background image
27
Thus all things are subject to one God and his word, just as in Athenagoras's time the known world was
subject to the emperor and his son (18.2).
185
Their dual supremacy over creation is also seen in the fact
that Christians are guided by the Spirit "to know the true God and His Word (uJpoV movnou deV
parapempovmenoi tou' toVn o[ntw" qeoVn kaiV toVn par* aujtou' lovgon eijdevnai), to know what is the
unity of the Son with the Father (tiv" hJ tou' paidoV" toVn patevra eJnovth")" (12.2). Because of this
status of the Son in union with the Father, Christians revere God as "the maker of this universe and the
Word that comes from Him" (30.3).
Similarly, the Holy Spirit has the same unity with the Father and Son. Expressing for the first time a
theory of divine unity that anticipated later development in the West especially by Augustine,
186
Athenagoras wrote that the Son is "in the Father and the Father in the Son by the powerful union of the
Spirit" (Embassy 10.2).
187
The Father, Son, and Spirit--being thus united "according to power"
188
(24.1)--are the objects of Christian faith and confession (12.2, 4).
Yet amidst some of the strongest statements indicating intrapersonal unity of the divine persons,
Athenagoras asserted with equal strength their diversity. In a key statement, he noted that Christians call
God "Father and Son and Holy Spirit, proclaiming their power in unity and in rank their diversity"
(Embassy 10.4).
189
The term tavxi", appropriately translated here as "rank," indicates a consistent
ordering of authority in function, though in this very sentence Athenagoras asserted their equality of
power (duvnami").
190
In fact, this notion of unity and diversity was regarded by Athenagoras as part of
the basic Christian faith and confession, for Christians are led by the Spirit "to know what is the unity
and division of these three great ones thus united (tiv" hJ tw'n toiouvtwn e{nwsi" kaiV diaivresi"
eJnoumevnwn)--Spirit, Son, and Father (tou' pneuvmato", tou' paidov", tou' patrov")" (12.2).
The specific character of the tavxi" of Father and Son is developed throughout the Embassy. Though
the Son is the Word, mind, thought, and power of the Father (10.2), who had the Word within himself
184
= eJnoV" o[nto" tou' patroV" kaiV tou' uiJou'. Crehan notes that "eJnovth" is a favourite word with Ignatius, but even in Eph.
14.1 and Smyrn. 12.2 the unity is rather of men with God than of the Persons of the Trinity among themselves. @Enwsi" and
diaivresi" are likewise proper to Athenagoras among Christians" (Crehan, ed., Athenagoras, 137, n. 81).
185
Athenagoras wrote, "Just as all is subject to you two, father and son, who have received the kingdom from God (wJ" gaVr
uJmi'n patriV kaiV uiJw'/ pavnta keceivrwtai) . . . , even so to the one God and to His Word (ou{tw" eJvi tw'/ qew'/ kaiV tw'/ par* aujtou'
lovgw/), Son by intellectual generation and inseparable (uiJw'/ nooumevnw/ ajmperivstw/), all has been made subject (pavnta
uJpotevtaktai)."
186
Barnard, Athenagoras, 98.
187
=!Onto" deV tou' uiJou' ejn patriV kaiV patroV" ejn uiJw'/ eJnovthti kaiV dunavmei pneu'mato". Crehan writes, "The idea of
considering the Spirit as the uniting power of the Father and the Son is here set forth for the first time in Christian theology. No
doubt one can derive it from certain Johannine phrases, but Athenagoras has supplied it with its first technical terms" (Crehan, ed.,
Athenagoras, 132, n. 59).
188
= kataV duvnamin.
189
= deiknuvnta" aujtw'n kaiV thVn ejn th'/ eJnwvsei duvnamin kaiV thVn ejn th'/ tavxei diaivresin.
190
Crehan writes in an earlier footnote, "Richardson has no justification for translating tavxi" here as rank instead of the correct
word order and so making Athenagoras reduce the Spirit to a lower level than the Father and the Son. Elsewhere in the work tavxi"
undoubtedly means order rather than rank" (Crehan, ed., Athenagoras, 133, n. 62). Besides the obvious attempt by Crehan to rescue
Athenagoras from what he sees as an errant view of the Spirit, there are several problems with his comment here. First, I wonder
what the real difference is between "rank" and "order" in English, as any dictionary demonstrates that the two terms overlap in their
semantic domains. I am uncertain what nuances of "rank" Crehan is excluding and what nuances of "order" he is embracing.
Second, his fear of reducing the Spirit "to a lower level than the Father and the Son" does not serve as an adequate explanation, for
it is clear that the Son and Spirit are overwhelmingly presented in second century literature as operating under the will and direction
of the Father and at least in this functional sense are at a lower level without necessarily compromising equality in divine power.
Third, his own English translation renders tavxi" as "rank" in Embassy 10.4: "their power in unity and in rank their diversity."
Fourth, even if we were to consistently render the term as "order," this would still not negate the fact that for Athenagoras (and, in
fact, for all of the writers of the second century), the monarchia of the Godhead rests with the Father while the Son and Spirit)
operate in submission to the Father's will. Thus, since the concept of rank is already clearly established in the second century, I can
see no reason for Crehan to prevent tavxi" from communicating this concept explicitly. Barnard, who sides with Crehan on the
distinction between "rank" and "order," concedes in the end, "The logos has two relationships with the Father, immanent in the
Godhead, and expressed in procession when He presides over the ordering of the universe. This is a difference of function rather
than nature and, properly understood, does not lend itself to a subordinationist interpretation" (Barnard, Athenagoras, 101).