Athanasius and the Holy Spirit

The Development of His Early Pneumatology

Kevin Douglas Hill

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781506416687
• eBook ISBN:
  9781506416694
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Athanasius of Alexandria wrote over seven dozen works, the majority of which contain at least one reference to the Holy Spirit. Yet, previous studies have primarily concentrated on Athanasiuss Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit (ca. 359361), leaving a lacuna in our knowledge of Athanasiuss prior pneumatology. By exploring the period from Athanasiuss election as bishop (328) to the completion of the third Oration against the Arians (ca. 345), this book seeks to help fill this gap.

The first part argues that by the mid-330s, Athanasius had begun to establish core pneumatological perspectives that he would maintain for the rest of his career. Part 2 examines Athanasiuss three Orations, giving particular attention to Orations 12. To Athanasius, the Holy Spirit is eternal, uncreated, united to the Son, worthy of worship, and essential for salvation. These points laid the foundation for what was to come in Serapion. Without the pneumatological perspectives that he established in the 330s and 340s, Athanasius would not have been prepared to take the next steps of confessing the Holy Spirits divine nature and role in creating the world.

2

The Orations against the Arians

4

A Foundational Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Athanasius’s Trinitarian Arguments

In the winter of 338/339 Athanasius was deposed by the Council of Antioch. It was most likely during this second exile, which was spent in Rome, that Athanasius composed the Orations against the Arians. With the composition of this major polemical work, Athanasius began in earnest to implement a new strategy to restore his reputation and position as bishop. Part of this strategy required him to seriously reflect on and engage with the contemporary theological questions facing the church. These issues included not only the question of the Son’s relation to the Father but also the related question of how Christianity’s claims to monotheism can be justified in light of its faith in the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Orations contain Athanasius’s first major discussions directly about the Trinity and about the Spirit as a member of the Trinity.

In this chapter, I will argue that Athanasius’s charges against the Trinitarian “blasphemies” of “Arianism” and Athanasius’s Trinitarian polemical arguments appear to have significant implications for his theology of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, sections 2 and 3, which constitute the core of this chapter, highlight these pneumatological implications. These sections focus on Orations 1, since it appears to have been written first (and several years before Orations 3). We will see that even in the first of the Orations, Athanasius’s arguments imply that the Spirit, like the Son, is eternal, uncreated, united to the Son, worthy of worship, and of the same divine nature as the Father and Son. Of course, it is one thing for a writer’s theology to imply certain points, and another for that writer to consciously recognize and affirm these implied points. In chapters 4–7, I will attempt to show that Athanasius appears to have indeed held the first four of these points. Yet, I suggest, Athanasius does not seem to have concluded that the Holy Spirit is truly of the same divine nature and rank as the Father and Son until at least the end of the 350s. Thus there is a certain ambiguity in Athanasius’s pneumatology. On the one hand, it is remarkably close to the pneumatology expressed in Serapion; on the other hand, it lacks the central affirmation that makes the pneumatology of Serapion “mature.” Despite this ambiguity, in chapters 4–7, I will argue that the Orations laid the pneumatological “foundation” for Serapion, since, by the completion of these Orations, Athanasius regarded the Spirit as eternal, uncreated, united to the Son, and worthy of worship.

To help support this claim and provide context for my study of the Orations, this chapter begins by examining Athanasius’s reasons for writing the Orations. He appears to have intended for the Orations to help restore his reputation and position as bishop of Alexandria by alleging that he was the victim of a conspiracy orchestrated by heretics. After briefly discussing the Orations’ chronology, section 1 discusses this purpose of the Orations. It explains Athanasius’s strategy of creating a narrative about this “Arian” heresy and its contemporary advocates. This background provides evidence in favor of my claim about Athanasius’s views on the Spirit. It appears that Athanasius’s polemical purposes caused him to directly reflect on the Trinity and to engage with questions raised by writers in the 330s and 340s about the unity and plurality of the Godhead. As we will see, Athanasius consequently includes the Spirit in his discussions, suggesting that as he made statements about the Trinity, he recognized that these statements apply to the Spirit as well.

Sections 4 and 5, the final sections of this chapter, briefly look at Serapion in order to illustrate what I mean when I say that the pneumatology in the Orations provides the “foundation” for the views expressed in Serapion. These sections will demonstrate that in Serapion Athanasius draws on and reuses polemical strategies and Trinitarian arguments introduced in the Orations. I will argue that, apart from two major steps forward, the pneumatology expressed in Serapion draws on the Orations’ four tenets about the Spirit. Consequently, much of the pneumatology in Serapion is derivative, in the sense that it repeats, clarifies, and builds on the pneumatological foundation established in the Orations.

1. The Orations and the Narrative of “Arianism”

In 340, Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra found themselves in Rome, united by common polemical and theological views. The two shared an antipathy toward “those around Eusebius” of Nicomedia, including Eusebius of Caesarea. They also shared an affinity for what can be called “inclusive monotheism”—that is, the conviction that Christianity’s claims to monotheism require the Word to be eternally included in the identity of God.^[1]

The degree of communication and cooperation between the two deposed bishops remains a topic of debate. Some scholars attribute the invention of “Arianism” to an alliance that developed between Athanasius and Marcellus;^[2] others argue that the degree of theological agreement between the two was insufficient to foster genuine cooperation;^[3] still others maintain a middle position.^[4]

Regardless of which position one takes on the issue, it is clear that Athanasius engaged a variety of theological sources while writing the Orations—including works by Marcellus. Athanasius’s interactions with these various sources provides clues about when he may have written the Orations. In all three Orations, Athanasius names Asterius (d. 341) as a target of his arguments. Lewis Ayres notes that this tactic “seems to have most force during Asterius’s lifetime or shortly thereafter.”^[5] The same reasoning could be applied to Orations 1 and 2 regarding Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. 342), whom Athanasius also names and rebuts. Additionally, Sara Parvis has argued that Orations 1 is building on and interacting with Marcellus’s On the Holy Church, which she argues was written in 340.^[6] If her hypothesis is correct, then Athanasius’s engagements with various theological sources provide us with three clues that suggest dating the Orations to the early through mid-340s. Before we discuss the date of the Orations in more detail, however, we need to consider the literary relationship among the three Orations.

Literary Relationship

When comparing the Orations, Orations 1 and 2 prove to have much in common, whereas Orations 3 differs noticeably in terms of its polemical targets, theological emphases, and literary structure. In Orations 1 and 2, the explicit targets of Athanasius’s polemical arguments are Arius, Asterius, and Eusebius of Nicomedia (Orations 2.24).

In Orations 3, however, Athanasius adds an additional target: Sabellius. Sabellius, an early third-century theologian, remembered as a modalist and heretic, was by this point long dead. However, his name had become synonymous with the heretical doctrine that the Father and Son are a single entity. By the time Athanasius was in Rome, Eastern bishops began to suspect that the heresy of Sabellianism was inherent in Marcellus’s theology. Over the course of the early 340s, these suspicions increased, and Athanasius’s association with Marcellus became a liability—particularly because Athanasius, like Marcellus, maintained that the Word is intrinsic to God’s eternal identity. By adding Sabellianism as a polemical target, Athanasius could distance his brand of inclusive monotheism from the Sabellian tendencies associated with Marcellus’s monotheism. Further, by not directly criticizing Marcellus, Athanasius could reduce the chances of alienating himself from Marcellus in the process.^[7]

In addition to criticizing Sabellianism, in Orations 3, Athanasius attempts to further protect himself against accusations of Sabellianism by placing special emphasis on an anti-Sabellian teaching, namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three individual subsistences. Although this doctrine is implicit in Orations 1 and 2, its overt presence in Orations 3 further differentiates Orations 3 from 1 and 2.^[8]

Another difference between Orations 1 and 2 compared to 3 is literary structure. The literary structure of the Orations suggests that the first two Orations form a unit, whereas their connection to Orations 3 is not as obvious. The introduction of Orations 2, for example, picks up where Orations 1 leaves off. Orations 1 and 2 both discuss apostolic and Old Testament biblical texts related to the alleged mutability and creation of the Son.^[9]Orations 3, on the other hand, focuses on the Gospels. This focus makes it a logical companion to Orations 1 and 2, yet its introduction and main argument do not reveal the same kind of natural connection that is apparent between Orations 1 and 2. These differences suggest that Orations 3 was writt...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table Of Contents
• Abbreviations
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Athanasius’s Pastoral Works
• The Orations against the Arians
• Conclusion
• Appendix A: The Holy Spirit in Athanasius’s Works
• Appendix B: The Son’s Participation in the Father
• Appendix C: Thematic Developments in Athanasius’s Pneumatology
• Bibliography: Primary Sources
• Bibliography: Secondary Sources
• Index