Who is right, Athanasius or Mastricht?
Christ and the Imago Dei
It can be tempting to plow right over deep, complicated passages in a classical text, but I find they often present us with an opportunity to contemplate a great mystery.
I am writing the chapter on the image of God in my Systematic Theology, and I keep returning to a paragraph in Athanasius’s On the Incarnation. Each time I read it I find myself thinking about it from another angle. Here it is:
“When he made the human race through his own Word, God, who has dominion over all, seeing again the weakness of their nature—that it was neither sufficient of itself to know the Creator nor to receive any knowledge of God, as he is uncreated whereas they had come into being from nothing, and as he is incorporeal whereas human beings had been fashioned here below with a body—and, comprehensively, that the deficiency of creatures for the understanding and knowledge of the maker was great, again had mercy on the human race, in that being good he did not leave them destitute of the knowledge of himself, lest their being should be profitless. For what profit would there be for those who were made, if they did not know their own Maker? Or how would they be rational, not knowing the Word of the Father, in whom they came to be? … So, lest this should happen, being good he bestowed on them of his own image, our Lord Jesus Christ, and made them according to his own image and according to the likeness, so that understanding through such grace the image, I mean the Word of the Father, they might be able to receive through him a notion of the Father, and knowing the Creator they might live the happy and truly blessed life.”
I cannot exposit the depths of this paragraph here, but a few observations from the perspective of Athanasius deserve attention: (1) On the basis of God’s incomprehensibility and incorporeality, Athanasius considers it a mercy that God would bestow on us a knowledge of himself. (2) The rationality of man is not only a gift but one that is fitting so that the mind of man can know the Logos himself—the Word. The Father creates man rational through his Logos so that by means of man’s rationality man may know the Logos (more on this in point four). (3) The imago Dei is a display of God’s inestimable goodness towards man. For what is the image he bestows on man but the Lord Jesus Christ himself? The goodness of God is the gift of his own image (the Logos). (4) Therefore, man can know the Father through Christ, because the perfect Image of the Father (Logos) is the image in man. As a result, man may know and enjoy his Maker, the source of his happiness.
Like I said, this single paragraph is profound. I love to read the Fathers because they can draw so many doctrines into their orbit in a single paragraph. However, this paragraph could be controversial. I was reading this paragraph from Athanasius at the same time I happened to be reading Petrus van Mastricht’s Theoretical-Practical Theology (vol. 3). He provides caution: Man is not “formed according to the human nature of Christ,” as if that human nature was “assumed in an extraordinary way at the time when man was created, as some of the fathers assert.” Mastricht is convinced we should adhere to a contrast: “we were created according to the image of God, not of Christ, and that Christ in his incarnation was made like us in all things, except for sin (Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:12, 17).” (I think Mastricht means the incarnate Christ when he uses italics; I doubt he would deny we are made in the image of God, the Trinity).
Now, Mastricht does not tell us what fathers he has in view, so it is hard to know if one of them is Athanasius. Maybe, but maybe not. Also, in the paragraph I’ve qoted Athanasius does not teach exactly what Mastricht fears, namely, that when Adam was created, he was created according to the human nature of Christ. Rather, Athanasius draws our attention, at least in this passage, to the eternally begotten Son, the Logos through whom the cosmos was made. So, it is difficult to discern whether these two theologians are in actual conflict with one another. For Mastricht’s worry may or may not be Athanasius’s point.
Regardless of whether a true disagreement is present (I will let others decide), both theologians keep us from a stunted understanding of the imago Dei. Athanasius will not allow us to think of the image as if it is a gift from the Father alone. For if this image consists of a faculty like intellect (interesting, isn’t it, that an emphasis on rationality is not merely a Western notion), then the way we know the Father is through the gift of the Logos, the Image. At the same time, Mastricht keeps the reason for the incarnation in view (a motivation Athanasius surely would have appreciated). By means of the incarnation the Son is made “like us in all things, except for sin” so that he might heal the image of God in us. He who is the Image by nature has assumed our nature so that we who are the image by participation might have that image repaired.
Besides writing my Systematic Theology, what else has been happening?
First, what am I reading for research? I have a stack of old and new books I’m working through. For example, Edward Feser’s Immortal Souls is a muscular defense of Aristotelian-Thomistic anthropology over against everything from Cartesian Dualism to materialism (see table of contents here). I love this power-punch of a line, which gives you a flavor of what you’re in for: “Say what you will about the Aristotelian-Thomistic account, its notion of a ‘formal identity between the intellect and the object it knows prevents the mind-world gap that has plagued modern philosophy...”
I’m also returning to Tertullian’s A Treatise on the Soul as I look at how the Fathers answered the question, From where does the soul originate? Emmaus press recently released their translation of Thomas Aquinas’s commentary on Aristotle’s On the Soul.
Second, I just found out that the breakouts (we are calling them Anselm House) for the Credo Conference are selling out. Some are already full! In these videos, Kevin DeYoung, Michael Reeves, Gavin Ortlund, and I all share what we are excited to talk about in our main messages as well. Register here before seats run out.
Third, the Center for Classical Theology met again. What a beautiful time seeing so many encourage one another around orthodoxy. Michael Horton delivered a lecture titled, “If Reformed, then catholic: Sola scriptura revisited.” Afterwards, GK Beale and Craig Carter joined Horton for a discussion that touched on everything from allegory in the Fathers to creeds in the liturgy. The 2025 CCT lecture will be in Boston. Stay tuned for details!
Fourth, the Credo podcast goes on while I am on sabbatical. Sam Parkison talks to Wyatt Graham about whether “Catholic Protestant” is an oxymoron. And more recently Sam is joined by Keith Mathison to critique the thought of Cornelius Van Til, based on Mathison’s new book, Toward a Reformed Apologetic, in the REDS series J.V. Fesko and I edit.
Fifth, during our recent family trip to New York City I escaped not a few times to explore historic churches and cathedrals. I’ll limit my selection to four (pictures in order) that featured something quite unique:
1. Cathedral of St. John the Divine - its pillars were like redwoods and the pulpit pictured wins the competition.
2. St. Patrick's Cathedral - I snuck in during a wedding and what I loved most were the church fathers surrounding the pews, including Anselm (which is rare to find in my experience)
3. St. Thomas Church - I only included one picture and it's by far the most intricate. You will know it when you see it.
4. Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church - by far the most formidable wood pulpit I saw (and with overhanging organ).
That’s all for now. I’ll be back soon though. I’m contemplating the simplicity of the Trinity for my message at the Credo Conference, and I will have some insights to share. In the meantime, we just started a donation page for Credo. Your contribution helps us make everything from the podcast to the magazine to the conference happen.