Athenagoras’ Doctrine
of God
Athenagoras’ theology
was deeply influenced by the popular Platonism which he knew well. Like Albinus
he conveniently summarizes: God is “uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible,
incomprehensible, and infinite.” He “can be apprehended by mind and reason
alone.” He is “encompassed by light, beauty, spirit, and indescribable power.”
He created and adorned the universe and now rules it ([Apology] 10).
He was not the first
apologist to identify God as Mind. Philo sometimes spoke about God as “the
active cause, the most pure and unsullied Mind of the universe,” (Philo The
Creation 8; Migration of Abraham 192-93), and the Christian
apologist Aristides called him “wholly Intellect” (Aristides Apology 1.5).
According to Clement such a doctrine is Platonic (Clement Stromata 4.155.2).
Others did not make
this identification. In the Corpus Hermeticum (2.14) we read that “God
is not Mind but the cause of the existence of mind,” and Theophilus said, “If I
call him Mind, I speak (only) of his intelligence” (1.3). They thus tried not
to be unduly precise.
A remarkable feature
of Athenagoras’ discussion of God is the proof he provides for the existence of
only one God (ch. 8). The two preceding chapters have cited one spurious text
from Sophocles and the philosophers who favored this belief, from the Pythagoreans
onward. Now he provides “the reasoning that supports our faith.” The argument
seems to go as follows:
Two gods (or more)
would have to be in (1) the same category or (2) different categories. (1) As
gods, uncreated, they could not belong to the same category (1.1) Against
Platonic doctrine: created things belong to the same categories because made
after models; uncreated things are dissimilar. (1.2) God is not composite and
divisible into complementary parts (i.e., gods). Against Stoic doctrine: he is “uncreated,
impassible, and indivisible.” (2) As gods they could not be independent. (2.1)
The Maker of the world is above and around the spherical creation and governs
it, and therefore there is no place for other god(s). (2.1.1) Such a god could
not be in the world since it belongs to God. (2.1.2) Such a god could not be
around the world since God is above it. (2.2) Such a god could not be above the
world and God, in another world and around it. (2.2.1) For if he is in or
around another world, he is not around us, since the Maker rules over our
world, and (2.2.2.) his power is not great, since he is in a limited place [so
he is not God]. (2.3) And if he is not in or around another world, he does not
exist, since there is no place for him or anything for him to do. Therefore
there is one God, the Creator of the world.
The argument
apparently contains echoes of chapters 3-4 of Pseudo-Aristotle, On Melissus Xenophanes
Gorgias, an eclectic treatise from the Roman period. The chapters printed
by Diels under “Xenophanes” begin with the assertion that “what comes into
existence must come either from like or from unlike” and move on to conclude
that God is eternal. Then “if he is most powerful of all, he must be one. For
if there were two or more, he would not be most powerful and best of all.” The
author then considers motion and shape (spherical) in regard to God, though not
the “place” on which Athenagoras lays emphasis. There is no reason to suppose
that the teaching goes back to Xenophanes, but it is one more link in the chain
that binds the name of this pre-Socratic philosopher to early Christian
monotheism. Later on, a simplified version of the argument appears in Irenaeus
and Tertullian (Irenaeus Heresies 2.2.1-2; Tertullian Against Marcion
1.3-11).
The Logos
Athenagoras calls the
Son the Mind, Logos, and Sophia of the Father and claims that he is “united in
power” with him “yet distinguished in rank.” For him, as for Justin, the Son if
the “first being begotten by the Father.” The expression may reflect a doctrine
of a primal Logos-Sophia, based on what “the prophetic Spirit” said in Proverbs
8:22: “The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works” (24.2;
10.2-5).
The Son if Logos of
the Father “in ideal form (ideai) and energy (energeiai) in
relation to the creation.” Here Athenagoras’ terms recall the Platonic idea
and the Aristotelian energeia, as Schoedel notes. The language is
derived from philosophical doctrines.
Does Athenagoras
really have a Christology? It is hard to say, since there is only one possible
allusion to the incarnation. “If a god assumes flesh by divine dispensation, is
he then a slave of lust?” Probably such a God, the Logos, did assume flesh; but
while Athenagoras cites teaching from the Gospels he does not ascribe it to
Jesus (11.2; 21.4; 32.2)
. . . .
The Trinity
The explicit doctrine
of the Trinity in Athenagoras is probably the oldest we possess. He speaks of “God
the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” indicating that Christians “proclaim
both their power in their unity and their diversity in rank” (6.1). There is
unity between Son and Father and communion between Father and Son, while God,
his Logos, and the Holy Spirit are “united in power yet distinguished in rank”
(10.5 = 24.2; 12.3). The relation of Spirit to Father and Son is still
imprecise, as would be expected in this early period. (Robert M. Grant, Greek
Apologists of the Second Century [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1988],
106-8, 109)