|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
This article originally appears in the book NEW NARRATIVES FOR OLD The Historical Method of reading early Christian theology essays in honor of MICHEL RENÉ BARNES
———————-
The soteriology of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria from 328 until his death in 373, has been the focus of much scholarly attention. His doctrine of salvation defies easy categorization as it contains a rich variety of themes. Among many examples, Athanasius insists that the Word became incarnate to reveal the Father to fallen humanity, offer himself to the Father on humanity’s behalf, renew humans in the image of God,4 grant incorruptibility and life, create access to heaven,6 sanctify the mortal body, and deify human nature.8 Even the means by which God saves humans, according to Athanasius, is not uniform but rather is adapted to each individual. In his tenth Festal Letter he declares,
He [God] does not then possess one method only of healing, but being rich, He works in divers manners for our salvation by means of His Word, Who is not restricted or hindered in His dealings towards us; but since He is rich and manifold, He varies Himself according to the individual capacity of each soul.
However, Athanasius’s theology of the cross—a subset within his soteriology—is perhaps the clearest example of his multifaceted theological vision. Insisting that the cross is “the main point [τὸ κεφάλαιον]” of the Christian faith, Athanasius claims that on the cross Christ paid the debt humanity owes to death, made redemption for sins,12 created a pathway for resurrection, provided an example for how to suffer nobly,14 displayed his power over death, bore humanity’s curse on account of sin,16 reconciled all peoples in himself, opened again the way to heaven,18 and “purified the air” from the demons and the wiles of the devil. Though Athanasius associates the cross of Christ with multiple saving effects, in this essay I wish to draw attention to his idea of Christ’s superiority and conquest over evil forces. Athanasius presents these forces, as I will show, as supernatural, natural, and political. To shed light on this victory motif in his theology of the cross, I will explore Athanasius’s understanding and use of “the sign of the cross [τῷ σημείῳ τοῦ σταυροῦ]” in overcoming these evil forces in their various forms.
The importance Athanasius places on the “sign of the cross” as the means by which the saving, conquering work of Christ continues in the world has not received due attention. Therefore, my purpose in this essay is to demonstrate that whenever Athanasius discusses the sign of the cross in his writings, he accentuates the theme in his soteriology of Christ’s victory and authority over every kind of opponent and as an example of how that victory is put to effect in various contexts. To accomplish this, my method will be to first offer a brief sketch of the development and use of the sign of the cross in early Christian tradition. Second, I will explore the meaning and significance Athanasius ascribes to the sign of the cross in his writings. While doing so I will consider Athanasius’s historical precedents and his particular fourth-century context, both of which likely influenced his view of the sign of the cross. Finally, I will conclude by pointing out where Athanasius is in continuity with the tradition and where he makes original contributions by building upon that tradition, followed by a summary of how the findings of this essay may bring greater appreciation for Athanasius’s theology of the cross and doctrine of salvation overall.
The Sign of the Cross in Early Christian Tradition
Literary evidence traces the practice of Christians making the sign of the cross to at least the second century. The contexts and reasons for doing so varied, ranging from protection to acquiring spiritual strength to fending off demons. The practice, however, of sealing oneself with the cross-shape for religious protection has Jewish, rather than Christian, roots. Jeffrey Morrow observes that “the symbol of the cross was ubiquitous in early Judaism,” particularly in Jewish ossuaries. This Jewish practice of using the cross as a symbol related to divine activity stems from Ezek 9:4, where God instructs the man wearing linen who holds the writing case to pass through Jerusalem and put a “mark” (the Hebrew tav) on the foreheads of those lamenting the wickedness of the city. Anyone found without the mark would be destroyed. In Old Hebrew the tav (the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet), was written as a + and literally means “cross.” In other languages, such as North Semitic, Phoenician, and Aramaic, the tav was written in either a + or × shape. From this biblical narrative, Jewish communities identified the shape of a cross as a mark of divine favor and protection.25
It should come as no surprise that in the early Christian era, some patristic writers interpreted the cross-shaped protective mark from Ezek 9:4 as a type of the cross of Christ. But early Christian exegetes went beyond Ezek 9:4 to find figures of the sign of the cross in other Old Testament narratives. For example, many recognized the smearing of blood on Israelite homes on the night of the Passover as a type of the cross. Jean Daniélou points to early fathers such as Justin Martyr and Hippolytus, as well as later fathers such as Cyril of Alexandria, who maintained that when the Jews anointed their lintels and doorposts with blood, it formed a cross. It was thus “the Cross of Christ which kept safe the first-born of the Jews as a figure of the Cross which saves Christians.” Both the shape of the tav and the blood of the Passover lent themselves naturally to Christian identification with the kerygmatic cross. Thus, the early Christian tradition of making the sign of the cross was not wholly an innovation of the new religion, but rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures and early Jewish practices.
Apart from appeals to Old Testament types prefiguring the cross, references to using the sign of the cross are scattered throughout Christian literature, both Latin and Greek. Several examples will suffice in order to illustrate the range of meaning and significance associated with the practice. The author of the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, a second-century work, records that during her execution, Thecla made the sign of the cross before climbing up on the wood to be burned, but was spared when God sent a violent hailstorm to quench the flames. In Thecla’s case making the sign of the cross not only signified her unwavering faith in Christ in the moments before her death, but also elicited God’s response of protection. Tertullian describes the practice of signing oneself with the cross in baptism, stressing to new believers that making the sign of the cross on their bodies during their baptism strengthens their souls.
Early in the third century, Hippolytus asserted that making the sign of the cross on one’s forehead would provide strength and endurance during times of temptation. He observes that the sheep sacrificed during the Passover whose blood was smeared on the lintel and doorposts signify the true Lamb, Christ, who lives in believers. Therefore, the Destroyer, not blind to what was typified by the Passover lamb, would shrink back when he saw the blood. In the same way, by believers making the mark of Christ the sacrificial Lamb on their foreheads, the Devil shrinks back and believers escape destruction.
Fourth-century witnesses to the tradition of making the sign of the cross also describe it functioning in various ways. Lactantius exhorts Christians to make the sign because it puts demons to flight and restores those under demonic control back to their senses. Likewise, Cyril of Jerusalem observes that the demons shudder and flee when they see a believer making the sign of the cross of Christ. Cyril also counsels Christians engaged in polemics to “first make the sign of the cross of Christ with your hand, and the opponent will be silenced” because the cross, though depicted in the wider culture as a symbol of dishonor, ends up mystifying its critics.34 Above all, he encourages believers to make the sign of the cross in every act: “upon the loaves of bread eaten, the cups we drink, in entering, in going out, before sleep, going to bed and waking up, when traveling and when at rest.” For him the sign of the cross sanctifies every act. Roughly contemporaneous with Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa describes how his sister, Macrina, was healed from a life-threatening sore on her chest. At Macrina’s request her mother put her hand on the affected area of Macrina’s chest and made the sign of the cross (σφραγῖδα, more commonly translated as “seal”). As a result, the sore disappeared, leaving only a small mark as a reminder of the miracle. In Constantinople, John Chrysostom exhorts his hearers to make the sign of the cross in order to “quell anger [θυμὸν], and all passion that remains,” resulting in freedom and courage for the soul. He goes on to proclaim that “this sign” has since ancient times rendered poison powerless, opened the gates of Hell, made an entrance to Heaven, and robbed the devil of his boldness.38
This sample of the Jewish roots and Patristic writers from the second to fourth centuries conveys a diversity of views associated with the use and meaning of the sign of the cross. There are several overlapping themes that appear in multiple writers, but there is no clear theme universal to all, save that the cross of Christ evokes power. In most cases, the fathers describe the sign of the cross as the practice of tracing the cross shape on one’s body. This was done in a variety of contexts and was believed to produce multiple benefits for believers. As will become clear in the following sections, Athanasius displays both continuity and departure from this loose tradition of the meaning of the sign of the cross.
The Sign of the Cross in Athanasius
The majority of references to the sign of the cross in Athanasius’s writings come in his Contra Gente-De Incarnatione and Vita Antonii. The CG-DI, likely written early in his episcopate, between 328–335, is a two-part work consisting of apologetic and dogmatic concerns in light of which Athanasius sets out to demonstrate the reasonableness and superiority of Christianity over the irrationality of paganism, and to give an account of why the Word became man. The VA, on the other hand, is the biography (or hagiography) of Antony, the famous hermit who, as a young man, gave up his large inheritance and eventually moved to the Egyptian desert to live as a solitary.41 Athanasius’s interest in (and admiration for) Antony stems, in part, from his strong attraction to asceticism and monastic communities in general. Not only did he visit the Thebaid and the Pentapolis as a young bishop to “share the monastic adventure” with famous monks,43 but, according to Kannengiesser, he was “the first authority in the Christian church who recognized the importance of monasticism for the Christian way of life.” Brakke observes that Athanasius expected the laity, in accordance with their circumstances, to practice virtue through imitating Christ and to engage in self-denial to neutralize bodily passions. For Athanasius, Antony was the model par excellence of the one who exemplified both godly virtue and mastery over the body. Thus, in the VA Athanasius writes with approval of Antony’s practices and beliefs whenever Antony articulates them. Though Athanasius, at times, likely incorporated some of his own erudition and polemical concerns into Antony’s discourses, it is reasonable to believe that the biography is authentic, and that Athanasius and Antony were in agreement on fundamental matters of Christian doctrine and practice. Meyer is probably right to suggest that, on some occasions, the VA “reflects both Antony and Athanasius.” At any rate, the CG-DI and VA, taken together, present a variegated yet coherent account of how Athanasius views the meaning and function of the sign of the cross.
Admittedly, when Athanasius mentions the sign of the cross in his writings, he does not always identify what form he has in mind. Like many of his predecessors, he sometimes refers to the practice of tracing the shape of the cross on one’s person. At other times, the phrase “sign of the cross” appears as shorthand for all that Christ accomplished through his death and resurrection. Whatever the case, whenever he invokes the sign of the cross it is clear from the context what Athanasius believes are its effects. In sum, the sign of the cross unleashes the power of Christ to confront opposing forces while strengthening the cause of believers. Athanasius understands this power not as a one-time demonstration by Christ at Calvary, but an ongoing, authoritative force available for believers to appropriate against natural and supernatural enemies standing against them. The power from the cross event continues to manifest itself in the present, and using the sign of the cross is one way for believers to appropriate Christ’s victory and power.
Even a cursory reading of pertinent passages in Athanasius’s writings reveals three prominent yet related themes connecting the sign of the cross with Christ as mighty conqueror. First, the sign of the cross exercises authority over demons and demonic activity. Athanasius is concerned to show that however much the demons seek to tempt, distract, or instigate fear, using the sign of the cross protects believers from their schemes and forces the demons to flee. Second, the sign of the cross functions as a helpful insignia reminding Christians that Christ has overcome death. The fact that death has been overthrown as a beaten tyrant means that Christians need not fear it. Third, the sign of the cross is instrumental in the conversion of the pagan world to Christianity by displaying the superiority of Christ over idols, false gods, and cultic practices. The culture was shifting in Athanasius’s day as paganism was in decline and giving way to Christianity. Many beliefs and practices associated with paganism were being replaced by faith in Christ. Athanasius believed that the sign of the cross played a role in this cultural conversion. In what follows I will discuss these themes in greater detail.
The Sign of the Cross as Power over Demons
The most prominent theme Athanasius conveys about the sign of the cross is the power it exerts over the demons. He believed that the demons were creatures of the air that once stood guard between earth and heaven, barring humanity passage to God’s abode. But through the cross Jesus stripped the demons of their power to bar access to heaven. In the De Incarnatione Athanasius explains that the cross is suited to this purpose: as Jesus was literally suspended above the ground, he “purified [ἐκαθάριζεν] the air from the plot of the devil and all the demons, saying, ‘I saw Satan falling as lightning.’ And, making a way, he opened the way up to heaven, saying again, ‘Rulers, lift up your gates, and be raised, eternal gates.’ ” In other words, the cross was the means by which Jesus routed the demons in their own territory and cleared the way to heaven. The demons may still roam the upper atmosphere, but Christ’s work has rendered them too weak and ineffective to keep Christians from their journey upward. On account of Christ’s victory over demons via the cross, Athanasius teaches that believers can use the sign of the cross—usually, in these contexts, it involves tracing the cross shape on one’s body—as a weapon against the demons. Against the demons, the sign of the cross functions in three ways. First, it provides strength and resolve for believers under demonic attack. Second, it frightens the demons and compels them to withdraw from assaulting the faithful. Third, the sign of the cross has exorcistic power to free those under demonic control.
Athanasius shows particular interest in the way the desert monks used the sign of the cross in opposition to demonic forces. Throughout the VA Antony is frequently engaged in struggles against the demons. They attack him with a near-constant barrage, often changing their tactics to catch him off guard. They attempt to lure him by pleasure, deceive him through apparitions, or make him afraid through loud clamoring.51 In spite of their attempts, Antony rebuffs their efforts and remains unperturbed on every occasion. One of the tactics he often employs to withstand demonic assaults is making the sign of the cross. For example, Athanasius describes an occasion when some of Antony’s acquaintances came to visit him and were encamped outside an abandoned fort he was inhabiting. At one point, they heard loud noises and shouts within the fort. When they realized the commotion was from demons, they were afraid and called for Antony to come out to them. Antony did not withdraw from the fort, but approached the door where his friends could hear him from the other side and exhorted them to be courageous and return home. He assures them, “The demons make such spectacles against those who lack courage. Therefore, sign yourselves and go from here with confidence, and leave them to amuse themselves. So they went away, fortified by the sign of the cross. But he remained and suffered no harm from them.” The principle here is that making the sign of the cross endows one with spiritual courage and helps one maintain a calm disposition when under demonic attack.
In addition to equipping believers with strength and comfort, Antony reveals that making the sign of the cross has the reverse effect on the demons. It terrifies them, causing them to cease their attacks and quickly disperse. Antony counsels that the demons have a profound fear of the sign of the cross because through it Christ stripped them of their power and made a spectacle of them. Therefore, when the demons appear in physical or audible manifestations in order to frighten the faithful, making the sign of the cross turns the tables by distressing the demons because the cross is a stark reminder to them of their defeat. For this reason, Antony informs the monks that demons will “quickly disappear, especially if a person fortifies himself with faith and the sign of the cross.” They have no choice but to withdraw when they see their would-be victim making the sign of the cross.
Athanasius reports that Antony himself experienced this very phenomenon. One day while weaving baskets, Antony noticed a figure appear at his door. The creature resembled a man from the thighs up, but had the legs and feet of a donkey. Immediately Antony “made the Sign of the Cross and said: ‘I am Christ’s servant. If you are on a mission against me, here I am.’ But the monster with its demons fled so fast that its speed caused it to fall and die. And the death of the monster stood for the fall of the demons: they were making every effort to drive him back from the desert, and they could not.” Making the sign of the cross not only helps Antony maintain his courage, but sparks terror in the demon, leading to its demise. Believers who likewise trace the cross on their bodies can expect the demons to flee in terror when they are under demonic attack.
Finally, Athanasius believes that the sign of the cross is effective for exorcisms and healing. Near the end of the VA Athanasius describes a lengthy dispute between Antony and some pagan philosophers who came to him in order to outwit and scandalize the unschooled monk. The philosophers soon find themselves outmatched and silenced as Antony compares paganism with Christianity. Toward the end of their discourse, Antony makes a final demonstration of the power and superiority of the cross. He brings the philosophers’ attention to those nearby who were suffering from demonic possession. Antony then lays down his challenge:
“Either cleanse these by your syllogisms and by any art or magic you wish, calling on your idols; or, if you cannot, then stop fighting us and see the power of the Cross of Christ.” Having said this, he invoked Christ and signed the afflicted with the Sign of the Cross, repeating the action a second and third time. And at once the persons stood up completely cured, restored to their right mind and giving thanks to the Lord. The so-called philosophers were astonished and really amazed at the man’s sagacity and at the miracle performed.
Robin Jensen notes that the exorcistic function of the sign of the cross first appears in the fourth century, marking a development in the tradition of its practice. While some writers considered using the sign of the cross to repel demons as a protective function, Athanasius ascribes to it a healing function as well. For him, it does not merely put demons to flight when they attack, but liberates those under demonic control. Athanasius is rare in making this connection, but is not the first to do so. In his Divine Institutes Lactantius suggests that the sign of the cross is able to free those whom the demons have besieged and restore them to a proper state of mind. It is not clear whether and to what extent Lactantius’s work influenced Athanasius. However, Athanasius appears to be the first Greek writer to connect the sign of the cross with spiritual healing, and the first author anywhere to provide an actual account of casting out demons by signing the afflicted with the cross.
The Sign of the Cross as the Symbol of Death’s Demise
Athanasius often boasts that Christ abolished death and triumphed over it through his own death on the cross and resurrection. He explains that not just death itself but the very perception of death has been transformed. Christ has thus set in place a new reality for humans to experience as a result of his all-encompassing victory. Before the advent of Christ, men and women had always dreaded the inescapable fate of death. Athanasius observes that “by nature man fears death and the dissolution [διάλυσιν] of the body.” But for Christians, Athanasius is happy to announce, death is no longer an insatiable tyrant that forever swallows up its victims. Rather, Christ has rendered death powerless; it has lost its permanent grasp on humanity. Athanasius uses an agricultural analogy of planting to demonstrate the transitory nature of death:
But as corruption has ceased and been destroyed by the grace of the resurrection, now in the mortality of the body we are dissolved [διαλυόμεθα] only for the time which God has set for each man, in order that we may be able to “obtain a better resurrection.” For like seeds which are sown in the ground we do not perish when we are dissolved, but we rise again as plants, since death has been destroyed by the grace of the Savior.
By conquering death Christ revealed that it is a temporary state from which resurrected life will spring.
In the light of the changed nature of death through Christ’s triumph, Christians need not fear it. Instead, they can have courage and confidence when approaching the end of their lives. Importantly, Athanasius associates Christ’s victory over death and the courage Christians appropriate when facing death with the sign of the cross. First, he observes that Christ, in destroying death and gifting incorruptibility to the human race through the resurrection, “raised up his own body and displayed it as a trophy over death and death’s corruption by the sign of the cross [τῷ σημείῳ τοῦ σταυροῦ].” Athanasius does not specify what he means here by “the sign of the cross,” though it is clear that he does not have in mind tracing oneself with the cross shape. Whether the sign of the cross refers to the marks of the nails on Jesus’s resurrected body, the cruciform shape of Jesus’s dying body, or something less physical and more symbolic, Athanasius uses the phrase “the sign of the cross” to portray both the fact and means of Christ’s triumph over death and corruption.
Second, Athanasius insists that Christians can have courage at the anticipation of death since it is “by the sign of the cross [τῷ σημείῳ τοῦ σταυροῦ] and faith in Christ that death is trampled under foot.” In this context he is referring to believers who appropriate for themselves Christ’s victory over death as they face their own deaths. The best examples of people demonstrating that death has been changed, Athanasius contends, are the martyrs. They display no trepidation at the moment of their execution, but boldly embrace their end with courage. The martyrs, among whom include women and children, defy death and embrace it without fear because of their zeal for Christ. Athanasius maintains that Christ grants victory to these holy witnesses who are “rushing” and “leaping” toward death, unperturbed by its torments, while “bearing the sign of the cross [τὸ σημεῖον τοῦ σταυροῦ φορούντων].” Here too, Athanasius does not state in precise terms how he envisions believers appropriating the sign of the cross. “Bearing [or perhaps ‘wearing’] the sign of the cross” could be a reference to martyrs tracing the sign of the cross on their bodies before their deaths, identifying with their crucified Lord at the hour of their own suffering, or simply staying resolute in their commitment to Christ no matter the cost. Whatever the case, Athanasius is clear that the martyrs derive courage, in part, from the sign of the cross. Christ overcame death, and the sign of the cross reminds them that they will too at the resurrection.
The Sign of the Cross as a Catalyst for Cultural Conversion
A third prominent theme associated with the sign of the cross according to Athanasius is the historic transformation of the old order of life under paganism into a new Christian era. He believed that Christianity was taking over the religious and cultural space once inhabited by paganism. Athanasius declares that while paganism was dying, the message of Christ was filling the whole world. Well before Athanasius’s time, as early as the second century, Christian devotion had become “a powerful force within Greco-Roman culture” that was increasingly visible to the public and populated by men of high learning committed to defending its doctrines and practices.67
The growth of Christianity posed significant challenges to paganism that only increased over the next several centuries. The religious and cultural matrix of fourth-century Egypt proved to be the culmination of the centuries-long struggle, one in which paganism continued to wane while Christianity was rising to prominence and growing in cultural influence. At the same time, it is parochial to assume Christianity was the only factor in the demise of pagan religious activity. For example, Bagnall notes that Demotic—an Egyptian script used in the temples—began falling off during the later Ptolemaic period (305–30 BCE) and was eventually replaced by Greek during the third century, leaving few capable of maintaining the written language of temple worship. He also points to the gradual scaling back of imperial funding for new pagan temples after the time of Augustus. Both of these developments were contributing factors to the decline of pagan religious practice. However, Christianity did play a part in the shrinking of pagan cultic activity, as, for example, with the conversion of temples into churches throughout the fourth century. Alexander initiated the practice in Alexandria and bequeathed it to Athanasius, who followed suit. It is thus reasonable to suggest that while Christianity played a significant role in the demise of paganism, that demise was hastened by a changing culture with new linguistic challenges coupled with waning imperial support for Egyptian religion. In light of these developments, Bagnall surmises that the decline of pagan cultic activity, once an organizing principle of daily life, created a vacuum that “helped make the spread of Christianity in Egypt so explosive in the fourth century: it replaced that lost structure of life.”70 By Athanasius’s time paganism was decidedly shrinking and on the defensive while Christianity continued to increase in numbers, visibility, political power, and cultural dominance.
However, from Athanasius’s perspective the sole cause of paganism’s decline is the advent of Christ, whose cross, he believes, has become the symbol of triumph over traditional pagan deities and cult practices. His attribution of Christianity as the force behind paganism’s downfall is understandable considering how quickly the tide had turned for the Church during Athanasius’s lifetime. He was only a boy at the time but would have remembered the Diocletian persecution at the turn of the century. By 325, when Athanasius was approaching age thirty, the Roman emperor was a Christian and presiding over the first ecumenical council. In Alexandria the increasing swell of adherents to the new religion meant new churches dotting the city landscape. By Constantine’s death in 337 Christians likely made up over half the population of Alexandria. This rapid change of fortune did not escape Athanasius. He regarded the rapidly shifting religious environment as the sign of an entire culture in transformation. The advent of Christ and his victory on the cross ushered in the downfall of paganism and the new era of the Church. The conversion of the most powerful empire in history was proof to him that Jesus Christ is the true Son and Word of God.
These historical developments help make sense of Athanasius’s perspective when writing against the “pagans” (Ἑλλήνων). In his opening chapter of CG-DI Athanasius decries those who mock the cross of Christ, not realizing that what they criticize is the “salvation [θεραπείον] of creation” and the means by which God has revealed himself to all. He questions how his pagan critics can deny “the one who ascended the cross” as “the Word of God and Savior of all.” For “since the cross has come, all idolatry has been taken down, and by this sign [τῷ σημείῳ τούτῳ] all the illusions of the demons have been expelled, and only Christ is worshipped, and through him the Father is known.” As in other instances, Athanasius does not specify here whether by “this sign [of the cross],” he means believers tracing the cross on their bodies, displaying a physical cross (as used in art or liturgy), proclaiming the power of the cross, or something else. But in this particular context the meaning of the sign of the cross is clear: it demonstrates Christ’s power and authority to put demons to flight, receive worship, and reveal the Father—all necessary phenomena in converting an entire religious culture. Because of its powerful and sweeping effects, Athanasius believes that the sign of the cross was playing an active role in bringing about a new era as paganism was in its twilight and Christianity on its way to ascendancy.
The rise of Christianity in the public square, however, did not mean that paganism no longer posed a threat. In a number of instances throughout the CG-DI and VA it is clear that Athanasius still considers paganism a foe that needs fighting: it was a diminishing yet persistent presence in Alexandria. However, he believed that since Christ had accomplished his work on the cross the world had changed. Beliefs and practices that had endured for centuries were being exposed as irrational, while, simultaneously, the rapid growth and proliferation of Christianity proved its truthfulness and superiority over the old ways. For Athanasius, the sign of the cross represented this transformation.
In DI 50, which is part of his apologia against the pagans who consider belief in the incarnation irrational, Athanasius underscores Christ’s identity as the Logos of God by pointing to what he has accomplished compared to anyone else in history. Athanasius inquires:
And who so delivered men from the passions of their souls, that adulterers become chaste, murderers no more take up the sword, and those overcome by fear are courageous? Or, in short, who persuaded the barbarians and men in Gentile regions to put from them their madness and to think thoughts of peace, except the faith of Christ and the sign of the cross [τὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ σημεῖον]?
Here Athanasius includes the sign of the cross as a crucial means by which entire groups of people have been persuaded to put aside their old ways and take up faith in Christ. In this passage too, it is not clear if, by “the sign of the cross,” Athanasius is referring to the practice of signing the cross shape, a physical depiction of the cross, or proclaiming the victorious message of the cross. Regardless, he believes that the sign of the cross is an important component in the conversion of peoples who formerly lived without the gospel. It plays a vital role in transforming them from their former ways of life to following Christ.
Elsewhere in his apologia Athanasius exhorts the person seeking to test whether Christian arguments and experiences are true to “use [χρησάσθω] the sign of the cross which is laughed at by them, and only speak the name of Christ, and he will see how through it devils will flee, prophetic oracles cease, and all magic and sorcery brought to destruction.” Though it is difficult to be certain, it is likely that in this context Athanasius is describing the “use” of the sign of the cross as tracing its shape on one’s body as a way to experience the authority of Christ over evil forces. Making the sign of the cross and speaking Christ’s name against opposing powers bring about a contest of which the end result is never in doubt. Christ has conquered, and Athanasius believes that using the sign will prove to the seeker that Christ is superior to all other supernatural forces, and compel that person to convert from paganism to Christianity.
Athanasius relays this same message of the power of the cross to convert the pagans in an account where Antony provides a rational defense of the Christian faith while disputing with philosophers. Antony observes that their idol worship is passing into disuse while the Christian faith is spreading all over the world. His perspective is that pagan sophistry was converting no one from Christianity back to the ancient religions because they are void of power compared to the cross. Antony challenges: “You with your elegant language do not hinder the teaching of Christ; but we, professing the crucified Christ, drive away all the demons whom you revere as gods. And where the sign of the cross appears, magic becomes weak and sorcery works no effect.” The truth of Christianity is not proven by impressive oratory or persuasive speech but by supernatural action. Naming Christ and making the sign of the cross dispels evil forces and proves Christ’s victory over them.
As the two previous examples show, Athanasius names magic as an opponent of the cross and would have been aware of magical practices within the broader culture. A commonly shared custom among pagans, and even some Christians, was the use of tokens called amulets. Some amulets were thought to protect the wearer from harm. Others were worn to secure positive outcomes, much like a good-luck charm. Magic spells were not uncommon and, though rejected by the church, many Christians had no difficulty believing they were real. It is possible that Athanasius, aware of the use of amulets and other superstitions associated with magic, was eager to supplant those practices with the sign of the cross. The cross, Harmless observes, was a “talisman of extraordinary power.”87 As charms offered both protection and good fortune, Athanasius believed that the sign of the cross protected believers from evil powers and was the symbol of victory for the Christian to appropriate in every contest—over demons, death, idolatry, pagan oracles, magic, and sorcery.
Throughout his CG-DI and some of Antony’s discourses in the VA, Athanasius describes the sign of the cross in a number of key ways. For him, it wields power over the demons and causes them to flee; it reminds believers that Christ has trampled over death and equips them with courage and fortitude in their own confrontations with death; and it represents the superiority of Christianity as paganism was ceding cultural space and influence to the young religion resulting in a new world order. While at times it is difficult to be certain of the particular form Athanasius has in mind when he discusses using the sign of the cross, he is clear that it represents Christ’s comprehensive victory over everything contrary to the gospel. It is the symbol that conveys Christ’s power over demonic forces and death, and the superiority of Christianity over the long-held beliefs and practices of paganism.
Conclusion
Athanasius carefully attended to the doctrines and practices of the Christian tradition preceding him. At the same time, he understood the culture around him and offered fresh expressions of the Church’s doctrines as new challenges and opportunities arose. Therefore, his views concerning the sign of the cross demonstrate both continuity and development of the tradition. Like some of his predecessors, Athanasius believed that the sign of the cross has the power to repel demons during occasions of temptation and attack. It also bestows spiritual protection and resolve to believers in times of spiritual distress. Further, similar to the author of the Acts of Paul and Thecla, Athanasius followed the traditional belief that making the sign of the cross was appropriate before one’s death, particularly martyrdom. Making the sign of the cross signified strong faith when it would be most tempting to capitulate, and perhaps a sense of hope for deliverance and protection as well. These are examples of Athanasius’s continuity with the tradition of the use and meaning of the sign of the cross.
At the same time, his discussions show certain developments of the tradition. First, Athanasius associates the sign of the cross with spiritually healing those under demonic control. This was a new idea in the fourth century, and, though not the first to present it, Athanasius was an early witness and the first Greek writer to affirm this phenomenon. Second, Athanasius is especially concerned to show that the sign of the cross bestows courage to the martyrs in the face of death. Significantly, he depicts the martyrs using the sign of the cross not for protection, but for courage in their time of execution. Third, Athanasius is unique in the tradition by associating the sign of the cross with overturning idolatry, magic, and other pagan practices in the process of transforming society. He believes the sign of the cross symbolizes the superiority of Christ over ancient religious practices and results in the conversion of entire groups of people. Its power reaches beyond the individual to the social.
The cross in Athanasius’s theology effects salvation in multiple ways. Because of the heavy emphasis on death and corruption in the De Incarnatione as the reason for the Word becoming flesh, it is easy to focus on Athanasius’s emphasis on Christ substituting himself in humanity’s place to pay our debt to death and gifting them with his incorruptibility as the primary soteriological motif in Athanasius’s theology. However, his inclusion of the sign of the cross in his writings opens up an oft-overlooked window into his conviction that the cross is the symbol of cosmic victory and authority over all foes, both natural and supernatural. Through the cross Christ has overcome the damaging effects of the Fall that include the activity of demonic forces, the fearful enemy of death, and a world order in opposition to Christ’s rule. The cross did not just reverse these effects at Calvary, but, for Athanasius it continues to bring strength, healing, transformation, and power to those who sign it on their bodies, wear it as their seal of identity, and believe in its message. Through the sign of the cross believers continue to appropriate the very same victory Christ accomplished on the cross. As I have shown, Athanasius does not always specify the form or representation he has in mind when discussing the sign of the cross. But he is clear that the sign of the cross, whether it involves the physical act of tracing the shape of the cross on one’s body or the proclamation and belief in the power of Christ’s death and resurrection, protects against demons and vanquishes evil forces, empowers believers with courage in the face of death, exposes every false way, and promotes Christ as the only means of salvation throughout the world.
—————–
Jonathan Morgan, “The %Sign %of %the %Cross %and %the %Victory %of %Christ %in %Athanasius %of %Alexandria,” in New Narratives for Old: The Historical Method of Reading Early Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Michel René Barnes, ed. Anthony Briggman and Ellen Scully, CUA Studies in Early Christianity (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022), 249–269.