[T]he essence of
deification is the intellectual contemplation of God by the mind:
. . . the νους,
which has been purified and raised above, all material things, to have a clear vision
of God, is defiled in its vision (εν
οις θεωρει, θεοποιειται). (Jo.
32.17)
True knowledge requires
the knower to be assimilated to the known. (Jo. 19.1. This common
Platonic principle was followed by both Athanasius and Nyssa) The beginning of
the way of the gospel is to do justice, but the end of contemplation, which will
be achieved when “it comes to rest at last so-called restoration of all things.”
(Ibid., 1.16. Cf. Cels. 7.46: The disciples of Jesus, after
contemplating the invisible things of God and understanding their nature, “ascend
to the eternal power of God; in a word, to his divinity.”) This contemplation
is itself a purification, and it goes hand in hand with the active practice of virtue
to work divinization. Consistent with this connection is the imitatio
Christi with contemplation is the maxim that since no one but the Son knows
the Father, all must become sons and be united to the Godhead. (Jo. 1.16)
Although this does not destroy the distinction between God and the deified
creature, such a gnosis has been described as a “Christian mysticism of
deification.” It was this contemplative predilection which made Origen so influential
for generations of later mystics, including Nyssa and Pseudo-Dionysius, whose
concept of deification shows its Origenistic ancestry. (Keith E. Norman, Deification:
The Content of Athanasian Soteriology [FARMS Occasional Papers 1; Provo, Utah:
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000], 18)
The Inheritance of
Divine Glory
Rahner points out (Greek
Myths and Christian Mystery, p. 36) that the eschatological emphasis on
redemption was unique to Christianity in the Hellenistic world; fulfilment is attained
only in the afterlife. The focus of this teaching lay in the roots of a
religion nourished by persecution and martyrdom, and Athanasius co-opts Paul’s
exhortation to imitate or participate in the sufferings of Christ in the
situation of his own day. The glorious tradition of the martyrs, who sealed
their redemption and sanctification with their blood, was invoked to bolster
the Nicene Christians against the Arians, who were the latest in the series of
demonically inspired persecutors. (Ep. Encyc. 6-7; Apol. c. Ar.
44) The faithful should disregard the injustices heaped upon them and fix their
attention on eternal things:
Though affliction may
come, it will have an end; though insult and persecution, yet they are nothing
to the hope which is set before us. For all present matters are trifling compared
with those which are future; the sufferings of this present time are not worthy
to be compared with the hope that is to come (Romans 8:18; cf. II Corinthians
4:17). For what can be compared with the kingdom? or what is all we could give
here, to that which we shall inherit beyond? For we are “heirs of God and
joint-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17). (Ep. Fest. 13.4; cf. Vit. Ant.
17)
The allusions to Romans
8:16-18, which connects sonship, suffering, and the inheritance of glory
jointly with Christ, points to the primacy of the biblical roots of Athanasius’
doctrine of deification, since these motifs are the very warp and woof of his
teaching. Similarly, Athanasius quotes from Christ’s prayer in John 17:22, in
which the Saviour reveals that he has given to his followers the glory which the
Father had given to him, “that they may be one, even as we are one.” (Or. c.
Ar. I.48; cf. III.17. Tixeront, II, pp. 149f., thus describes this union of
our nature with God as the fulfilment of deification, which includes
immortality, divine sonship, and resemblance to God) Again, for Athanasius,
this signifies a participation in the Godhead which enables us to share in the
divine life, so that we shall “ever afterwards abide and live in Christ . . .”
(Or. c. Ar. II.76) By this means we become sons and co-heirs with the Son
of all that the Father has. (Or. c. Ar. II.76) Although this eschatological
being “in Christ” means that we “participate in the prerogatives of the Son,”
it also carries the implication that this is only by grace, through his
indwelling in us. (Cf. Rev. 21:7; Luke 15:31) This does not diminish the promise;
it only clarifies the relationship.
After citing the Johannine
promise of an eternal inheritance of glory, Athanasius clarifies, “Because of us
he asked for glory,” insisting once again that the Logos in himself had no need
of promotion to this exaltation. (Or. c. Ar. I.48; cf. Ep. Ad. Adel. 4: The self0humbling of the Son does not deprive him of
his Godhead, but brings us “glory and great grace.”) ‘Αλλα της ανθρωποτητος εστιν η υψωσις. (Ibid.,
I.41; cf. III.52; II.74) Exaltation, υψωσις, is a synonym for
deification. (Ibid., I.45; III.53, 42; III.33) It is important to stress, along
with Athanasius, that deification indicates a real advancement and exaltation
of our humanity to a divine level of existence. Θεοποιησις is
no mere poetic expression or metaphor, it means to be made God or a god, in the
sense that we reflect His glory and holiness, which is the intent of our being
created κατ’ εικονα θεου. This
point is the crux of Athanasian soteriology. Anything less than deification
would not be worthy of God’s majesty and grace, and would make the hope of
salvation vain. This is why Athanasius rejects so forcefully the Arian interpretation
of the scriptural passages referring to the exaltation of Christ to deity, as
showing that his essential nature was prompted. The preexistent Logos was
already fully God, as the Fathers at Nicaea had affirmed, and the exaltation
spoken of (esp. Philippians 2:9) refers to the flesh or humanity which he
assumed for our sakes, and was thus able to exalt it to his divine level through
uniting himself to it.
Therefor even as a
man because of us and for us he is said to be exalted, that as in his death we
all died in Christ, so also in Christ himself we might be highly exalted (υπερυψωμωεν),
being raised from the dead and ascending to heaven. (Ibid., I.41) (Keith E.
Norman, Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology [FARMS Occasional
Papers 1; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies,
2000], 66-67)
It is with Gregory of
Nyssa, however, that we come to the most profound and philosophical of the
Cappadocians. His great system of God’s plan of salvation is in many ways a
revival of Origen, and is on a comparable level of cosmic grandeur in its
universal vision. We cannot aspire to add to the volumes of scholarly analysis
of Nyssa’s writings; our aim here is to point up the aspects of his soteriology
which seems closely related to Athanasius.
Nyssa was perhaps the
most optimistic of all the Fathers in his anthropology. God’s purpose in
creating us was “to offer everyone of us participation in the blessings (καλων)
which are in Him,” beyond all our greatest imaginings. (Gregory of Nyssa, De
An. et Res [Migne, PG XLVI 152A]. By virtue of this participation we
are “in God himself” [εν
αυτω τω θεω γενεσυαι]) Man was “fashioned in such a way as to fit him to
share in this goodness” by blending the divine and earthly natures, so that “he
was endowed with life, reason, wisdom, and all the good things of God.” (Cat.
Or. 5; cf. De Hom. Opif. 2) Gregory subscribes to the creation ex
nihilo view, but for him this implies more the participation in divine
being than the ontological separation from God. (Keith E. Norman, Deification:
The Content of Athanasian Soteriology [FARMS Occasional Papers 1; Provo, Utah:
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000], 97)
To Support this Blog:
