(Research Paper) Archaeological Finds to Support David and Solomon's Kingdoms

Introduction

            Over the centuries, there has been much debate over the historicity of the Bible. One form of study that has developed to address this issue is biblical archaeology. Carl Keil, in 1858, defined biblical archaeology as “the scientific, representation of the forms which life assumed among the people of Israel as that nation of antiquity which God had selected to be the bearer of the revelations in the Bible.”[1] Until recently, biblical archaeology was discovering little proof for the existence of the United Monarchy of David and Solomon. David and Solomon’s reigns would have been during the Iron Age IIa time period, and there was a general lack of evidence from this time period. This has led many to speculate that David and Solomon were fictitious characters created as an example of what great kings would be like. However, recent discovers are providing the historical evidence for the existence of both David and Solomon and their kingdom.

Historical Person or Fictitious Character

            The first step in proving the historical existence of the kingdoms of David and Solomon is demonstrating that David and Solomon were historical people. The lack of archaeological evidence for their kingdoms in Jerusalem seemed to validate the assertions saying they did not exist. However, it is important to note that Jerusalem “was ‘officially’ destroyed at least twice, besieged to near destruction at least twenty-three times, and attacked more than fifty-two times by outside forces.”[2] As a result of all the conflict that has surrounded the city, it is understandable that most relics from the Iron Age IIa period, approximately tenth century BCE, have been destroyed. With this in mind, it becomes necessary to look to other sources for proof of the existence of David and Solomon and their kingdoms.

David

            A monumental find in proving the historicity of David is the Dan Inscription which was found in Tel Dan in 1993. This inscription was found on the underside of a slab that had been repurposed as a paving stone. The slab has been “dated to about 800 B.C.E., and it is theorized that the stele was on display from perhaps 796 to 791 B.C.E..”[3] The inscription relates the claims of Hazael, the King of Aram. It said “I killed Jehoram, son of Ahab, king of Israel, and I killed Ahaziahu, son of Jehoram, king of the house of David.”[4] Both kings that are listed are biblical kings from the Northern and Southern kingdoms. Of more significance though is the reference to the house of David. This reference shows that as of the ninth century BCE the surrounding nations recognized the house of David. This means David was a real person that left real descendants. This one find has satisfied all but the staunchest critics of the historicity of David.

            A second find that supports the historicity of David is the Meshe Stele. This inscription was found in 1868 and contains the claims of the Moabite King Meshe of his victory over an Israelite king, believed to be Ahab.[5] This stele has been dated to the ninth century.[6] After the discovery of the Dan Inscription, this piece was re-inspected and the section at the end, that has been damaged, is believed to reference the house of David.[7] This makes two inscriptions from nations outside of Israel that reference a house of David.

Solomon

            The discoveries that demonstrate the historicity of Solomon are architectural finds rather than the inscriptions in the case of David. One of these architectural finds is the gates in Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer. These gates have all been dated to the Solomonic period, and the similarities in the gates strongly suggest that they were all built by the same architect.[8] This seems to be validated when compared to 1 Kings 9:15: “Now this is the account of the forced labor which King Solomon levied to build the house of the Lord, his own house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer.”[9] The gates have been dated to the time of Solomon, were designed by the same person, and are the cities that 1 Kings states that Solomon rebuilt. This all points to Solomon being a historical person who ordered the construction of these three.

            The second architectural find that supports Solomon as being a historical person is the ruins of Gezer. The importance of Gezer is seen from 1 Kings 19:16 “For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up and captured Gezer and burned it with fire, and killed the Canaanites who lived in the city, and had given it as a dowry to his daughter, Solomon’s wife.” In the ruins of Gezer, the remains of a palace-like structure was found. This is believed to have been built by Solomon for his wife. “It is now known that a casemate building west of the gate is a tenth-century ‘palace’ comparable to those of Solomonic Megiddo.”[10] This palace in Gezer supports what the Bible says about Solomon adding to his historicity.

Cultural Development

            Another argument that is used to try and disprove the historicity of the biblical account of David and Solomon revolves around the development of the peoples of Israel.  It is asserted that even though they existed as people, the kingdom was not developed. “Israel at the time of David and Solomon, they argued, was at most a bunch of tribes led by a local tribal chief; hence, it was not a nation so much as a chiefdom.”[11] But recent archaeological discoveries are demonstrating that not only were David and Solomon real people but they were the kings of a culturally-developed kingdom.

Khirbet Summiely

            Khirbet Summiely was “a small Biblical period village (10^th-8^th century BC)”[12] this village was located in the northern part of the kingdom in the Negev desert. At this village archaeologist have found, among other things, some ancient bullae. A bullae was a seal that was used on official documents. It is similar to the wax seal used on later political documents. The bullae in question have been positively dated from the tenth century BCE.[13] The existences of these bullae from the time of the united monarchy, in a village on the outskirts of the kingdom, demonstrates that there was “political or administrative activities going on at a level well beyond those typical of a rural farmstead.”[14] Since this is the time period that is attested to the kingdoms of David and Solomon, these bullae are used to demonstrate that their kingdoms were more than chiefdoms.

Khirbet Qeiyafa

            Another archaeological discovery demonstrating that the kingdom of David was more than a chiefdom is the city of Khirbet Qeiyafa. The remains at Qeiyafa are remarkably well-preserved as a one period site. In this case, everything in this city has been dated from the tenth century BCE. Archeologists have been able to date Qeiyafa using pottery shards and olive pits. The dating of the remains is precise enough to say that the city was not used during the reign of King Solomon. They found remains of a casemate wall. “This fortification wall is more than 2,200 feet long and 13 feet wide.”[15] The weight of all the stone needed to build such a wall is more than 200,000 tons. The archaeologist also found “a massive four chambered gate.”[16] This type of building project would require a “highly organized society” to accomplish. This suggest that Israel was not just tribes but a kingdom.

Jerusalem

Solomon’s Temple

            The lack of evidence in Jerusalem, the City of David, has led many to speculate that the biblical accounts are inaccurate. As noted earlier, this lack of evidence in large part is due to the repeated destruction of the city of Jerusalem throughout the last six thousand years. Of particular interest within the city is Solomon’s Temple. There have been no remains found from the magnificent temple that he built. It is natural that when the city was destroyed, first by the Babylonians and then by the Romans, they would utterly destroy the center of worship for the conquered people. Also, the holy Islamic temple, Dome of the Rock, has been constructed on the site of Solomon’s Temple, making it impossible to excavate. With the combination of all these factors, the lack of archaeological evidence does not point to the non-existence of Solomon’s Temple.  Instead, the assertion that Solomon’s temple did not exist must be held in abeyance until such time that excavations can be completed under the Dome of the Rock.

David’s Palace

            Eliat Mazar has found the remains of a large stone structure on the outskirts of the Old City. Many have speculated this was David’s palace. Mazar compared the archaeological findings of previous digs with the biblical narrative and came to the conclusion that David would have built on the outskirts of the conquered Jerusalem because he planned to expand the city walls.[17] When Mazar raised the funding and began to excavate the site, they did indeed find the remains of a substantial building. This finding is being called the “Large-Stone Structure.”[18] Mazar believes the structure was built during the reign of David and had been renovated a couple of times through the following years.[19]

            The most serious claim against Mazar is the dating of the Large-Stone Structure. After her first dig, the critics claimed the walls were from “the late Hellenistic period.”[20] However after the second dig the dating of the structure was clearly Iron Age. This led Faust to observe that the structure is older than David’s conquest of Jerusalem. “[I]t is quite clear in light of the above dating that the complex was constructed in the period before this [David’s conquest], and prior to the establishment of David’s capital in Jerusalem.” Faust has admitted that it is possible that David used the structure, “David may still have used the structure as his palace or as a fortress.”[21] Even if the Large-Stone Structure was not originally built by David but was renovated by him, this find which is mentioned in the Bible is a great discovery.

Conclusion

These recent discoveries have helped to prove the historical evidence for the existence of David and Solomon and their kingdoms. By using sources outside of Israel that demonstrate the house of David was a recognized establishment, this anchors David’s kingdom as a historical event rather than a fictitious tale of Israel’s past. The city gates and building at Gezer also substantiate the historicity of Solomon. The bullae from Summiely and the walls and city gate from Qeiyafa demonstrate that David and Solomon’s kingdoms were more than a collection of nomadic tribes. The lack of evidence for Solomon’s Temple is not detrimental for the case for Solomon due to the large amount of destruction in Jerusalem in general and the geopolitical complications of the temple site in particular. Lastly, the remains of a building in the area indicated by the Bible and consistent with a palace structure all support the biblical narrative for the kingdoms of David and Solomon. 

Bibliography

Dever, William G. Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1990.

Faust, Avraham. “Did Eilat Mazar Find David’s Palace?” Biblical Archaeology Review, (September/October 2012): 47-70. Accessed December 10, 2016. file:///C:/Users/Krista/Downloads/Did_Eilat_Mazar_Find_Davids_Palace_Bibli.pdf.

Freund, Richard A. Digging Through the Bible: Understanding Biblical People, Places, and Controversies through Archaeology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.

Golden, Jonathan M. Ancient Canaan and Israel: New Perspectives. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO’s, 2004.

Hoerth, Alfred. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.

Mazar, Eilat. “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” Biblical Archaeology Society, (May 8, 2016). Accessed December 10, 2016. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/did-i-find-king-davids-palace/.

Science News Staff. “New Finds Suggest Biblical Kings David and Solomon Actually Existed.” Archaeology, (December 26, 2014). Accessed December 10, 2016. http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/science-biblical-kings-david-solomon-02371.html.

Shanks, Hershel. “Newly Discovered: A Fortified City from King David’s Time, Answers-and Questions-at Khirbet Qeiyafa.” Biblical Archaeological Review 35, no. 1 (January/February 2009). Accessed December 10, 2016. http://www.basarchive.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/bswbSearch.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=35&Issue=1&ArticleID=8&UserID=0&.

Woodbridge, John D. and Frank A. James III. Church History, vol. 2, From Pre-Reformation to the Present Day. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.

---

[1] John D. Woodbridge and Frank A. James III, Church History, vol. 2, From Pre-Reformation to the Present Day (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 672.

[2] Richard A. Freund, Digging Through the Bible: Understanding Biblical People, Places, and Controversies through Archaeology (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009), 124.

[3] Jonathan M. Golden, Ancient Canaan and Israel: New Perspectives (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2004), 272.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 288.

[9] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the New American Standard Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002).

[10] William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1990), 97.

[11] Hershel Shanks, “Newly Discovered: A Fortified City from King David’s Time, Answers-and Questions-at Khirbet Qeiyafa,” Biblical Archaeological Review 35, no. 1 (January/February 2009): accessed December 10, 2016, http://www.basarchive.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/bswbSearch.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=35&Issue=1&ArticleID=8&UserID=0&. 

[12] Science News Staff, “New Finds Suggest Biblical Kings David and Solomon Actually Existed,” Archaelogy, (December 26, 2014): accessed December 10, 2016, http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/science-biblical-kings-david-solomon-02371.html.

[13] Ibid.

[14] “New Finds Suggest Biblical Kings.”

[15] Shanks, “Newly Discovered.”

[16] Ibid.

[17] Eilat Mazar, “Did I Find King David’s Palace?,” Biblical Archaeology Society, (May 8, 2016): accessed December 10, 2016, http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/did-i-find-king-davids-palace/.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Avraham Faust, “Did Eilat Mazar Find David’s Palace?,” Biblical Archaeology Review, (September/October 2012): 49, accessed December 10, 2016, file:///C:/Users/Krista/Downloads/Did_Eilat_Mazar_Find_Davids_Palace_Bibli.pdf.

[21] Faust, “Did Mazar Find David’s Palace,” 51.

(Research Paper) Athanasius and the Holy Spirit

I apologize now this post is an academic research paper I wrote this month for a history class. Those who are interested in what I have been studying are welcome to read it, everyone feel free to ignore. :-)

Introduction

            “History is a treasure house of knowledge and wisdom. The present has its roots in the past, and a man who only knows the life of to-day can never fully understand it.”[1] The doctrines of the modern church have deep roots in the past. These doctrines have not always been fully developed. Rather, current doctrinal beliefs are the result of much disagreement and theological discussion through the last two thousand years. Much can be learned from a proper understanding of the history of a doctrine and the people who were key in the development of that belief. One such treasure house of knowledge and wisdom is the life of Athanasius. Athanasius lived in a tumultuous time in the history of the church, but through his steadfastness, he influenced many of the church’s doctrines both then and now. Having lived through the tumultuous times Athanasius’ influence greatly shaped the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.   

The History of the Church Leading to Athanasius

            Jesus was not the last person to die because of what He taught. Following His death and resurrection was the stoning of Stephen and the persecution of the new forming Church that would come to be known as The Way “They went on stoning Stephen . . . And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem . . .” (Acts 7:59a, 8:1b).[2] Eventually the religious tumult of this Roman province reached Rome in the person of Paul. Although there is not a lot known as facts concerning Paul’s time of captivity in Rome, “That Paul’s life was brought to an end in Rome by the executioner’s sword may be confidently accepted, but tradition associates his execution with the persecution of Christians in Rome which followed the great fire of A.D. 64 . . .”[3] The great fire being the fire that swept through Rome destroying much of the city. When rumors began to circulate saying Nero was to blame for the fire, he accused and condemned the Christians.[4] Over the next three hundred years, the Christians in the Roman empire encountered various levels of persecution from the various ruling authorities.

            Christianity was perceived as a new religion, and its followers were considered to be dangerous to the empire. “Christians were held responsible for various calamities since they did not worship the traditional gods.”[5] “This avoidance of customs regarded as natural by their pagan neighbors soon earned for them a reputation as enemies of the human race.”[6] The three major charges brought against Christians were they were atheist, cannibals, and participated in incest.[7] An atheist in the first century was someone who did not worship the traditional gods or follow their practices.[8] According to this definition, the Christians were considered atheist because they did not worship Roman gods or follow the practices of the many Roman religions. The accusation of cannibalism was because of the observation of the Lord’s Supper where they spoke of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ.[9] The charge of incest most likely came from the early Christians referring to each other as brother and sister.[10]

            Some of the emperors that instigated or allowed persecution were: Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, and Maximinus. The Christian’s situation took a particularly bad turn under Decius and Valerian in the mid-third century. At the completion of this time of persecution, a second period of peace began which would last until the start of the fourth century when Diocletian tried to eliminate the church.[11] Constantine rose to power in the West shortly after the resignation of Diocletian. Licinius gained control of the East and met with Constantine “where they resolved their differences and compromised on a common policy toward the Christians: the property of the church was to be returned and full liberty of worship permitted.”[12] Constantine came to take an active role in the affairs of the church.

Athanasius’ Personal Life

            It is believed that Athanasius was born between 296-300 AD in Alexandria.[13] This date is chosen because Athanasius did not show a personal recollection of the persecution under Diocletian in 303 AD. Also, when he was made bishop of Alexandria, in 328 AD, he was perceived as being too young, “his enemies claimed that he was under the canonical age of thirty.”[14] It is believed he could not have been born later because some of his theology teachers were martyred in 311.[15] The population was a mixture of Egyptian, Greek, and Jews.[16] “It [Alexandria] had come to stand for the best of Greek culture. Here philosophers, poets, and artists lived and flourished. As the East and West met commercially, so they met intellectually at Alexandria.”[17] Because of Alexandria’s was located on the Mediterranean near Lake Mareotis and the mouth of the Nile, it was a center for thought and commerce.

            A commonly held belief is that Athanasius was born to Christian parents[18] who were somewhat wealthy.[19] Athanasius himself was poor. Athanasius would have been raised with the stories of persecution from his mentors, and then at a young age, he witnessed the persecution under Maximin Daia. From this turbulent beginnings, Athanasius would face much unrest in the church as well as persecution for his beliefs.

            Bishop Alexander and the church as a whole recognized Athanasius as a promising individual. While still in his twenties, Athanasius served as a deacon under Bishop Alexander.[20] During the council of Nicaea in 325, Athanasius served as Bishop Alexander’s secretary.[21] Three years later in 328 Athanasius became the Bishop of Alexandria. Many were not pleased with his appointment and used his age and accusations of “heavy-handed and violent behavior”[22] to try and discredit him. Despite the opposition, Athanasius grew extremely popular among the people in his diocese. Athanasius worked tirelessly to eradicate heresy and see the church unified. Over the course of Athanasius’ forty-five years as Bishop of Alexandria, he was exiled five times.[23] Athanasius spent seventeen of those forty-five years in exile.[24] “But the dauntless bishop is not a man to regret the price exacted for his loyalty to his convictions. Better to be an exile in Gaul than a false bishop seated in full power at Alexandria.”[25]  

Athanasius was a key figure in the Arian Controversy that surrounded the council of Nicaea. At the heart of the Arian Controversy was the divinity of Jesus and the role He played in salvation. Even from exile, Athanasius, through his correspondences, continued to play a major role in the fighting for the Nicaean creed. “Athanasius’s steadfastness and his writings blocked the Arians’ progress and prepared for the eventual victory of the Nicaea cause.”[26] As the Arian controversy started to come to a fragile close, questions regarding the Holy Spirit and His role in the trinity were raised.

Beliefs Regarding the Holy Spirit from the Fourth Century

            During the fourth century the confusion surrounding the Holy Spirit and His role within the Trinity became evident. Many who had come to accept the deity of Jesus were not willing to allow that the Holy Spirit was also God but rather “the noblest of creatures produced by the Son at the Father’s bidding.”[27] Athanasius called this group the Tropici “because they resorted to a figurative analysis of Scripture.”[28] This group was also known as the “Pneumatomachi, ‘spirit fighters,’ who, like the Tropici before them, considered the Holy Spirit to be a creature, hence something less than divine.”[29] The Tropici tried to show the absurdity of the Holy Spirit being divine by asking two lines of questions. The first question was whether the Holy Spirit was the brother of Jesus; this would mean Jesus was not the only begotten son. The second question, along the same lines, was if the Holy Spirit was the son of the Son of God, would this not make God, the Father a grandfather. Combatting these views were the works of Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus.[30]

            Cyril argued for the Holy Spirit’s uniqueness from the rest of the created world. “No created being is equal in honor to him [the Spirit]. Not all classes of angels, not all their hosts together have equality with the Holy Spirit . . .”[31] He drew a second distinction contending the Holy Spirit was different from other spirits. Basil of Caesarea also made this distinction “One does not speak of the Spirit and of the angels as if they were equals.”[32] Gregory of Nyssa insisted that the Holy Spirit had the same divine nature as the Father and the Son.[33] Athanasius’ views will be addressed shortly. Gregory of Nazianzus has the distinction of being the first person to “declare explicitly that the Holy Spirit is God.”[34] At the council of Constantinople in 381, the divinity of the Holy Spirit was confirmed.[35]

Athanasius and the Holy Spirit

            Athanasius, in his third exile in the late 350’s, received word from Serapion of Thmuis that some Egyptian Christians were becoming Tropici.[36] Athanasius, in a series of letters, wrote to defend the position of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. There is some argument whether letters two and three were really one letter or two. Either way, the series of letters presents Athanasius’ detailed defense of the Holy Spirit.

            Athanasius begins by addressing the belief that the Holy Spirit is just a spirit.

Tell us, then, is there any passage in the divine Scripture where the Holy Spirit is found simply referred to as 'spirit' without the addition of 'of God', or 'of the Father', or 'my', or 'of Christ' himself, and 'of the Son', or 'from me' (that is, from God), or with the article so that he is called not simply 'spirit' but 'the Spirit', or the very term 'Holy Spirit' or 'Paraclete' or 'of Truth' (that is, of the Son who says, 'I am the Truth'),— that, just because you heard the word 'spirit', you take it to be the Holy Spirit?[37]

Athanasius uses this argument to point out that not all references to “spirit” in the Bible are referencing the Holy Spirit. By establishing this point, he is able to discredit his opponents that were pointing to verses speaking of angels or the spirit of man.

            The next issue that Athanasius takes on is the belief that the Holy Spirit is a creature. “But when did you find him distinguished in nature and separated from the Son, that, while you say that Christ is not a creature, you say that the Holy Spirit is a creature? . . . At this rate you will number and join together with the Son, as well as with the Spirit, the creatures originated through his agency.”[38] Athanasius is saying that if the Holy Spirit is created and they are ranking him as part of the Trinity then all created things could be ranked in the Trinity. “If he were a creature, he would not be ranked with the Triad. For the whole Triad is one God. It is enough to know that the Spirit is not a creature, nor is he numbered with the things that are made. For nothing foreign is mixed with the Triad; it is indivisible and consistent.”[39]

            In regards to the Tropici argument that the Spirit is either brother or son of Jesus, Athanasius had some seething remarks to make. “But if the disciples of Arius, because wisdom will not enter their deceitful hearts, are not able intelligently to believe in the indivisible and holy Triad, let them not on that account pervert the truth as well, neither let them say that what they cannot understand cannot be true.”[40] Athanasius also addressed their challenge of the Holy Spirit being either a brother or son of Jesus.

And in the Godhead alone, the Father is a father in the strict sense, and the Son a son in the strict sense; and of these it holds good that the Father is ever Father and the Son ever Son. As the Father could never be son, so neither could the Son be a father. As the Father will never cease to be Only Father, so the Son will never cease to be Only Son. By all accounts then, it is madness to envisage a brother to the Son, or to ascribe to the Father the name of grandfather. For the Spirit is not given the name of son in the Scriptures, lest he be taken for a brother; nor son of the Son, lest the Father be thought to be a grandfather. But the Son is called Son of the Father, and the Spirit of the Father is called Spirit of the Son.[41]

Athanasius’ argument was that the Father could be nothing other than the Father. This is in direct contrast to humanity where all but Adam had to be a son before they can be a father. In the same way, the Son can be nothing other than the Son, He will not be father. The natural extension to this line of argument is the Spirit is to be called Spirit - nothing else is to be added to this title.

            One of the duties of the Holy Spirit is to make humanity share in the divine nature; the Holy Spirit could not do this if He was not Himself divine.

If the Holy Spirit were a creature, we should have no participation of God in him. If indeed we were joined to a creature, we should be strangers to the divine nature inasmuch as we did not partake therein. But, as it is, the fact of our being called partakers of Christ and partakers of God shows that the unction and seal that is in us belongs, not to the nature of things originate, but to the nature of the Son who, through the Spirit who is in him, joins us to the Father. [42]

Once again Athanasius is demonstrating that the Holy Spirit is not a creature. Rather He is divine and it is because of His being divine that He is able to make humanity share in the divine nature of God.

            Athanasius also used six sets of images that he pulled from the scriptures to describe the Trinity and the function of all within the Trinity. Denis Edwards describes Athanasius’ use of imagery in this way: “his images, taken from the Bible, have a capacity to engage the imagination. They speak of God in beautiful ways.”[43] Each set of images, shows the role of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Three of the sets of images that Athanasius uses are “[1] The Father, the Son, the Spirit who makes us Sons and Daughters. [2] Fountain of Wisdom, the Wisdom of God, the Gift of Wisdom. [3] The Fathers Works, the Son does the Works of the Father, the Works are accomplished in the Power of the Spirit.”[44] Athanasius, with these and similar arguments, demonstrated that the Holy Spirit was an equal part of the trinity and not a created being.

            The major complaint that modern scholars have leveled against Athanasius is that he never came straight out and said that the Holy Spirit was God. Davis wrote, “Athanasius did not call the Spirit God.”[45] Tibbs also commented, “While Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa maintained the divinity of the Holy Spirit, they all came short of explicitly calling the Holy Spirit God.”[46] This charge, at first glance, would seem to put Athanasius in danger of heresy, however when looking at the writings of Athanasius, it becomes clear that Athanasius was not denying the Godhood of the Holy Spirit. Rather, Athanasius argued that the Holy Spirit was a divine being not a creature, and He is an equal part of the Trinity. Athanasius’ writings set the foundation upon which the Council of Constantinople confirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit in 381. The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is an equal part of the Trinity is held by modern Christianity.

Conclusion

            Athanasius lived and served in a tumultuous time in the church and the world but through his steadfastness he influenced the beliefs of many both then and now. One doctrinal area he was influential in developing is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Athanasius did not compromise his beliefs even when exiled five times and in danger of his life. Through the theological understanding and advancements of Athanasius diligent studying of the Scriptures and his unwillingness to compromise his beliefs, we have a fuller knowledge of the Holy Spirit and a preserved Nicaea Creed. “Some lives are so vital that they speak a message to every age, and such a life was that of Athanasius.”[47]

Bibliography

Anatolios, Khaled. Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.

Athanasius. The Letters of Saint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit to Bishop Serapion. Translated by C. R. B. Shapland. Epworth Press, 1951. http://thegroveisonfire.com/books/Athanasius/Athanasius-Letters-to-Serapion-CRB-Shapland.pdf. Web. Accessed October 14, 2016.

Bruce, F. F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1990.

Edwards, Denis. "Athanasius' Letters to Serapion: Resource for a Twenty-First Century Theology of God the Trinity." Phronema 29.2 (2014): 41-64. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. Accessed October 8, 2016.

Ferguson, Everett. Church History. Vol. 1, From Christ to the Pre-Reformation the Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context. 2nd. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.

Hough, Lynn Harold. Athanasius: The Hero. NY: Eaton and Mains, 1906.

Tibbs, Clint. “The Spirit (World) and the (Holy) Spirits among the Earliest Christians: 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 as a Test Case.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 70.2 (April 2008): 313-330. ATLA   Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. Accessed October 14, 2016.

---

[1] Lynn Harold Hough, Athanasius: The Hero (Cincinnati, OH: Jennings and Graham, 1906), 10.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the New American Standard Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002).

[3] F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 441.

[4] Everett Ferguson, Church History Volume One: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation the Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 63.

[5] Ibid., 65.

[6] Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1990), 20.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ferguson, Church History, 66.

[10] Ibid., 66.

[11] Ferguson, Church History, 159.

[12] Davis, First Seven Ecumenical Councils, 28.

[13] Hough, Athanasius: The Hero, 35.

[14] Ibid., 35.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 31.

[17] Ibid., 32.

[18] Ferguson, Church History, 204.

[19] Hough, Athanasius: The Hero, 36.

[20] Ferguson, Church History, 204.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 100.

[23] Davis, First Seven Ecumenical Councils, 110.

[24] Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 100.

[25] Hough, Athanasius: The Hero, 74.

[26] Ferguson, Church History, 206.

[27] Davis, First Seven Ecumenical Councils, 106-107.

[28] Ibid., 107.

[29] Clint Tibbs, “The Spirit (World) and the (Holy) Spirits among the Earliest Christians: 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 as a Test Case,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 70.2 (April 2008): 313-330, accessed October 14, 2016.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Tibbs, “The Spirit (World),” 313-330.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ferguson, Church History, 209.

[36] Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 137.

[37] Athanasius to Bishop Serapion, 350’s, in The Letters of Saint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit to Bishop Serapion, trans., C. R. B. Shapland (Epworth Press, 1951), 31.

[38] Athanasius to Bishop Serapion, in The Letters of Saint, 35.

[39] Ibid., 41.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Athanasius to Bishop Serapion, in The Letters of Saint, 45-46.

[43] Denis Edwards, “Athanasius’ Letters to Serapion: Resource for a Twenty-First Century Theology of God the Trinity,” Phronema, 29.2 (2014): 41-64, accessed October 8, 2016, 48.

[44] Ibid., 49.

[45] Davis, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, 107.

[46] Tibbs, “The Spirit (World),” 313-330.

[47] Hough, Athanasius: The Hero, 157.