The Divine Dilemma

In his On the Incarnation, Athanasius suggests that God faced a dilemma — “the Divine Dilemma.” He makes the case that our sin brought about a difficult choice between two monstrous and unfitting alternatives:

“The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption” (Athanasius, On the Incarnation).

At first, it seems wrong that God could face any dilemma. It seems inappropriate to suggest that the same God whose purposes cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2) could face a dilemma. A dilemma suggests a restriction. If God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11), can he not do as he pleases? What can restrict him? Did Christ really have to bear the humiliation of the incarnation and claim the guilt of our sin on the Cross?

In the most broad sense, every “true or false” question poses a dilemma. Even God cannot declare a statement to be neither true nor false. Nor can he declare a statement to be both true and false.

God is sovereign, but that does not mean he is not bound by anything. He is bound by certain attributes of his character. For example, God is logical. Because of his immutability, it is impossible for him to change. Therefore, it is not possible for God to be illogical. And since he must be logical, he cannot declare a statement to be neither true nor false because to do so would violate the law of the excluded middle (i.e. that a statement must be either true or false). Similarly, he cannot declare a statement to be both true and false because to do so would violate the law of non-contradiction (i.e. that a statement cannot simultaneously be both true and false).

But Athanasius uses “dilemma” in a more particular sense. He argues that God faced a choice between two undesirable options — two “monstrous” and “unfitting” choices. Still, God must face the divine dilemma for much the same reason he must choose between true and false.

Just as God is logical, he is also just and merciful. Thus, God cannot ultimately tolerate any injustice. At the same time, he desires to show mercy and grace. Even though God is not obligated to be merciful (if God is not served by humans hands [Acts 17:25], surely humans can demand nothing from him), it is against his nature to not show mercy.

In light of our sin, these two aspects of God’s nature appear to conflict. We ignored the command. We transgressed. God said, “But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:17), yet we ate from the tree. God’s justice therefore requires that we die. If God were to leave the law unfulfilled, he would violate not only his justice but also his honesty and trustworthiness.

“For as I said earlier, by the law death thereafter prevailed against us, and it was impossible to escape the law, since this had been established by God on account of the transgression” (Athanasius, On the Incarnation).

But to condemn humans, the crown of his creation, would be equally unfitting, for God desires to show mercy. Even though we fully deserve death, God is “not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 2:3). God’s nature compelled him to show mercy. His goodness and mercy made the condemnation of the human race unthinkable.

“It was not worthy of the goodness of God that those created by him should be corrupted through the deceit wrought by the devil upon human beings. And it was supremely improper that the workmanship of God in human beings should disappear either through their own negligence or through the deceit of the demons” (Athanasius, On the Incarnation).

And therein lies the dilemma. God cannot ignore our sin and look the other way. But he also cannot let mankind simply perish. But there is a way to go between the horns of the dilemma. There is a way for God to show mercy and still satisfy his justice — Christ on the Cross.

Just as a lender does not care who pays on behalf of his debtor, neither does justice require that we ourselves pay the price for our sin. If one were to take our place and accept the cost of our sin on our behalf, justice could still be satisfied. But such substitutionary atonement would require a sinless substitute. It would require the death of one who did not deserve to die. Otherwise, his death would only cover his sins. And none is righteous but Christ. Therefore, Christ “humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross“ (Philippians 2:8). When Christ took on flesh, lived a sinless life, and willingly gave himself up for us, he paid the price. Christ inherited all of our sins on the Cross so that we might be counted righteous, freed from the law, no longer deserving death.

Thusly God rebutted the divine dilemma. He could not let sin go unpunished, but in his mercy, he did not wish to leave man to face the consequences. So he produced a third alternative — Christ, in whose death lies the resolution of the apparent conflict between God’s justice and mercy that is our redemption.