Abstract There are no previous studies of Christ’s prayer in John 17:20–23 as a key text which was debated from multiple theological perspectives in the fourth-century controversies. This article provides a close study of the polemical interpretation of John 17:20–23 in Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Hilary of Poitiers. The article considers each interpreter’s exegetical techniques, the views of his opponent(s), and his own positive theological claims. In the conclusion, a taxonomy of these interpretations is provided according to the following criteria: (1) Father–Son unity; (2) καθὼς clauses; (3) God–creature unity. The primary question for each interpreter is: to what extent is the Son’s own unity with the Father paradigmatic for the saints’ unity with the Father? Both Eusebius and Hilary argued that the Son’s own unity with the Father is (with qualifications) actually bestowed upon the saints. They each understood the objective of Christ’s prayer as the realization of a God–creature unity in which the saints are united to the Father ‘just as’ the Son. Athanasius, by contrast, argued that Christ’s prayer exhorts the saints to become one among themselves by learning from the example of the Son’s unity with the Father. Insofar as the saints become one with God, Athanasius insists that such a God–creature unity is radically distinct from the Son’s unity of nature with the Father. Yet for Hilary, this natural unity with the Father is also granted to creatures: to the Son’s own humanity, and to all who are united with it.
Read full abstract