CHRISTOLOGY OF ST.
ATHANASIUS*
BISHOY
As a!ways stated by Pope Shenouda Athanasius
defended equally both the divinity and humanity of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ».
Cyril of Alexandria based his Christologica! teaching the
Christology of Athanasius and offered the letter of Athanasius
to Epictetus as a primary reference the correct Christo!ogica!
teaching of the Church, calling «the letter of our blessed father
Athanasius
Athanasius, defending the perfect humanity of our Lord Jesus
Christ, refused the wrong ideas that «the body born of Mary is coes-
sentia! with the Godhead of the Word, or that the Word has changed
flesh, bones, hair, and the whole body, and alterea from its own
nature».
He stated c!early «the body which the Word was is coes-
sential with the Godhead, but was truely born of Mary, while the Word
Himself was changed bones and flesh, but came the flesh.
For what John said: "The Word was made flesh", has this meaning, as
we may see by a simi!ar passage; for is written Paul: "Christ has
become a curse for US"2. And just as He has Himse!f become a
curse, but He is said have done so because He took Him the
curse our beha!f, so also He has become flesh by being
changed flesh, but because He assumed our behalf living
flesh, and has become man»3.
Athanasius also was clear his teaching about the flesh
*paper delivered at the Conference of Greek and Coptic Theologians
held St. Bishoy Monastery, Egypt from 27-29 December 1993.
]. Letter of St. Cyril Eulogius, the priest, at Constantinople, The Fathers the
Church, CUA press, 189.
2. Gal. iii.13.
3. Letter Epictetus, par. 8., & Fathers, ]987, vol. IV, 573.
604 Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette
assumed by the Word of God that lt meant a whole humanity, i.e. the
body and the rationaI souI together.
He wrote: «But truIy ls not merely apparent,
does it extend to the body but the whole man, body and souI
aIike, has truly obtained the Word Himself»4. A1so he
said, «For to say "The Word became flesh", is to saying
"the Word has become man"; according to what is said JoeI : ''1 wiII
forth of Spirit aII flesh"5; the promise did not
extend to the irrationaI animaIs, but to men, whose account the
Lord is become
St. Athanasius aIso denied that the humanity of Lord Jesus
Christ existed before the incarnation of the Word from the
gin. He wrote, «They aII wiII reasonably condemn who
thought that the flesh from Mary existed before her, and
that the Word, to her, had a human souI, and existed it
always before His coming»7. It is clear that St. Athanasius
was affected by the teaching of Origen about thepre-existence
of the souIs.
Athanasius' teachings against Nestorianism:
Although Nestorius came Iater than St. Athanasius, yet St. Atha-
nasius offered a rigid against Nestorian heresy.
He wrote, «How did men caIIed Christians to doubt
whether the Lord, who proceeded from Mary, whiIe Son of God by
Essence and Nature, is the seed of according to the flesh" 8,
and of the flesh of the Mary? who seen so
some as to say that Christ who suffered the flesh and was crucified
is not Lord, God, and Son of the Father? how can they
wish to be caIIed Christians who say that the Word has descended
a holy man as one of the prophets, and has not Himself
become man, taking the body from Mary; but that Christ is one per-
son, whiIe the Word of God, Who before Mary and before the ages
was Son of the Father, is another? how can they be Christians who
4. Ibid., par. 7, 572.
5. Joe/ 11.28.
6. Letter to par. 8, & Fathers, Oct. 1987, IV, 573.
7. Ibid.
8. Rom. 14.
The Christology of S1. Athanasius 605
say that the Son is one, and the Word of God another? »9. He wrote
also, «The Word of God came own Person, because it was He
alone, the image of the Father, Who could recreate man made after
the Image»10.
Contrary to the orthodox teaching of St. Athanasius, Nestorius
taught as follows:
«For this reason also Christ is named God the Word, because he
has an uninterrupted conjoining to the Christ»ll. again,
cordingly, let us safeguard the unconfused conjoining of natures, for
let us admit God man and because of the conjoining let us
the man worshipped together with the almighty GOd»I2. Nes-
torius also said, «God is inseparable from the one who is
because of this, do not separate the honor of the one not separated.
separate the natures; but unite the
this last passage St. Cyril of Alexandria, his letter to Aca-
cius, commented as follows: «Not known the meaning of the
incarnation, he names two natures but separates them from one an-
other, putting God apart and likewise man turn, conjoined to God
by an external relationship only according to the of honor or
at least power» (paragraph 16 of the letter).
St. Athanasius rejected any separation between the and
the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He wrote, «The others,
ing what is denied the truth that " the Word was made
Flesh, and dwelt among US"»14,IS. He also wrote, «We do not worship
a creature. Far be the thought. For such an error belongs to heathens
and Arians. But we worship the Lord of Creation, Incarnate, the
Word of God. For if the flesh also is itself a part of the created
world, yet it has become God 's body. And we neither the body,
being such, from the Word, and worship it by itself, nor when we wish
to worship the Word do we set Him apart from the flesh, but know-
ing as we said after come the flesh. Who, according-
ly, is so senseless, as to say to the Lord: the body that may
9. Letter to par. 2, & Fathers, Oct. 1987, 571.
10. the /ncarnation, chap. par 13, SVS Press, 1982, 41.
11. Letter of 51. Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, CUA press, 1987, 159,
160, 162. See Loofs, Nestoriana, 275.9-11, 249.1-4,262.4-6.
12. /bid.
13. /bid.
14. John r. 14.
15. Letter to AdeJphius, par. 2, & Fathers, Oct. 1987, 575.
606 Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette
worship thee", or so impious as to join the sense!ess Jews saying,
account of the Body, "why dost Thou, being a man, make Thyse!f
But the !eper was not one of this sort, for he worshipped
God the Body, and recognised that He was God, saying, "Lord if
Thou Thou canst make me c!ean"»17,18.
S1. Athanasius exp!ained how the Word of God made the prop-
erties of the Body His own and wrote, «the incorporea! Word made
His own the properties of the Body, as being His own Body. Why,
when the Body was struck by the attendant, as suffering Himse!f He
asked, "Why smittest thou And being by nature intangib!e,
the Word yet said , gave back to the stripes, and cheeks to
b!ows, and did not turn face from shame and spitting"20. For what
the Human Body of the Word suffered, this the Word, dwelling the
Body, ascribed to Himse!f. .. And it is strange that He it was
Who suffered and yet suffered Suffered, because His own Body
suffered; suffered not, because the Word, being by nature God, is
impassib!e»21 .
the other hand S1. Athanasius exp!ained how the Body of our
Lord Jesus Christ was g!orified beyond its own properties of the na-
ture. He wrote, «But the Body itse!f being of morta! nature, beyond
its own nature rose again by reason of the Word which was it; and
it has ceased from natura! corruption, and having put the Word
which is above man, has become incorruptib!e»22.
16. John 23.
17. John 33.
18. Letter to AdeIphius, par. 3, & Fathcrs, Oct. 1987, 575.
19. John XVIII. 23.
20. Isaiah 50.6.
21. Letter Epictetus, par. 6, & Fathcrs, Oct . 1987,
22. Ibid., par. 10, 574.
