GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 57:1-4 2012

The Doctrine of Deification in the Works ofPavel Florensky and John Meyendorff:

A Critical Examination

EDUARD BORYSOV

INTRODUCTION

The patristic idea of deification finds its followers notonly in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Some contemporaryRoman Catholics, Lutherans, and Evangelicals also exploitdivinization in their theologies, as well.' The search for realspirituality and mystical experience forced non-Orthodoxbranches of Christianity to rediscover the notion of theosis.The ancient hesychastic^ writings collected in the eighteenthcentury, called Philokalia, as well as ecumenical dialoguesbetween Eastern Orthodox and Protestant thinkers inspireda new wave of interest in the contemplative practice thatpursues deifiication.̂ No Orthodox writer avoids this funda-mental theme in his or her soteriological considerations. Thegoal of this paper is to critically examine the notion of dei-fication in the writings of Pavel Florensky (1882-1937) andJohn Meyendorff (1926-1992). Florensky was an Orthodoxpriest, philosopher, historian, iconologist, and mathemati-cian who incorporated the ideas of symbolism, a movementin the twentieth-century Russia, into his doctrine of deifi-cation. Meyendorff was a prominent Orthodox priest, theo-logian, and researcher of Palamas whose views on the di-vine energies significantly infiuenced the Orthodox doctrineof deification. The most intricate part of the doctrine is themystery of the union between the transcendent God and cre-

115

116 GOTR 57:1-4 2012

ated beings. How is such a union possible?The multifaceted concept of deification will be presented

in three aspects: knowledge of God, likeness to God, andparticipation in the divine energies. Since both authors are inline with the traditional patristic interpretation of salvation,I will incorporate their understanding of the Church Fatherson the topic. In conclusion, I will attempt to evaluate the co-herence of their presentations and raise some questions in re-lation to the definition of deification and the divine energies.

DEIFICATION AS KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

According to Pavel Florensky, a man receives the knowl-edge of the Father through the Son, and becomes a son him-self. Then, through the Spirit, a hesychast can contemplate"the ineffable beauty of God's essence"" through the divinelight. This "noetic light" or "the uncreated light of Tabor"is observed by the deified inside himself.' For Florensky,this "spiritual light is the light of the Trihypostatic DivinityItself, the Divine essence, which is not only given, but alsoself-given."* What does he mean by this?

In The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, Florensky presentsthe idea of deification as the real knowledge of God. To haveknowledge of God is to have not an intellectual gnosis, butto have a mystical experience. When a saint truly loves theinvisible God in the Spirit, then an "energy of Divine lovedescends into the heart."' Florensky equates the effect of thedivine love in the deified with the impact that love has onone's neighbor. This is not a natural human love, rather, it isof divine origin, because the one who participates in the lifeof God can love like God loves. Only those who partake inhis nature can truly know and express love toward him andtoward creation. According to Florensky, knowledge-love isa "metaphysical chain"^ that allows one to express the beau-ty that one receives fi'om God.'

Borysov: The Doctrine of Deification 117

In his description of the knowledge of God, Florensky statesthat it is "the real entering into the interior of the DivineTriunity and not only an ideal touching of the Triunity's outerform. Therefore, true knowledge, knowledge of the Truth, ispossible only through the transubstantiation of man, throughhis deification, through the acquisition of love as the Divineessence: he who is not with God does not know God."'" Thismysterious interpénétration of God and man is the basis forknowledge of the Truth in love.

In his fifth letter about the Comforter, that is, the HolySpirit, Florensky delicately expresses his observation thatthe view of the Church Fathers on the third person of theTrinity is deficient. The lack of elaborated pneumatologyis evident, among other things, in substitutions that thePatristics made in their writings for the Spirit, such as im-personal grace, "grace-giving energies. His powers. His actsand activities."" The shortcoming of such a depiction of theSpirit for the author is regrettable, because "knowledge ofthe Holy Spirit would give perfect spirituality, perfect deifi-cation to all Creation, perfect illumination.'"^ Only throughthe Spirit can the deified contemplate the beauty of God'snature that shines through the uncreated light.

According to John Meyendorff, Gregory of Nyssa consid-ered knowing God by means of his "energies" as the onlypossible way of doing so because the divine transcendentnature is beyond human comprehension. Meyendorff sum-marized the theologian's view on the paradox of both therevelation and the indiscemibility of God, saying, "TheUnknowable makes itself known while remaining unknow-able, and its unknowability is deepest for the one who sees

Since human reason has no part in the spiritual vision ofGod, Gregory uses the idea of "sober drunkenness," similarto the experience of the apostles at Pentecost. This beyond-conscious state happens when one "comes out of himself in

118 GOTR 57:1-4 2012

order to present himself to the Other.''' The idea of energiesis utilized by Gregory to resolve the tension. Man can con-template the revealed energies of God, whose divine natureremains transcendent and beyond contemplation. The per-son who comes into contact with the persons of the Trinitycontemplates with "eyes of faith" that which is beyond hiscognitive knowledge, that is, the same energies that are per-tained to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is tobe noted that it is not strictly extracognitive knowledge, butinvolves both mind and

DEIFICATION AS LIKENESS TO GOD

The classical notion of theosis as man's aspiration to movebeyond simply bearing the image of God toward reachingthe likeness of God is expressed by Florensky in his inter-pretation of 1 Cor. 3:15. He says that the vocation of man isnot to bury the image of God in the ground, but should be to"deify his selfhood.'"* If a person achieves his calling, his"reward" is the ability to contemplate the likeness of Godinside himself. Deification of the human nature has begunin the person of the Son and continues by man's free will inaccordance with the "foundation" that is his genuine innerself. The deified person will experience joy because Christ isrevealed inside of him."

In his book Iconostasis, Florensky draws a clear distinctionbetween the image of God and the likeness of God. The im-age of God is a pure ontological actuality given to every per-son, while the likeness of God is a potentiality that a personcan perfect in himself, achieving spiritual resemblance withGod. In iconography likeness with God is shown in the faceof a saint depicted on an icon: "The countenance is the like-ness of God manifested in the face."'^ Florensky, as an ico-nologist, describes the idea that an icon is a representation

Borysov: The Doctrine of Deification 119

of the energy that comes from the image of God apparent inthe face of a deified saint so that, looking at his countenance,we can see the Prototype whose likeness it resembles." Notonly the faces but also the clothes of the iconic figures ex-press their spiritual energies. Florensky explains, "By meansof ascesis, the saints developed new light-bearing tissues oftheir body organs as the closest to the body area of spiri-tual energies, and this expansion of the body is symbolizedby garments in a visible perception."^" The author observesthat, in iconography, gold is used to specifically highlighteverything that relates to God's grace and energy. '̂ This no-tion of communication of an invisible reality by means of avisible phenomenon is the basis for understanding the role ofthe energies in the manifestation of essence. Florensky says,"Our whole life communicates with the essence of reality ina series of continuous waves: because we can communicatewith an essence only through its energies and never directlywith the essence itself "̂ ^ Thus, an icon is a manifestation,the energy and the light of a certain spiritual essence.

Likewise, Meyendorff unfolds the idea of the divine im-age reaching the state of divine likeness in the tradition ofMaximus the Confessor. The latter believed that the naturalaspiration of human energy toward communion with Godis man's primary vocation. Union with God, however, pre-serves and transforms human personality. A man reacheshis life goal when united with the Archetype, the incamatedLogos. Maximus does not envisage the dissolution of thehuman self into the divine Logos when contrasting the no-tions of hypostasis and nature. Rather, a believer is deifiedthrough union with the Savior, who has reached completelikeness of God in his flesh. Being a microcosm of creation,the redeemed man is called to unify the whole creation backto God by means of participation in the same deified humannature of Christ by

120 GOTR 57:1-4 2012

DEIFICATION AS PARTICIPATION IN THE DIVINE ENERGIES

To explain the mystery of creaturely participation inthe Creator, the Patristics introduced the idea of energies.Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, and GregoryPalamas— t̂o name just a few—elaborated on the distinctionbetween essence, hypostasis, and energies to account for thepossibility of theosis. Since Palamas, the essence-energypattern is found in any Orthodox theological discussion ondeification.

In his book Imiaslavie, "Name-worshiping," Florensky ex-plains the double-sided idea of an essence. An essence hasan inner side, which is directed toward itself, and an outwardside that is directed toward other essences. These sides areone and the same essence, but with different orientations.The inner side serves to self-affirm the essence, while theoutward side serves to manifest and disclose the essence toanother.̂ " The two sides correspond to essence and energy.Because an essence has life, it also necessarily has a mani-festation of that life through the energies. The energies oftwo essences interacting produce synergy, which is some-thing new in relation to both of the participants. Synergydiscloses something external about both essences while eachremains unknown in its inner reality. Florensky applies thisphilosophical rationale to participation in the energies of thedivine essence.

In the context of the Palamite controversy of the fourteenthcentury, Florensky discusses the relationship of God's lightas a divine manifestation in ascetic visions to the questionof the essence and energies of God. The seven anathemasthat were pronounced by the Eastern Church at the conclu-sion of the medieval disputation became the basis for thename-worshipers of the twentieth century, among whomwas Florensky. Since a "name" is a symbol that representssome essence, it could be claimed that the "name" bears the

Borysov: The Doctrine of Deification 121

same essence. The "name" is an undivided and unconfusedenergy of the essence. By the same token, the name of Godis the energy of God through which a person can relate to thedivine essence and, therefore, addresses the divine name ashe would God himself The author concludes that it is logicalto identify the name of an essence as one of its manifesta-tions, saying that "it is necessary to distinguish in God twosides: the inner side or His essence, and the outward sideor energy, which, although unconfused, are inseparable; byvirtue of this inseparability a person and all creatures, com-muning with the energy of God, relate to His very essence,though not directly, and, therefore, have the right to namethis energy with the name of the One who acts—God.""Thus, the participant in the divine energies, in reality, con-templates the divine essence, which remains distinct from itsmanifestations and cognitively unknown. Nonetheless, theseenergies distinctively belong to the specific essence and areinseparable from it.

In Florensky's opinion, if one takes away the idea of ener-gies from the hesychastic experience of the divine light, onewill come to the conclusion of the imiabortsy, that is, "thename-fighters." The latter argued that since human creaturescould not have come into contact with the unknown essenceof the Creator, the hesychasts must have had a hallucinatoryexperience. This would mean that the nature of that light isquestionable and, thus, the whole hesychastic movement isfalse. In contrast to that, as Florensky says, Gregory Palamasasserted that an essence cannot not manifest itself; therefore,energies that manifest an essence are coexistent with theiressence, mutually conditioned, and not sequential to eachother. Moreover, if God without energies remains absolutelyunknown to us we have to become agnostics, or rational-ists—as if God is fully described by our categories.^''

In a similar vein, Meyendorff presents Dionysius's view onthe divine energies. Since God's nature transcends existence.

122 GOTR 57:1-4 2012

mankind can perceive God only through his external mani-festations. Meyendorff summarized, "Thus, the concepts ofbeauty, being, goodness, and the like, reflect God, but notHis essence, only His 'powers' and 'energies' which are not,however, a diminished form of deity, or mere emanations,but themselves ftiUy God, in whom created beings can par-ticipate in the proportion and analogy proper to each."" Hedoes not explain how participation in the energies would bedistinct from participation in the essence, which are both ful-ly God. Perhaps by "proportion and analogy proper to each,"the author assumes the created nature of the participants andhence the limited character of the union.

In the Christological argument against the Monothelites,Maximus the Confessor defended the concept of a living na-ture that necessarily contains "will." He identified the divineand human will with the energies of God and man respec-tively. If the Son assumed a real human nature, he inevitablyassumed human energies or will. Perichoresis of the divine-human energies in Christ is the basis for the deification ofthe human nature. The incarnated Logos deified the assumedhumanity by means of mutual communication between thehuman and divine energies or wills, which had not sufferedany loss of qualities, but were both preserved intact in him.Obviously, this Church Father did not limit energies solelyto the will, but he did claim that the latter is one of the ex-istential manifestations of the former. Maximus is confidentthat the deification of the whole person is accomplished bythe supernatural act of grace:

In the same way in which the soul and the body are united,God should become accessible for participation by thesoul and, through the soul's intermediary, by the body, inorder that the soul might receive an unchanging character,and the body, immortality; and finally that the whole manshould become God, deified by the grace of God-become-man, becoming whole man, soul and body, by nature, andbecoming whole God, soul and body, by

Borysov: The Doctrine of Deification 123

Furthermore, man participates not in a part of God, but inthe whole of God, because the Deity is essentially indivis-ible and simple. Maximus also denied that the personality ofa deified man is absorbed by the person of God, because thedivine-human synergy occurs only by grace on the level ofenergies, not natures or persons.^'

Palamas's theology of energies, according to Meyendorff,has no philosophical rationale behind it. However, one shouldnot forget that the philosophical notions of hypostasis, na-ture, and energies played a key role in the Christological con-troversies and had become the basic principles for Palamas'stheology proper as well as his soteriology. God is, by defi-nition, unrelated to and above any essence, hence he is un-known by any essence.^" The deified can become God onlyby grace, by means of experiencing the uncreated divine en-ergies, but he will never become God by nature. Palamassays, "God in His completeness deifies those who are worthyof this, by uniting Himself with them, not hypostatically—that belonged to Christ alone—nor essentially, but through asmall part of the uncreated energies and the uncreated divin-ity . . . while yet being entirely present in each [of the dei-fied]."^' Christ's human nature was deified through contactwith the energies of his divine nature. Consequently, the dei-fied humanity of Christ is shared by his followers, who, inreality, become truly human. Salvation is access to the divineenergies that "are never considered as divine emanations, oras a diminished God. They are divine life, as given by Godto His creatures; and they are God, for in His Son He trulygave Himself for our salvation."^^ On the equality of essenceand energies Palamas states, "Only those beings imited to Itare deified 'by the total presence of the Anointer'; they havereceived an energy identical to that of the deifying essence,and possessing it in absolute entirety, reveal it through them-selves."" Furthermore, the Trinity, having one and the samenature, shares the same energies common to the persons of

124 GOTR 57:1-4 2012

the Godhead. Palamas says, "Through each of His energiesone shares in the whole of God . . . the Father, the Son andthe Holy Spirit."^" Somehow the transcendent God enteredthis world of created beings and is experienced by means ofhis uncreated immanent energies that fully represent him.

MEANS OF DEIFICATION

The means to deification are basically aspects of ecclesio-logical life: "Holy fasts are the first fruits of the illumina-tion of the body; holy relics, which we kiss, are glimmers ofresurrection; holy sacraments are sources of deification."^^The idea of deification is tantamount to the idea of "the holybody," whereby not only the soul participates in God throughetemal life, but also the body.̂ *̂ St. Athanasius the Great,with his teaching on deification of the body, laid the basisfor Florensky's understanding of deification." The monasticlife is a way of pursuing deification: "The goal of ascesis,as is well known, is to attain the incorruptibility and deifi-cation of the flesh through the acquisition of the Spirit."^^Furthermore, Florensky follows the Greek Fathers, such asDionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor, say-ing that deification is "the lot not only of man but of all cre-ation," to the degree that it is possible to obtain it.^' Grace-giving energy can be accumulated in the Church through thesaints and ascetics.""

Meyendorff summarized Gregory Palamas's teaching ondeification as participation in the life of the Godhead. Manenters into communion with God by means of baptism andthe Eucharist, hesychastic prayer, and a ministry of love toGod and other people."' Baptism, by means of saving grace,restores the likeness of God that was lost in the fall. By be-coming part of the Church through baptism and partaking inthe Body of Christ through the Eucharist, one abides in thelife of the Son and receives the grace to cooperate with the

Borysov: The Doctrine of Deification 125

Lord on his aspiration to salvation. Nicholas Cabasilas de-picted union with Christ in the Eucharist, whereby believerspartake in the deified humanity, as well as the divinity of theLord, "Partaking of the body and blood of His humanity, wereceive God Himself in our souls[,] the Body and Blood ofGod, and the soul, mind, and will of God no less than Hishumanity.'"'^

Prayer as a channel to union with the unapproachable Godis an idea exploited by the monks. Meyendorff states, "Prayerwas understood as a way to reach the goal of Christian life assuch: participation in God, theosis through communion withthe deified humanity of Christ in the Holy Spirit.""^ EvagriusPonticus considered the "prayer of the mind" as a way for themind to come to "essential union" with the mind of God.""Macarius of Egypt, in the "prayer of the heart," believes inthe fact of God's real presence in the inner self of the prayingmonk."^ These ideas became the basis for spirituality and thepractice of prayer among the hesychasts, who approach Godthrough the contemplation of uncreated light.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

In light of the presented views, the tension between indi-rect participation in God through his energies that are, at thesame time, God himself remains unresolved. There are am-biguities in these ideas on several levels.

The first ambiguity relates to the issue of the definition ofthe divine energies and their distinction from essence. Howcan immanent, known energies of God manifest his un-known transcendent essence? If God is wholly present in hisenergies, in what way are those energies different from hisessence? In other words, if the uncreated energies of Godare God himself, how one can equate and at the same timedistinguish manifestations of the nature with the nature it-self? It is still unclear whether the deified person assumes

126 GOTR 57:1-4 2012

two natures after union with Christ, that is, the deified hu-man nature and the divine nature by grace. If so, what doesit mean to be God by grace, and how is that different frombeing God by nature? Is it not true that complete participa-tion in God implies the fact that he is no longer unknowoito the participant and is not transcendent? If communica-tion between God and man occurs at the level of the externalmanifestations of their natures, how does this happen? Sincedeification is an experience of God beyond human reason,emotions, or will,"^ in what way can one claim that he hasparticipated in God and not in some other sort of ecstatic orpsychological phenomenon?

If a living essence cannot avoid manifesting itself throughenergies, they are inseparable. However, the problem ofidentifying energies with essence is that, in the doctrine ofsalvation, synergy would not only mean a divine-human en-ergies partnership in salvific activity, but also a union of thenatures involved in such synergistic salvation, namely, Godand man. One should also take into account the notion of"symbol," which Florensky defined as essence, whose en-ergy is mingled with the energy of the other, higher essence,so that symbol is a reality that is greater than itself."" If weapply this analogy to deification, we would have to concludethat the energies of man are mingled with the divine ener-gies. And since we cannot discern God from his energies, be-cause energies are inseparable from the divine essence, thenboth human and divine essences are mingled as well, andthus are indiscernible. Even if Florensky would say that theyare not mingled, they are still indiscernible, which brings ina problem for our understanding of the nature of God.

The second ambiguity is connected to the language used todefine and describe deification. It seems that Florensky fol-lows Maximus the Confessor closely, being at some pointsvery ambiguous about the limitations of theosis. He is notafraid to be misunderstood when he talks about the patristic

Borysov: The Doctrine of Deification 127

prohibition against participation in or contemplation of thedivine nature. He scarcely mentions the traditional patristicteaching that the deified participates only in the divine en-ergies and never in the divine nature. Another example ofambiguity in Florensky's terminology is the idea of synergybetween two essences. He says that the synergy of two es-sences by means of energies produces something "new" toboth participants. That sounds like Eutychianism.

The third ambiguity is based on the philosophical, mainlyPlatonic, dichotomy between a generic essence and a par-ticular person. Rakestraw is correct when he points out theinappropriate "emphasis upon humanity, rather than hu-man beings [;] being divinized seems to put the focus moreon generic human nature rather than individual men andwomen.""* Since, according to Agiorgoussis's comment onMaximus, "will and energy do not belong to the person, butto the nature (essence)'"" by partaking in the divine ener-gies, one shares in the divine nature, not in the divine person.However, the biblical language of participation and shar-ing belongs on the plane of persons, not natures. For Paul,Christians are transformed into the image and likeness ofChrist, not into his deified human nature. Moreover, to whatextent can one speak of essence-transforming in the experi-ence of the deified? How would this person's divine naturebe different from the divine nature of God? It is unreason-able to invent different kinds of divine nature, whereby Godpossesses a higher kind of divinity and man a lower kind.

There is inconsistency in presenting energies as belongingto essence in the Christological context and also as belong-ing to persons in the Trinitarian context. Meyendorff says,"Repeatedly in the writings of St. Gregory Palamas onefinds the expression that divine energies—or the uncreatedlight—are 'hypostatic' (ÚTroaxaxiKOv cpcoç) or 'en-hypostatic'(évuTióaxaiov)."^" Since essence does not in reality exist byitself without a hypostasis, it is logical for Meyendorff to

128 GOTR 57:1-4 2012

conclude that energies belong to a person. However, thisstatement would contradict the decisions of the ecumeni-cal councils, which claimed that the Trinity has one essenceand thus the same energy shared by the three persons, whileChrist has two natures and two energies that belong to oneperson.

Finally, inconsistency is present in the ways deification isacquired. The Orthodox representatives are assured of thedivine sovirce of the union because the transformation of hu-man nature can happen only as the result of God's gift ofgrace. At the same time, they agree that participation in thesacraments, virtues, and hesychastic prayer are essential inreceiving that grace. Ultimately, synergy of the divine giftand human efforts results in a theoandric metamorphosis ofthe human partaker.

CONCLUSION

The concept of deification is the core doctrine of traditionalEastern Orthodox theology. According to Meyendorff, deifi-cation relates to

the New Testament doctrine of union with God—union thatalone can deliver men from death and sin, union that is thevery essence of Christ's work [for which] the Greek Fathersuse the concept of "deification" {theosis). . . The grace ofdeification, granted potentially in baptism, accepted freelyand progressively throughout the whole course of life, leadsus to vision and union.̂ '

Deification is a process whereby a person is transformedfi-om being an image of God, fallen and limited in knowl-edge, into a bearer of the likeness of God, receiving knowl-edge of God and partaking in the divine energies. This semi-ontological change in man is based on the fact of the deifiedhuman nature of Christ. Through union with Christ one be-comes by grace what Christ is by nature, albeit preserving

Borysov: The Doctrine of Deification 129

his creatureliness and human personality.The difficulty of grasping the notion of theosis is compli-

cated by the ambiguous presentation of the differences be-tween divine energies and the divine essence. One wouldlike to see a clear and consistent usage of energies languagein relation to the notions of person and essence. Furthermore,some of the theosis descriptions come close to an unbiblicalpresentation of union "in Christ" as an unconscious mergingwith the object of contemplation, that is, God. After readingPavel Florensky and John Meyendorff, one is left to wonderif the definition of theosis is as mysterious and beyond logicas the idea it represents. Unless these tensions are resolved,the idea of energies will remain questionable.

Further research should be devoted to investigating the con-templation of Tabor's uncreated light. What is the perceivedobject and what happens in reality with the hesychast? Isthe hesychastic experience essential to deification or is itsimply an alternative? It also would be helpful to resolvethe inconsistencies related to whether energies pertain to es-sence or person. The latter might lead to the discussions ofJohn Zizioulas and Catherine LaCugna'^ about participationnot in the divine energies but in the person of Jesus Christ,which more closely resembles biblical language. Since es-sence does not exist outside of a person, and since naturescannot interact (unlike persons), interpersonal participationmight lead the way out of this metaphysical tension.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aghiorgoussis, Máximos. "Christian Existentialism of theGreek Fathers: Persons, Essence and Energies inGod." The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 23,no. 1 (Spring 1978): 15-41.

Florensky, Pavel. Iconostasis. Translated by Donald Sheehanand Olga Andrejev. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's

130 GOTR 57:1-4 2012

Seminary Press, 2000.. Imiaslavie kak Filosofskaya Predposilka. Moscow:n.p., 1990. Online at http://www.vehi.net/fiorensky/vodorazd/P_47.html#_ftnl. Accessed November10,2011.. The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay inOrthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters. Translated byBoris Jakim. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress, 1997.

Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the EasternChurch. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's SeminaryPress, 1973.

Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trendsand Doctrinal Themes. New York: FordhamUniversity Press, 1987.. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality.Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press,1974.. Vvedenie v Sviatootecheskoe Bogoslovie. NewYork: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985. Onlineat http://krotov.info/library/m/meyendrf/patr_l 4.html. Accessed December 24, 2011.

Olson, Roger E. "Deification in Contemporary Theology."Theology Today 64 (2007): 186-200.

Palamas, Gregory. Gregory Palamas: The Triads. Edited byJohn Meyendorff. Translated by Nicholas Gendle.Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1983.

Pavlov, I. V. "Idea Obozheniia v Drevne-VostochnoiTserkvi." In Voprosi Filosofii i Psihologii, edited byL. M. Lopatin. Moscow: Kushnerev, 1909.

Rakestraw, Robert V. "Becoming Like God: An EvangelicalDoctrine of Theosis." Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 40, no. 2 (June 1997): 257-69.

Rossum, Joost van. "Deification in Palamas and Aquinas."St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 47, nos. 34(2003): 365-82.

Borysov: The Doctrine of Deification 131

NOTES

' See for instance, (1) Roman Catholics: Karl Rahner, Hearer of theWord: Laying the Foundation/or a Philosophy of Religion, trans. J. Don-ceel (New York, NY: Continuum, 1994); and Han Urs von Balthasar'sTrilogy. (2) Lutherans: R. Aden, "Justification and Sanctification: A Con-versation between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy," St. Vladimir's Theo-logical Quarterly 38, no. 1 (1994), 96-98; J. Meyendorflfand R. Tobias,eds.. Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran Orthodox Dialogue (Minneapolis:Augsburg, 1992); also Tuomo Mannermaa and his students Carl Braatenand Robert Jenson. (3) Anglicans: G. L. Bray, "Deification," in New Dic-tionary of Theology, ed. S. B. Ferguson, D. F. Wright, and J. I. Packer(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 189; also A. M. Allchin,Participation in God: A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Wilton:Morehouse-Barlow, 1988); also Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrew-es. (4) Evangelicals: Robert V. Rakestraw, "Becoming Like God: AnEvangelical Doctrine of Theosis," Journal of the Evangelical Theologi-cal Society 40, no. 2 (June 1997): 257-69; also Thomas Oden, StanleyGrenz, Daniel Clendenin, and Veli-Matti Karkkainen.^ The term "hesychast" (fi-om the Greek word hesychia, "quietude" or"stillness") was designated to a monk or an anchorite who practiced theJesus Prayer ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me" repeat-ed with a certain technique) and claimed experience of divine uncreatedlight and mystical union with the divine energies. See John Chryssavgis,"Palamas, Gregory (1296-1359)," in The Dictionary of Historical The-ology, ed. Trevor A. Hart (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 416.^ Roger E. Olson, "Deification in Contemporary Theology," TheologyToday 64 (2007): 186-200, esp. 187-88." Pavel Florensky, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Or-thodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters, trans. Boris Jakim (Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, 1997), 70.Mbid., 70, 468nl28.nbid., 70.Mbid.,62.^Ibid., 63.'Ibid., 62.'"Ibid., 56."Ibid., 90.'̂ Ibid., 82." John Meyendorff, 5/. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974), 38.

132 GOTR 57:1-4 2012

'"Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses, cited by John MeyendorflF, VvedenieV Sviatootecheskoe Bogoslovie [Introduction to the Theology of the HolyFathers] (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985), onlineat http://krotov.info/library/m/meyendrf/patr_l 4.html, accessed Decem-ber 24, 2011."John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctri-nal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1987), 140."Florensky, Pillar and Ground, 168."Ibid., 168-69."See Pavel Florensky, Iconostasis, trans. Donald Sheehan and Olga An-drejev (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2000), 5L This,however, is my translation of "Lyk est osuschestvlennoe v litze podobieBozhie," a sentence absent in the English translation."Ibid., 51-52.°̂ Ibid., 118. My translation.

2'Ibid., 128." Ibid., 69. A better translation of the last part of the quote would be"because we always communicate with the energy of an essence onlythrough its energy and never directly with the essence itself." See alsoFlorensky's comparison of representation of a magnet and its invisibleenergy with invisible divine energies that penetrate into the visible world(ibid., 127)." Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 38-39.^* Pavel Florensky, Imiaslavie kak Filosofskaya Predposilka [Name-wor-shiping as Philosophical Presupposition] (Moscow: n.p., 1990), onlineat http://www.vehi.net/florensky/vodorazd/P_47.html# ftnl, accessedNovember 10, 2011."Florensky, Imiaslavie, my translation. Florensky continues, "The thesisabout naming the Divine energies with His Name is an implied premisefor any kind of religious assertion: it is clear for a believer that he dealswith manifestations of God, that are not identified or confused with Hisessence, and, consequently, there would not be any occasion to use theword 'God' since His activity would not be in essence named with thisname of the essence."'̂ Florensky, Imiaslavie.

"MeyendorfF, Byzantine Theology, 28, citing Pseudo-Dionysius, On theDivine Names 2 (PG 3:636ff.). Olson mistakenly refers to Lossky's pre-sentation of energies as "emanations of God's hidden and ineffable es-sence," while Lossky himself names them "the outpouring of the divinenature" and "mode of existence of the Trinity which is outside of itsinaccessible essence" (Olson, "Deification," 191, quoting from VladimirLossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church [Crestwood, NY:

Botysov: The Doctrine of Deification 133

St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1973], 73).*̂ Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua (PG 91:1088C, also 1076B-C),

cited by Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 164.'̂ Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 164.

^"Gregory Palamas, Gregory Palamas: The Triads, § 3.2.24, ed. JohnMeyendorff, trans. Nicholas Gendle (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1983),95.'̂ Gregory Palamas, Against Akindynos, § 5.26; ed. A. Kontogiannes and

V. Phanourgakes, in P Khrestov, Gregoriou tou Palamas Syggrammata,vol. 3 (Thessaloniki: n.p., 1970), 371, cited by Meyendorff, ByzantineTheology, 164."Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 11-78, cf. 225. Later in his discus-sion of the third person of the Trinity, Meyendorff states that, for Pala-mas, "the eternal gifts" of the Spirit at the day of Pentecost are also"energies" (ibid., 173). Rossum clarifies that for Palamas "distinction"between the divine essence and energies is not the same as "separa-tion" in the scholastic logic, but apophatically exists "in a manner that isknown to God alone." God, for Palamas, is more than essence and ener-gies; he is personal and beyond essence (Joost van Rossum, "Deificationin Palamas and Aquinas," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 47, nos.3 ^ [2003]: 365-82, 368-69).

"Palamas, The Triads 3.1.33, ed. Meyendorff, 88. Meyendorff com-ments that "identical" here means equal "etemal existence" because es-sence transcends energies (n. 129)." Palamas, Against Akindynos 5.27, cited by Meyendorff, ByzantineTheology, 187."Florensky, Pillar and Ground, 94.'«Ibid., 213."Ibid., 252.'* Ibid., 226." Ibid., 525n479. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 9.5(PG 3:912D), cited in I. V. Pavlov, "Idea Obozheniia v Drevne-Vostoch-noi Tserkvi" [The idea of deification in the ancient eastern Church], inVoprosi Filosofii i Psiholqgii [Questions of Philosophy and Psychology],ed. L. M. Lopatin (Moscow: Kushnerev, 1909), 195nl."" Florensky, Pillar and Ground, 2."' Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 11."^Nicholas Cabasilas, De vita in Christo 4.9 (PG 150:592D-593A), citedby Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 205."'Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 67."̂ Ibid., 68, referring to Pseudo-Nilus (Evagrius), De Oratione 84 (PG79:1185).

134 GOTR 57:1-4 2012

"' Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 68, referring to Macarius ofEgypt, Hom. 1.12, ed. Dörries, 12.•^Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 13."'Florensky, Imiaslavie. On the inseparability of energies fi-om their na-ture, see also Tome of the Council of 1351 in PG 151:73B."'Rakestraw, "Becoming Like God," 267."' Máximos Aghiorgoussis, "Christian Existentialism of the Greek Fa-thers: Persons, Essence and Energies in God," The Greek OrthodoxTheological Review 23, no. 1 (Spring 1978): 15-41, esp. 21.50 John Meyendorff, "The Holy Trinity in Palamite Theology," in Mi-chael A. Fahey and John Meyendorff, eds., Trinitarian Theology Eastand West: St. Thomas Aquinas - St. Gregory Palamas (Brookline, MA:Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1977), 31-32, cited in Aghiorgoussis,"Christian Existentialism," 39. Earlier, on p. 31, Meyendorff says, "Thiswell-known distinction [between essence and energies in God]—whichis seen as the very basic palamite concept—is fully comprehensible onlywhen it is seen in the framework of a person-energy structure. A discus-sion of palamism which would ignore the fact that the God of Palamas isa personal, trinitarian God is bound to lead into a dead end."" Meyendorff, St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality, 35." John Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and theChurch (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997); Cath-erine LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Fran-cisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1991).

Copyright of Greek Orthodox Theological Review is the property of Holy Cross OrthodoxPress and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.