The following comes from:
Tikhon Pino, Essence and Energies: Being and
Naming God in St Gregory Palamas (Routledge Research in Byzantine Studies;
London: Routledge, 2023), 116-17
Seen and Unseen
Directly
connected to the theme of ‘knowing’ God is the language of ‘seeing’ or
beholding God. This theme, too, lies at the center of an important antinomy in
Christian tradition that Palamas maps on to the distinction between essence and
energies. It includes the affirmations in scripture that God is both seen and
not seen and that in different ways. “To see God,” Palamas points out, “is both
forbidden and promised.” [93] The angels, we are told in the Gospel of Matthew
“behold the face of God” (Mt 18:10), while Moses is told that the face of God
will not be shown to you. Instead, Moses was allowed to see “the things behind”
God (Ex 33:23). Indeed, Moses is told, You will not be able to see my face, for
man may not see (μὴ ἴδῃ) my face and live (Ex 33:20), whereas St Paul states
that now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face (1 Cor 13:12).
In the Beatitudes, too, it is said that the pure in heart shall see God (τὸν θεὸν
ὄψονται) (Mt 5:8), although in the Gospel of John it is said that no one has
ever seen God (ἑώρακεν πώποτε) (Jn 1:18). [94] St Paul also insists that no one
is able to see God (ἰδεῖν δύναται) (1 Tim 6:16), although Solomon declares that
the Creator is seen (θεωρεῖται) proportionally from the magnitude and beauty of
creatures (Ws 13:5). In Genesis, Jacob likewise proclaims that he has seen God
(εἶδον γὰρ θεὸν) face to face (Gen 32:31). [95] Especially in the context of
the hesychast controversy, the explanation that God could, in fact, be seen is
of central importance for Palamas.
Although
some of these biblical texts in question seem to be in tension with one
another, if not outright opposition, still, according to Palamas, “these things
do not contradict one another.” [96] Rather, the nuances introduced by the
seemingly inconsistent language point to the distinction between God’s
incomprehensible essence, on the one hand, and the energies or attributes that
are manifested in and through the created order, on the other. The fact that
God is not and cannot be seen refers to God’s unapproachability at the level of
essence (κατ’ οὐσίαν), [97] since God is “invisible in his ousia.” [98] Yet it
is also the case that God is seen. He is the object of mystical visions, for
example, and is beheld in his illuminations (ἐλλάμψεις) [99] so that he becomes
visible “according to energy and grace to those who have become Godlike.” [100]
Thus, it is necessary to conceive of God beyond the category of his invisible
essence. Without this distinction, it would certainly be a mere contradiction
to say that the same thing is both invisible and visible in itself. [101] Yet
Palamas affirms that God is both seen in his energies and not seen in his
essence so that the antinomy of scripture might be maintained and the
simultaneous revelation of transcendence of God might be upheld.
Notes for the Above:
93 Akind.
5.3.7 (PS 3:292.15–16).
94 Theo.
27 (PS 2:254.17–27).
95 Akind.
5.3.7 (PS 3:292.15–16).
96 Akind.
5.3.7 (PS 3:292.26–29).
97 Athan.
8 (PS 2:419.14–18); Akind. 5.5.15 (PS 3:297.27–29).
98 Theo.
27 (PS 2:255.12); cf. Tr. 3.2.4 (ed. Meyendorff, 669.12–16).
99 Tr.
3.2.4 (ed. Meyendorff, 669.12–16). This is not to say that the divine energy is
not also ‘invisible’ in the sense of being immaterial and beyond sensation; cf.
Introduction, p. 8, n. 20, and Chapter 1, p. 56.
100 Theo.
27 (PS 2:255.2–3).
101 Asan.
4 (PS 2:366.10–12): ἀόρατον καθ’ ἐαυτὴν καὶ ὁρατὸν καθ’ ἐαυτήν