‘For the Son of God became man so that we might become God’: what does Athanasius mean by this?
Emphasising the necessity of salvation over redemption, Athanasius’ statement “For the Son of God
became man so that we might become God,”1 indicates the importance of the Word’s humanity in the
incarnation and its necessity in allowing for salvation. Presenting his view on the plight of humanity and
corruption, Athanasius establishes that corruption in the world was so widespread that only the love of
God in the form of the incarnation could return humanity to its original state. The restoration of the world
to its original state subsequently allowed creation to once again follow in the likeness of God, since all
humanity was created through the Word in God’s image.2 In exploring the condition of humanity prior to
the resurrection, the contemporary importance of the Council of Nicaea, and the necessity of Christ’s
humanity in salvation, Athanasius’ stance on the human condition becomes clear.
In order to understand Athanasius’ ideas, it is important to outline the current theological debates of the
time. In the third century, the Roman empire was the centre of theological, and subsequent political unrest,
most notably between Arius, an Alexandrian priest, and Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. The debate
centred around the nature of God and his relationship to the Son. 3 Arius argued that the Son is not “part of
God,”4 made as a separate substance to God, with a definite beginning, and lacking eternality. From this
idea was created the doctrine of Arianism and this marked one of the first major splits in doctrinal belief
within early Christianity. In contrast, Alexander believed that Arius’ definition denied the divinity of God, 5
instead arguing for the idea of homoousion, in which Father and Son share the same substance 6, allowing
Jesus to be divine, unchanging, and human. The stance taken by Athanasius on this is key to understanding
the coherency of his argument. Athanasius supported Alexander’s position, (although he took time to take
on the idea of homoousion) arguing that to be able to save mankind, Christ had to be both fully God and
fully human,7 and thus God and the Son must share substances. An Arian position would deny this divinity
bringing into question the resurrection and Incarnation. Indeed, there were many incoherencies in Arius’
language. For example, the statement describing the son as “a perfect creature of God, but not as one of
the creatures – an offspring, but not as one of things begotten,” is paradoxical,8 presenting Arius as making
assumptions to fill the gaps in his doctrine.
This theological unrest led to the Council of Nicaea, called by Emperor Constantine in 325, which
Athanasius attended with Alexander.9 The Council was the first of its kind, bringing together Christian
representatives from across the empire together to discuss doctrine. It produced the Nicene Creed, which
both established the ideas of homoousion and refuted Arianism. This was done through the ‘anathemas,’
which directly rejected Arius’ doctrine by using his language such as “There was when he was not.” 10 This
1
New Advent: Church Fathers: On the Incarnation of the Word (Athanasius). [Web] Available at:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm. 54:3.
2
Weinandy, Thomas G. Athanasius: A Theological Introduction. The Catholic University of America
Press: Washington, D.C, 2018. Pg31.
3
Ludlow, Morwenna. The Early Church. I.B. Tauris: London, 2009. Pg204.
4
Bettenson, Henry, and Maunder, Chris: Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press:
Oxford, 2011. ‘Arius’ letter to Eusebius,’ pg42.
5
Ludlow. The Early Church., pg208.
6
Early Church Texts: Creed of Nicaea 325. [Web] Available at:
https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm
7
Ludlow. The Early Church., pg216.
8
Ibid., pg208.
9
New Advent: St Athanasius. [Web]
10
Early Church Texts: Creed of Nicaea 325. [Web]
, was a principle which the Council was greatly opposed to, since it suggested that there was a time when
Jesus was not in existence, seemingly against the divinity of Jesus as the Word. Although only attending as a
secretary and theological adviser to Alexander,11 the Council was important in the theology of Athanasius,
who defended the doctrine. He also based his presentation of the incarnation on Christ’s divinity and
relationship with the Word. For example, Athanasius argues that the “Incarnation did not limit the ubiquity
of the Word,”12 highlighting that the Incarnation’s relationship with God both allows Him to take the form of
a human body and not be limited by it. Overall, the Nicene Creed and contemporary theological debates
are key in understanding Athanasius’ argument, and its overall coherency (which could not be achieved by
Arian doctrine on similar matters.)
Athanasius’ statement “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God,” emphasises his
belief of the importance of salvation over repentance. As Ludlow outlines, the early Church saw salvation as
the complete ‘transformation’ of an individual.13 Athanasius therefore argues that repentance would never
be enough to free humanity from their inherent sin, since it does not cleanse the “corruption of men.” 14
Repentance, marking a hoped shift in actions, would not keep humans from future sin, since as only God is
incorruptible, humans are inherently corruptible.15 As a result, a sacrifice “free from any stain”16 is needed
to restore humanity to its original state, since it would mark a new beginning for humanity, and cleanse
creation of corruption. As a result, “the Son of God became man,” to allow for our salvation, giving
humanity the opportunity to regain a likeness of God. As will be later discussed, if the Son of God did not
become man, remaining only divine, salvation would be possible, however the salvation of humanity would
not be. Additionally, the Incarnation and resurrection allows humanity to ‘become God,’ since through the
Word, humans were created incorruptibly in God’s image17 (although this incorruption was changed after
the Fall of Man.) Again, human likeness to God will be further discussed later.
To understand the necessity that “the Son of God became man” for the benefit of humanity, it is important
to explore Athanasius’ presentation of human corruption. Athanasius presents humanity as trapped in a
cycle of pleasure-seeking due to the Fall, with humans becoming increasingly more creative in their
destruction over time.18 Since only God is incorruptible, humans are intrinsically corrupt,19 and as such, a
pure figure who possesses a physical body is needed to sweep away corruption and offer humanity the
chance to return to God’s image. This inescapability of sin is shown in Athanasius’ description of corruption
as “not external to the body, but (…) attached to it,”20 presenting humanity as so steeped in sin before the
Incarnation that even the physical body indicated being enslaved to the pursuit of pleasure. Indeed,
Athanasius uses “flesh” to describe the entirety of humanity, its weakness and corruptibility, 21 and this is a
factor in why the physicality of Jesus is important, as will be later discussed. Athanasius focuses in detail on
the condition of humanity after the Fall and before the Incarnation, using listing to establish the corruption
11
New Advent: St Athanasius. [Web]
12
New Advent: On the Incarnation of the Word. 17:1.
13
Ludlow. The Early Church., pg216.
14
New Advent: On the Incarnation of the Word. 9:1.
15
Weinandy. Athanasius: A Theological Introduction., pg310.
16
New Advent: On the Incarnation of the Word. 9:1.
17
Weinandy. Athanasius: A Theological Introduction., pg31.
18
Leithart, Peter J. Athanasius. Baker Academic, 2011. Pg216.
19
Weinandy. Athanasius: A Theological Introduction., pg29.
20
New Advent: On the Incarnation of the Word., 44:4.
21
Leithart, Peter J. Athanasius. Baker Academic, 2011. Pg221.
Emphasising the necessity of salvation over redemption, Athanasius’ statement “For the Son of God
became man so that we might become God,”1 indicates the importance of the Word’s humanity in the
incarnation and its necessity in allowing for salvation. Presenting his view on the plight of humanity and
corruption, Athanasius establishes that corruption in the world was so widespread that only the love of
God in the form of the incarnation could return humanity to its original state. The restoration of the world
to its original state subsequently allowed creation to once again follow in the likeness of God, since all
humanity was created through the Word in God’s image.2 In exploring the condition of humanity prior to
the resurrection, the contemporary importance of the Council of Nicaea, and the necessity of Christ’s
humanity in salvation, Athanasius’ stance on the human condition becomes clear.
In order to understand Athanasius’ ideas, it is important to outline the current theological debates of the
time. In the third century, the Roman empire was the centre of theological, and subsequent political unrest,
most notably between Arius, an Alexandrian priest, and Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. The debate
centred around the nature of God and his relationship to the Son. 3 Arius argued that the Son is not “part of
God,”4 made as a separate substance to God, with a definite beginning, and lacking eternality. From this
idea was created the doctrine of Arianism and this marked one of the first major splits in doctrinal belief
within early Christianity. In contrast, Alexander believed that Arius’ definition denied the divinity of God, 5
instead arguing for the idea of homoousion, in which Father and Son share the same substance 6, allowing
Jesus to be divine, unchanging, and human. The stance taken by Athanasius on this is key to understanding
the coherency of his argument. Athanasius supported Alexander’s position, (although he took time to take
on the idea of homoousion) arguing that to be able to save mankind, Christ had to be both fully God and
fully human,7 and thus God and the Son must share substances. An Arian position would deny this divinity
bringing into question the resurrection and Incarnation. Indeed, there were many incoherencies in Arius’
language. For example, the statement describing the son as “a perfect creature of God, but not as one of
the creatures – an offspring, but not as one of things begotten,” is paradoxical,8 presenting Arius as making
assumptions to fill the gaps in his doctrine.
This theological unrest led to the Council of Nicaea, called by Emperor Constantine in 325, which
Athanasius attended with Alexander.9 The Council was the first of its kind, bringing together Christian
representatives from across the empire together to discuss doctrine. It produced the Nicene Creed, which
both established the ideas of homoousion and refuted Arianism. This was done through the ‘anathemas,’
which directly rejected Arius’ doctrine by using his language such as “There was when he was not.” 10 This
1
New Advent: Church Fathers: On the Incarnation of the Word (Athanasius). [Web] Available at:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm. 54:3.
2
Weinandy, Thomas G. Athanasius: A Theological Introduction. The Catholic University of America
Press: Washington, D.C, 2018. Pg31.
3
Ludlow, Morwenna. The Early Church. I.B. Tauris: London, 2009. Pg204.
4
Bettenson, Henry, and Maunder, Chris: Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press:
Oxford, 2011. ‘Arius’ letter to Eusebius,’ pg42.
5
Ludlow. The Early Church., pg208.
6
Early Church Texts: Creed of Nicaea 325. [Web] Available at:
https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm
7
Ludlow. The Early Church., pg216.
8
Ibid., pg208.
9
New Advent: St Athanasius. [Web]
10
Early Church Texts: Creed of Nicaea 325. [Web]
, was a principle which the Council was greatly opposed to, since it suggested that there was a time when
Jesus was not in existence, seemingly against the divinity of Jesus as the Word. Although only attending as a
secretary and theological adviser to Alexander,11 the Council was important in the theology of Athanasius,
who defended the doctrine. He also based his presentation of the incarnation on Christ’s divinity and
relationship with the Word. For example, Athanasius argues that the “Incarnation did not limit the ubiquity
of the Word,”12 highlighting that the Incarnation’s relationship with God both allows Him to take the form of
a human body and not be limited by it. Overall, the Nicene Creed and contemporary theological debates
are key in understanding Athanasius’ argument, and its overall coherency (which could not be achieved by
Arian doctrine on similar matters.)
Athanasius’ statement “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God,” emphasises his
belief of the importance of salvation over repentance. As Ludlow outlines, the early Church saw salvation as
the complete ‘transformation’ of an individual.13 Athanasius therefore argues that repentance would never
be enough to free humanity from their inherent sin, since it does not cleanse the “corruption of men.” 14
Repentance, marking a hoped shift in actions, would not keep humans from future sin, since as only God is
incorruptible, humans are inherently corruptible.15 As a result, a sacrifice “free from any stain”16 is needed
to restore humanity to its original state, since it would mark a new beginning for humanity, and cleanse
creation of corruption. As a result, “the Son of God became man,” to allow for our salvation, giving
humanity the opportunity to regain a likeness of God. As will be later discussed, if the Son of God did not
become man, remaining only divine, salvation would be possible, however the salvation of humanity would
not be. Additionally, the Incarnation and resurrection allows humanity to ‘become God,’ since through the
Word, humans were created incorruptibly in God’s image17 (although this incorruption was changed after
the Fall of Man.) Again, human likeness to God will be further discussed later.
To understand the necessity that “the Son of God became man” for the benefit of humanity, it is important
to explore Athanasius’ presentation of human corruption. Athanasius presents humanity as trapped in a
cycle of pleasure-seeking due to the Fall, with humans becoming increasingly more creative in their
destruction over time.18 Since only God is incorruptible, humans are intrinsically corrupt,19 and as such, a
pure figure who possesses a physical body is needed to sweep away corruption and offer humanity the
chance to return to God’s image. This inescapability of sin is shown in Athanasius’ description of corruption
as “not external to the body, but (…) attached to it,”20 presenting humanity as so steeped in sin before the
Incarnation that even the physical body indicated being enslaved to the pursuit of pleasure. Indeed,
Athanasius uses “flesh” to describe the entirety of humanity, its weakness and corruptibility, 21 and this is a
factor in why the physicality of Jesus is important, as will be later discussed. Athanasius focuses in detail on
the condition of humanity after the Fall and before the Incarnation, using listing to establish the corruption
11
New Advent: St Athanasius. [Web]
12
New Advent: On the Incarnation of the Word. 17:1.
13
Ludlow. The Early Church., pg216.
14
New Advent: On the Incarnation of the Word. 9:1.
15
Weinandy. Athanasius: A Theological Introduction., pg310.
16
New Advent: On the Incarnation of the Word. 9:1.
17
Weinandy. Athanasius: A Theological Introduction., pg31.
18
Leithart, Peter J. Athanasius. Baker Academic, 2011. Pg216.
19
Weinandy. Athanasius: A Theological Introduction., pg29.
20
New Advent: On the Incarnation of the Word., 44:4.
21
Leithart, Peter J. Athanasius. Baker Academic, 2011. Pg221.
