saying that humanity has already entered into their full capacity of destruction and we need God's grace to keep us from getting there? I'm curious because with the first view, would he believe that we are 'further from God' today than the people who lived 1000 years ago?
- Page 49 says, "men came under the power of corruption proper to their nature." I just need help understanding what he means by 'proper to their nature.'
- On Page 50 he says, "He saw, too, how unthinkable it would be for the law to be repealed before it was fulfilled." I'm confused on how the law was going to be repealed in Athanasius's hypothetical scenario. What is he talking about here?
- I also just need help processing HOW Christ's death defeated death. HOW is it that corruption dies through Christ's death? I'm thinking the answer has something to do with unity to Christ and the great exchange... Christ took on the death of His church so that His church wouldn't have to die? Can someone put this into their own words so I can keep processing it? 😆
These are great questions. And yes, “many, many questions” haha
I think I’ll let someone else here take a crack at them if they see them and want to engage, but I’ll see you tomorrow at church and definitely want to talk through some of them then!
I’m encouraged by how God is using the reading for you, Jaelynn!
As with Chapter 1, Athanasius does an excellent job of portraying the Holy Trinity as both three and as one. What I'm discovering about myself through these readings is that I acknowledge the three-in-one nature of the Trinity, but have almost exclusively conceptualized the Trinity as three. I have not, admittedly, saved much space for the oneness that they maintain.
Because of this, Section 7 (pg. 48-50) caught my attention because it seems to portray Jesus as having been with God during creation and through all of man's transgressions up to the point of his birth. Athanasius also implies a willful decision by the Trinity (not just God) to send one of them to Earth in order to save mankind. This was intriguing to think about, because I had previously thought of God and the Holy Spirit acting as a duo with Jesus "joining the team" (and forming the trio) when he was born. I think this provides me a new lense to view scripture through (especially the Old Testament). It is very common to hear debates that contrast God and Jesus, the Old Testament and the New Testament, etc. What a perspective shift to think of them as being intertwined instead of being distinct from one another!
That is the beauty of the Trinity! One God in three distinct Persons. United in Nature and Purpose, eternally self-existing in loving fellowship.
Athanasius has really helped me to understand what it seems you’re discovering now. Namely, the theology of the Word of God (Jesus before He became a Man). This is what John is trying to teach us at the beginning of his gospel when he speaks of the Word being in the beginning with God creating the Universe, and being God Himself. Then he says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
What John is saying: the second Person of the Trinity (the Son) has eternally existed in a spiritual form in fellowship with the Father and the Spirit. The Son then took for Himself a human body, taking a physical form rather than remaining in His prior purely spiritual form.
Paul also gets at this in Philippians 2: “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
The Word eternally existed “in the form of God” (spiritual), then in Christ took “the form of a servant, born in the likeness of men” (physical).
I love this stuff. Seeing more of the depths of the Person of Jesus is so exciting. Knowing the great height from which Jesus came to save us leads us to even greater adoration.
We serve a beautiful Story-Teller, an Author of greatness, a Master of all things good 🙌
"It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption." Page 47
I am left stunned - in awe of His wisdom and power and glory 🙌
"I am a worm, and no man." Ps 22:6
I don't want to chant "less of me, more of Him" but scream "none of me, all of Him!"
There truly was a divine dilemma and He gave us the solution in our Savior ... Merry Christmas indeed; I am ready to celebrate ☺️
This chapter was a great reminder of Christs sacrifice and some of the reasoning that goes along with why He did what He did.
My question to you is:
Was Athanasius a Universalist?
On page 51 he says -
“Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death…”
All either means everyone (which would be true biblically as Romans 3:23 says) or it means all of us believers, but It seems to me he is referencing all of humanity because he says all of our bodies which we know is true of unbelievers as well.
He goes on to say -
“This He did out of sheer love for us so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men”
The unspecific words he uses here makes me think he’s talking of humanity as a whole and not believers. It would have been very easy to qualify this statement of “men” to “men who have put their faith in Jesus”. Because his previous “all” and his later “all” are not qualified by words like believers or unbelievers, this leads me to believe he made no distinction in his own theology and was universalist.
He also says on page 52 that he thinks Christs death has put an end to corruption for all others. Again this is a weird way to put this if he wasn’t a universalist.
We as Christian’s believe death has no hold on us because of what Christ accomplished on the cross. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would say death still has a hold on unbelievers but Athanasius seems to believe that the “corruption of death has ceased to be” (p. 53). Maybe my theology is wrong here so correct me if I’m off base.
Sorry for the long response but I wanted to bring up most of what I noticed while reading. Let me know what you think!
Good questions! I would say Athanasius was likely not a universalist for the same reason that the Apostle John is not a universalist for making a statement like, "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3:17)
Now, in the surrounding verses, John makes it clear he does not mean that every person in the entire world will be saved, but that only those who believe will be saved. But if you just read verse 17 in isolation, you might conclude that John was a universalist. We have to understand what John means when he uses words like "world." Or even when Paul makes a statement like, "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (1 Tim. 4:10) Paul was not a universalist, but unless we understand what he means when he says "Savior of all people," we might think he had some universalist theology.
All this to say, I think Athanasius is using broad terms like "men" and "all" and "us" in the same way John and Paul are using the terms "world" and "all people."
Also, not only do we believe there will be a resurrection of believers to eternal life, we also believe there will be a resurrection of unbelievers to eternal judgement: "28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when ball who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:28-29)
So this idea could also be a factor in Athanasius thinking about the implications of Christ's resurrection, not only in its implications on believers' rising, but also unbelievers' rising. Athanasius was clearly VERY influenced by John's gospel, and as such, his writing reflects a lot of the patterns of John's thinking and language. And I think it would be pretty unlikely a person so steeped in John's gospel would come to the conclusion that all people will receive eternal life; John is pretty clear that is not the case: "18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (John 3:18)
I'll be seeing you on Thursday, let's talk more about it then!!
It will also be helpful for us to establish some working definitions of "death" and "corruption," because Athanasius is using them probably a little differently than we much immediately think.
I appreciate the response! We will have to discuss further in person.
Okay this chapter spurred on so many thoughts! Here's some word vomit!!
- I loved Page 48-49. Restorer and Redeemer is who God is; it is His nature. He had no other choice but to intervene and save because it's what He does. He restores. He redeems. He makes new. There is no way He could've neglected us and left us to our own destruction because it goes against the very character of God. Praise God!
- Page 50 explains why we needed Jesus to know God deeper. He stooped to our level to show us Himself in a way we can understand and grasp. He wants to be known! He wants to be near! He is not a far-off God. Praise God!
- Page 51 says, "make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus, he would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire." And it just had me thinking, do I live like this is true? Do I live like death has no claim on me because of Christ's death and resurrection? It's so empowering to remember this truth!
And now for my many, many questions 😄
- Right at the beginning of the chapter he explains how the human race is in the process of destruction, was disappearing, and God's work was being undone. I could think of two different views Athanasius could hold (maybe there's more). Do you think Athanasius held the view that humanity is progressively getting worse and worse and growing deeper and deeper into sin as the generations come (pessimistic end times view)? Or do you think he is saying that humanity has already entered into their full capacity of destruction and we need God's grace to keep us from getting there? I'm curious because with the first view, would he believe that we are 'further from God' today than the people who lived 1000 years ago?
- Page 49 says, "men came under the power of corruption proper to their nature." I just need help understanding what he means by 'proper to their nature.'
- On Page 50 he says, "He saw, too, how unthinkable it would be for the law to be repealed before it was fulfilled." I'm confused on how the law was going to be repealed in Athanasius's hypothetical scenario. What is he talking about here?
- I also just need help processing HOW Christ's death defeated death. HOW is it that corruption dies through Christ's death? I'm thinking the answer has something to do with unity to Christ and the great exchange... Christ took on the death of His church so that His church wouldn't have to die? Can someone put this into their own words so I can keep processing it? 😆
These are great questions. And yes, “many, many questions” haha
I think I’ll let someone else here take a crack at them if they see them and want to engage, but I’ll see you tomorrow at church and definitely want to talk through some of them then!
I’m encouraged by how God is using the reading for you, Jaelynn!
I love all your questions, Jaelynn! They would make such great discussions ☺️
As with Chapter 1, Athanasius does an excellent job of portraying the Holy Trinity as both three and as one. What I'm discovering about myself through these readings is that I acknowledge the three-in-one nature of the Trinity, but have almost exclusively conceptualized the Trinity as three. I have not, admittedly, saved much space for the oneness that they maintain.
Because of this, Section 7 (pg. 48-50) caught my attention because it seems to portray Jesus as having been with God during creation and through all of man's transgressions up to the point of his birth. Athanasius also implies a willful decision by the Trinity (not just God) to send one of them to Earth in order to save mankind. This was intriguing to think about, because I had previously thought of God and the Holy Spirit acting as a duo with Jesus "joining the team" (and forming the trio) when he was born. I think this provides me a new lense to view scripture through (especially the Old Testament). It is very common to hear debates that contrast God and Jesus, the Old Testament and the New Testament, etc. What a perspective shift to think of them as being intertwined instead of being distinct from one another!
That is the beauty of the Trinity! One God in three distinct Persons. United in Nature and Purpose, eternally self-existing in loving fellowship.
Athanasius has really helped me to understand what it seems you’re discovering now. Namely, the theology of the Word of God (Jesus before He became a Man). This is what John is trying to teach us at the beginning of his gospel when he speaks of the Word being in the beginning with God creating the Universe, and being God Himself. Then he says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
What John is saying: the second Person of the Trinity (the Son) has eternally existed in a spiritual form in fellowship with the Father and the Spirit. The Son then took for Himself a human body, taking a physical form rather than remaining in His prior purely spiritual form.
Paul also gets at this in Philippians 2: “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
The Word eternally existed “in the form of God” (spiritual), then in Christ took “the form of a servant, born in the likeness of men” (physical).
I love this stuff. Seeing more of the depths of the Person of Jesus is so exciting. Knowing the great height from which Jesus came to save us leads us to even greater adoration.
We serve a beautiful Story-Teller, an Author of greatness, a Master of all things good 🙌
"It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption." Page 47
I am left stunned - in awe of His wisdom and power and glory 🙌
"I am a worm, and no man." Ps 22:6
I don't want to chant "less of me, more of Him" but scream "none of me, all of Him!"
There truly was a divine dilemma and He gave us the solution in our Savior ... Merry Christmas indeed; I am ready to celebrate ☺️