Athanasius and Theosis

[Alvin Kimel]

In De Incarnation 54, Athanasius writes: "He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God." I have also seen this translated something like "God became man so that man might become God." Etc.

I was wondering if someone might be able to give me a very literal translation of the Greek text.

Also, are there other places where Athanasius says something similar? Thanks!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Alvin,

It is rather late now, and I'm not in a spot to have access to my Greek texts; but from memory a staunchly literal translation of the passage in Athanasius, for which we will need to be inventive with some pretend words, would read:

'He became in-carnate (i.e. enfleshed) that man might become en-godded.'

The usual translation ('God became man that man might become God') is essentially very good.

Regarding your second question, on similar lines of thought elsewhere in Athanasius' corpus, I shall have to look further into this.

INXC, Matthew

[Philip Krill]

I'm an RC priest planning a course on Theosis for our parish adult ed. Using Jules Gross' book as something of a guide. Wanting a phone # for St. Vladamir Seminary Bookstore...or referral to other Orthodox bookstore/reading resources. Bibliography on things current about theosis would also help. Prayers and best wishes!

[Timothy Richardson]

Alvin Kimel wrote on Friday, 14 November, 2003


'"He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God." I have also seen this translated something like "God became man so that man might become God." ... are there other places where Athanasius says something similar? Thanks!'

I couldn't find the exact phrase anywhere else except in this homily from St. John Chysostom.

"The dispensation in our behalf he calls a "mystery," and well may it be so called, since it is not manifest to all, nay, it was not manifest to the Angels, for how could it, when it was "made known by the Church"? (Eph. iii. 10) Therefore he says, "without controversy great is the mystery." Great indeed was it. For God became Man, and Man became God. A Man was seen without sin! A Man was received up, was preached in the world! Together with us the Angels saw Him. This is indeed a mystery! Let us not then expose this mystery. Let us not lay it forth everywhere, but let us live in a manner worthy of the mystery. They to whom a mystery is intrusted are great persons. We account it a mark of favor, if a king intrusts a secret to us. But God has committed His mystery to us, yet are we ungrateful to our Benefactor, as if we had not received the greatest benefits. Our insensibility to such a kindness should strike us with horror. And how is that a mystery which all know? In the first place all do not know it, and before then too they knew it not, but now it is made manifest."

From St. John Chrysostom, Homily XI, Homilies on the First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy

Can anyone else find places where the phrase is repeated by the Fathers?

[Jonathan Tallon]

Not the same words, but the same sentiment is found in Irenaeus, preface to book 5 Against Heresies. He writes: '...the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through his transcendent love, become what we are, that he might bring us to be even what he is himself'.

Incidentally, the Chrysostom quote isn't quite saying the same thing as Athanasius, in that Chrysostom is (I think) referring specifically to Christ when he talks here about man became God. But that is not to say that he would have disagreed with Athanasius - on the contrary.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Thank you Jonathan. The phrase 'God became Man, and Man became God' is also (and perhaps most classically) found in St Athanasius, De incarnatione 54.3:

"For He was made man that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality. For while He Himself was in no way injured, being impossible and incorruptible and very Word and God, men who were suffering, and for whose sakes He endured all this, He maintained and preserved in His own impossibility."

The full text of the De incarnatione is on-line here (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/athanasius/di_plain_1-26.shtml).

INXC, Matthew

[Mina Monir]

dear brothers,
it is a very interesting topic,

in 'theosis' there are different schools , but the school of Alexandria and Cappadokia (wrong spelling) are in the same line , this is clear from the writings of St.Athanasius , Cyril(Specially in his interpretation of John's Gospel) , Bassilius and Gregory of Nazianzia (forgive me for my bad speeling .. I mean the "The'o Logo") . my conclusion from these two schools is that we become gods not Gods, i.e. by sharing the characteristics of the christ by communion and conjunction('Synafeia' in greek), and not by nature and essence. i.e. we know well that Christ gave us the property of sonship through redemption. but this sonship is different to his own relation to the father... I mean that he is the son by nature (Kath Physis) , but we are the sons -through him- by adoption. S.Athanasius discussed that point clearly in the first article against Arius... and this example shows the idea of theosis according to the fathers. St.Cyril of Alexandria too , he shared his teacher Athanasius in that point ... he explained the process of theosis and becoming gods through his commentary on the book of Luke and john , and exactly on Eucharist role. even in the christology point , we find Cyril in his 5 tomes adversus Nestorius says that we became gods in the meaning of adoption , and becoming gods was one of his weapons in defending for the unity of the Christ (Mia Physis-Hypostasis tou theologou sesarkwmeny), he said : "if they deny the one incarnated nature of our lord Christ , why would they practise eucharist ?! , they can not have salvation" and "in Eucharist , we melt in him (christ)and share him the sonship , because the son by nature made us in him sons by adoption (commentary on luke .. found in Patrologia Graeca)"... in the "Scholia on the only-Begotten son" we find him say how the relation of (Synafeia)- used by nestor to describe the relation of jesus and God - belongs to us , and does not belong to the christ who is son of god by Nature (henwsis Kath Hypostasin and not Synafeia).

some -unfortunately- theologians in russia and recently in egypt like father " Mathew the poor " adopt the idea of theosis in a very deviated way , they use a very fiery expressions refer to the equality of christ and us in degnity , and that we take Divine Essence through eucharist ...etc. under the title of (we became gods) I think that the Orthodox world rejects such deviated ideas.

please forgive me for my weak english , and I'll be so happy for any correction in my idea , I'm still young! dear father Mathew , What I'll try to repost the message which i failed to deliver it and thanks for your care , kissing your blessing hands.

in Christ,
Mina

[Ken McRae]

some -unfortunately- theologians in russia and recently in egypt like father "Mathew the poor" adopt the idea of theosis in a very deviated way, they use a very fiery expressions refer to the equality of christ and us in degnity, and that we take Divine Essence through eucharist ... etc. under the title of (we became gods) ...

hi there Mina ~ Can you provide us with a few quotes from their writings, so we can see their exact words and manner of expression? By the way, can you tell us who that is in your profile photo? Is it the Coptic Pope?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Mina wrote:


in 'theosis' there are different schools , but the school of Alexandria and Cappadokia (wrong spelling :-) ) are in the same line , this is clear from the writings of St.Athanasius , Cyril(Specially in his interpretation of John's Gospel) , Bassilius and Gregory of Nazianzia (forgive me for my bad speeling .. I mean the "The'o Logo") . my conclusion from these two schools is that we become gods not Gods, i.e. by sharing the characteristics of the christ by communion and conjunction('Synafeia' in greek), and not by nature and essence. i.e. we know well that Christ gave us the property of sonship through redemption. but this sonship is different to his own relation to the father... I mean that he is the son by nature (Kath Physis) , but we are the sons -through him- by adoption.

A very nice post. I think it is a relatively modern distinction to differentiate between 'becoming gods' and 'becoming Gods' (keep in mind that in ancient Greek and Latin, capitalisation was not used as it is in English today). There is some argument to say that, when Athanasius writes 'God became man that man might become God', one really should use the majascule, because the point is that just as the Son is truly joined to the true reality of humanity, so is man truly joined to the true life of the Son, of God, not to a lesser divinity or lesser divine manifestation of God. One genuinely is united with God, though, as you say, this is always an adoptive union, which is different from the Son's eternal relationship to the Father and Spirit. St Cyril of Jerusalem comments in this in a reflection on the words of the Father to the Son at the latter's baptism, 'This is my beloved Son'. Speaking to candidates for baptism, Cyril writes:

"If thou too hast unfeigned piety, the Holy Spirit cometh down on thee also, and a Father's voice sounds over thee from on high -- not, 'This is My Son', but, 'This has now been made My son'; for the 'is' belongs to Him alone, because In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. To Him belongs the 'is', since He is always the Son of God: but to thee 'has now been made': since thou hast not sonship by nature, but receivest it by adoption. He eternally 'is'; but thou receivest the grace by advancement." (Catechesis 3.14 (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/cyriljerusalem/cat_3.shtml))

INXC, Matthew