Stephen Thomas - Deification in The Eastern Orthodox Tradition - A Biblical Perspective-Gorgias Press, LLC (2008)

DEIFICATION IN THE
EASTERN ORTHODOX TRADITION

GORGIAS EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES
2
Deification in the
Eastern Orthodox Tradition
A Biblical Perspective
STEPHEN THOMAS
GORGIAS PRESS
2007
First Gorgias Press Edition, 2007
Copyright © 2007 by Gorgias Press LLC
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright
Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written
permission of Gorgias Press LLC.
Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey
ISBN 978-1-59333-324-9
ISSN 1539-1507
This publication is made possible by a generous grant from

The Aurelius Trust, UK.
Gorgias Press
46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA
www.gorgiaspress.com
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Thomas, Stephen, 1951-
Deification in the Eastern Orthodox tradition : a biblical perspective / Stephen Thomas.
-- 1st Gorgias Press ed.
p. cm. -- (Gorgias eastern Christian studies ; 2)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-59333-324-9
1. Orthodox Eastern Church--Doctrines. 2. Deification (Christianity) 3. Salvation--
Orthodox Eastern Church. 4. Grace (Theology) I. Title.
BX323.T445 2007
234--dc22
2007020046
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the
American National Standards.
Printed in the United States of America

THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO PAULA
that bi these thingis ye shuln be made felowis of Goddis kynde
2 Peter 1:4, translated by John Wycliffe (1380)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents..................................................................................................vii
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................xi
Introduction .............................................................................................................1
The Theme of This Book ..................................................................................1
The Purpose of This Book................................................................................1
The Structure of This Book ..............................................................................2
1 ......Salvation as “Deification” ............................................................................7
The Meaning of the Term “Deification” as Applied to the Christian........7
Isn’t It Blasphemous to Claim to Be a “god”?...............................................8
“I Said ‘You Are Gods’ ”—Starting from the Bible: John 10:34, Psalm
82:6 ....................................................................................................11
The Humanity of God Makes Possible the Deification of Humanity .....13
2 ......Deification: Overview of the Eastern Orthodox Tradition .................15
A Total Theology ..............................................................................................15
The Christian Meaning of Deification: a Summary.....................................17
Deification as Healing ......................................................................................19
The Transformation of Our Nature ..............................................................24
Paradise after Death .........................................................................................26
The Resurrection of the Glorified Body at the End of the Age ...............27
Deification and the Communion of the Saints ............................................28
In the Image and Likeness of God ................................................................28
Deification and the Work of Salvation..........................................................29
Deification Is the Gracious Work of the Whole Trinity ............................32
The “Uncreated Energies” of God ................................................................33
Deification through a Fully Liturgical Life ...................................................41
The Nature of Orthodox Mysticism..............................................................43
Orthodox Theology Is Practical, Not Speculative.......................................45
Orthodox Theology Is Based on the Bible...................................................48
3 ......Revelation and Experience ........................................................................49
Deification Is Based on Divine Revelation...................................................49
vii
viii DEIFICATION IN THE EASTERN ORTHODOX TRADITION
The Forms of Divine Revelation....................................................................53

The Threefold Structure of Divine Revelation as Manifested in Orthodox
Life and Thought ............................................................................62
Divine Revelation and Human Language .....................................................65
4 ......How to Interpret Holy Scripture, Our Guide to Deification...............69
The Importance of Scripture ..........................................................................69
The Letter and the Spirit..................................................................................71
The Scriptures as Treasuries of Spiritual Experience..................................73
The Big Picture: The Meaning of the Bible as a Whole .............................75
The Various Senses of Scripture.....................................................................81
Conclusion .........................................................................................................87
5 ......The Old Testament: The History of the Energies of God in the Bible
............................................................................................................89
Why Read the Old Testament?.......................................................................89
The Old Testament as an Integral Part of the History of God’s Grace ..91
The Creation of Man to Share the Kingship of God: Genesis 1:1–2:3 ...94
Paradise Lost: Genesis 2:4–3:24 .................................................................. 101
The “Natural Man” from Adam to Noah.................................................. 114
Moses and the Law: The Hebrew Theology of Revelation..................... 117
The Prophecies of Fulfillment in Christ: How the Old Testament Speaks
of Christ and the Mysteries of the Church .............................. 123
The Saints of the Old Testament ................................................................ 125
Excursus to Chapter 5: Adam Our Ancestor? .......................................... 130
6 ......The Uncreated Light of Mount Thabor ............................................... 141
The Light of Glory ........................................................................................ 141
The Transfiguration in the Gospels............................................................ 145
The Experience St. Peter .............................................................................. 153
The Experience of St. John the Evangelist and Theologian................... 163
The Experience of St. James the Greater, the Son of Zebedee ............. 169
St. Paul’s Experience of the Uncreated Light............................................ 172
At the Foot of the Mountain ....................................................................... 177
Conclusion 179
Appendix: For Further Reading....................................................................... 183
1. Books on Deification ................................................................................ 183
2. Books on the Bible .................................................................................... 184
3. The Fathers and Books on the Fathers.................................................. 186
CONTENTS ix
Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 191

Abbreviations to Bibliography and References......................................... 191
Index of Scriptural References ......................................................................... 203
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Without the emotional support of my mother Doreen Agnes Therese and

her generosity, I could not have written this book. She has always been
there for me and her still-sharp mind, in her 90th year, has made me think. I
owe a great debt of gratitude to my dear and steadfast friend and mentor,
the Reverend Professor John McGuckin of Union Theological Seminary,
New York, for his encouragement, advice, and spirit of generosity. He has
communicated to me a portion of his greatness of mind and vast erudition,
which have inspired and elevated me.
I am thankful to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware for advice about
doctrinal issues.
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna, supported me at a
discouraging time in the composition of the book.
I am very grateful to Dr. George Kiraz’s appreciation of my work and
his kind and straightforward attitude.
Without a faithful group of readers and advisers of a wide variety of
backgrounds, this book could not have been written: Adrian Dean,
Reverend Stephen Fretwell, Julie Gallagher, Naudette Harvey, Reverend
Dr. Brian Kelly, Miriam Lambouras, Mihail Neamts, Sister Seraphima, Fr.
Gregory Rosie, and Reverend Dr. Gregory Woolfenden.
I acknowledge with thanks certain remarks by Dr. Charles Conti of
Sussex University about my work, which have gone toward the
strengthening of my Conclusion.
I have been supported by the prayers of the Monastery of St. John the
Baptist, Tolleshunt Knights, and by the inspiration of the members of the
Community, and especially as a result of my dialogues with Sister Mihaila. I
have been helped by the prayers of my spiritual father, Archimandrite
Symeon, and stimulated by many discussions with him about the
“uncreated energies” of God.
I am very grateful to all my physicians and their ancillary staff, who
have helped me to work during periods of illness: especially Dr. Eklund of
the Royal South Hants Hospital. I acknowledge the efficiency, kindness,
xi
xii DEIFICATION IN THE EASTERN ORTHODOX TRADITION
and unfailing good-humor of “Pharmacy Direct,” Southampton: the

pharmacist, Jennifer Ndichu, and her helpers, Wendy and Dot. I need my
medicines, but their personal goodness is a medicine not found in bottles.
Dr. Katie Stott of Gorgias Press helped me to prepare the text for the
press. I appreciate her vigilance, calmness, professionalism, and supportive
attitude more than I can say.
Dr. Paula Nicholson, to whom this book is dedicated, has been my
tree of life and constant intellectual, theological, and spiritual companion.
Without her wise and careful readings of my drafts, the book would be less
clear; and without her support, I would have given up.
Having said all this, the mistakes are mine!
Stephen Thomas
11th May
Feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius
(New Calendar)
INTRODUCTION
THE THEME OF THIS BOOK

The theme of this book is how sharing the very life of God heals us and
makes us whole. The idea of participation in the life of God is expressed in
Orthodox theology by the idea of “deification,” a word which means that in
the Christian life one may become in some sense divine or “a god” though
not “God”—by grace.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK

Since neither of the words “deification” or “divinization” occurs in the
Bible, most books about this theme tend to draw on “patristic literature”—
that is, on the Fathers of the Church writing from the second century up to
the fifteenth century in the Greek East and up to the tenth century in the
Latin West. They make up a huge subject area. “Deification” (theosis/theo-
poiesis) is a theme of the Eastern Fathers, and this subject area is now rich in
treatments of this theme in Greek “patristics.” There are a number of very
good books on the subject of deification. 1 Moreover, the very recent
publication of a major scholarly study by Norman Russell (2005), 2 renewed
interest in the subject among Reformed theologians, 3 and the reprint of the
classic work by Jules Gross 4 show that deification has been the object of
recent intense attention.
1 Among the most notable may be mentioned V. Lossky, The Vision of God;
Nellas, Deification in Christ; and Mantzarides, The Deification of Man; the scholarly
monographs, in French, of J.-C. Larchet are of major importance, La Divinisation de
l’homme selon Maxime le Confesseur and Therapeutique des maladies spirituelles. Moreover,
there is the outstanding study of St. Symeon the New Theologian by Bishop
Hilarion Alfeyev, St. Symeon the New Theologian and Orthodox Tradition.
2 Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition.
3 Karkäinen, One with God. Salvation as Deification and Justification (2004).
4 Jules Gross, The Divinization of the Christian according to the Greek Fathers.
1
2 DEIFICATION IN THE EASTERN ORTHODOX TRADITION
However, the concentration upon the Greek Fathers in explaining

Orthodox teaching 5 brings with it a danger that the Fathers will be seen as
pursuing a quite different kind of theology from that of the Bible, in which
they drew upon Greek philosophical ideas rather than upon the teaching of
Scripture. Part of the intention of this book is to show that this view of the
Greek Fathers is false and that, if they used at times different language from
that of the Bible, they were nevertheless securely rooted in biblical teaching.
This book, while not neglecting the Fathers, therefore, has its main
chapters on the Bible, the source of inspiration for the Fathers and their
constant companion. I aim to show that the tradition to which the Greek
Fathers belonged—that is, the Greek Orthodox tradition—is rooted in
Scripture, with which it is perfectly harmonious. The idea of the
“deification” of the Christian, by which one may share the very life of God
through grace, is therefore placed in a specific biblical perspective. This
perspective is the Eastern Orthodox tradition’s understanding of the Bible’s
teaching as a whole.
The point, then, of this book is to show that the ideas of the deification
of the Christian are expressions of the Orthodox Church’s biblical roots, not
only in the teaching of Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and St. John but also as a
result of the revelation of the knowledge of God in the Old Testament.
There is today a very great need for Orthodox Christians in the West to
understand better their biblical roots and for there to be a movement of
biblical theology in Orthodoxy. We must not only study the Fathers but also do
what the Fathers did, which is to immerse ourselves in Scripture, in order to
discover its beauty and spiritual teaching.
THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK

The main substance of this book will be about the Bible. I shall be using the
Bible to explain how “you are gods.” The word “deification” points to a
very high view of the state that a human being can attain to, even in this
life, through grace. Through an experience of the “glory” of God, which
God freely offers to Man, the human life can be taken up into the divine
life, so that one can say, even in this life, “It is not I who live but Christ
who lives in me” (Gal 2:20).
Beginning from Scripture takes us to a saying of Jesus, recorded in St.
John’s Gospel, in which he says to the Jews that the Scripture—that is, the
5 Books on deification in the Greek Fathers as such tend to have, if at all, brief
introductions to the biblical roots of the idea, so that the impression is given that
the Bible is but the antechamber to greater vistas.
INTRODUCTION 3
Law or Old Testament—teaches that human beings are, in a sense, “gods”

(John 10:34). The first chapter of this book is gathered around this hard
saying of Jesus. It was too hard for the Jews whom Jesus addressed to
accept, and it may seem too hard to many of my readers now.
However, before continuing in detail the biblical teaching about
deification and explaining the characteristically biblical way of expressing
this idea, I have to tell you something about the Orthodox tradition on
grace and what this tradition finds in the Scriptures. The Orthodox Church
interprets the Scriptures by its perspective, which it believes is held in focus
by the Holy Spirit. This tradition acts as a key to the Scriptures for people
in the Orthodox Church. However, it can also be an interesting new way of
looking at the Bible for Christians of all traditions. Chapter 2, then, gives an
over-view of Orthodox tradition on the subject.
What chapter 2 says about the experience of grace could be described
as “mystical.” This word “mystical” is used about the Orthodox tradition to
convey the importance of experiencing things in oneself, in the secret
chamber of the heart, because this very experience is what transforms and
saves us. However, I balance this idea with another, equally important,
namely that Orthodoxy relies upon divine revelation. Chapter 3 explains the
unique balance between personal experience and faith in divine revelation
which characterizes Orthodoxy. The Bible is a form of divine revelation,
which has a special relationship to experience.
Chapter 4 begins a detailed introduction to the Scriptures themselves.
Here I also give a brief account of the various senses in which the
Orthodox Church interprets the Scriptures and explain how reading the
Bible is not just an academic experience but a life-giving encounter with
God. This book is written from the conviction that the Bible has an overall
message from beginning to end so that it is a theological unity and not only
a collection of books from different periods. Thus the biblical “history”
stretches from the Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation.
What we know positively about God comes from God’s actions
toward us, which manifest his presence through his glory—what in
Orthodox theology are called the “uncreated energies.” Chapter 5, which is
concerned with the “Old Testament” 6 of the Bible, shows how God put
forth his creative energies in making the universe and Man and tries to
answer some difficult questions about how, as modern people, we are to
understand the “fall” of Man and our restoration in Christ. Chapter 5
shows how God revealed himself through action, making his presence or
6 This is an expression which will be carefully explained in chapter 5, 93.

glory present with us through history, in his dealings with human beings in
his “covenants” with Man, and at last in his Incarnation, the Incarnation of
the Son of God, which the Old Testament prophesied.
No account of the Orthodox experience would be complete without
reference to “light.” Light holds a special place in Orthodox teaching. Light
is not only a symbol—for example, a symbol of enlightenment about the
created world or about what are the rules of human conduct. Light is a
reality in the Orthodox tradition: it is a divine or uncreated “energy” put
forth by God, which transforms the person who receives it. In chapter 6,
the final main chapter, I shall try to explain, in terms of the New
Testament, what is meant by the “Uncreated Light” as an experience
possible for human beings even in this life, centering my account upon an
event in the life of Christ that has great importance in the Orthodox
tradition, the Transfiguration (the Metamorphosis) of Jesus upon the
Mountain.
From the above account of the structure of the book, you will see that
I am attempting two things at the same time and in relation to one another: I
am, firstly, explaining how deification is a doctrine which has its basis in the
Bible; I am also, secondly, explaining how the Orthodox perspective
provides an introduction to the Bible and a way of reading it and making
sense of it.
I have also found myself writing not as a systematic theologian, neatly
dividing topics into tightly sealed compartments, but in the manner of the
biblical commentaries and homilies of the Fathers, where the relationship
between all aspects of theology are illustrated and woven together in
commenting upon the text of Scripture and applied to the life of the
Christian, for building up, or “edification” (Rom 15:2; 1 Cor 14:3). I did not
set out with the intention of imitating the style of the Fathers, nor do I
pretend that the quality of what I say even comes close to that of the
Fathers. It happened naturally. There will perhaps be times when you find
the text I have written difficult because of its interweaving of many ideas,
its “polyphonic” quality.
I have tried very hard to offset what in this book may be difficult and
unfamiliar both in content and method by avoiding the technical jargon that
is so often found in theology books. I have also kept to a bare minimum
the referencing and used the simplest English in my explanations.
The book is not written for academics, does not pretend to an original
perspective, and aims to be readable without a formal training in theology.
It aims to build up the reader toward a love for the Christian Faith as
INTRODUCTION 5
something to be lived. I hope that I have been successful in this. Let the
reader be the judge!
1 SALVATION AS “DEIFICATION”
THE MEANING OF THE TERM “DEIFICATION”

AS APPLIED TO THE CHRISTIAN
The Churches of Greece, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East have
cherished the idea of the “deification,” of the Christian, by which one may
share the divine life, the very life of the Holy Trinity, as a result of the
generosity or grace of God. For an Orthodox Christian, this participation in
God is the aim and culmination of the Christian life. Deification is a
transformation of our state by the power of God’s action. It comes about
through grace, the free gift which is offered to us in Christ. It is through
grace that we can be raised up to a higher level than the one in which we
find ourselves, to a level in which we can relate to God as friends and in
which we can experience the conquest of death, passion, and sin. When we
are thus raised we partly experience before we depart from this life a pledge
or down-payment of the Kingdom which is to come after death, so that the
Kingdom is to some extent already realized in our lives.
The expressions “deification” and “divinization” 1 are translations of
two Greek words found in the early Church Fathers: theosis means “the state
of being a god” and theopoiesis means “being made into a god.” These words
do not occur in Scripture. The Greek Fathers used them in order to express
the great height to which God in his goodness wishes to raise us. The
words convey the idea of immortality or everlasting life, and of a sharing in
the very life of God.
Salvation is bound up with the doctrine of deification. The Orthodox
tradition sees us as needing salvation from sin and death. Sin is moral
1 In French books on the subject, the Greek words are translated by

“divinization.” Sometimes this word may be found in English works, too. For the
sake of consistency, I refer to the idea expressed by the Greek words with
“deification” throughout.
7
corruption and death is physical corruption. Following St. Paul, these two
kinds of corruption are seen as related: physical death is the consequence of
the moral corruption, and the latter, moral corruption, is in turn the result
of our being far from God.
Salvation in the Eastern Orthodox Christian view concentrates less
upon the offence against God of human sin and more upon the bad effects
of sin upon us. It sees God as not so much offended as concerned to raise
human beings to the highest possible level, when they have fallen to a very
low level, which is a kind of sickness. Thus “salvation” is not about
removing the offense against God: rather it is about the transformation in
us which can take place if we are taken up into a completely new level, the
level of the divine life, and healed by contact with the divine power. This is
why “salvation” and “deification” go together in Orthodox teaching.
ISN’T IT BLASPHEMOUS TO CLAIM TO BE A “GOD”?

The word “deification” means “to be made into a god.” It does not mean
“to become God”—with a capital “G”—but rather to become a being who
shares some of the qualities possessed by God. God possesses immortality,
happiness, power and strength to heal, and perfect knowledge by his very
nature. However, we can share these qualities by grace. Although we are
created beings, having a beginning, we can become like God in having no
end to our existence by possessing the eternal life that God offers to us.
You will probably be more familiar with another sense of the word
“gods” used in the Old Testament. By the expression “gods” the Prophets
of ancient Israel referred to the false and nonexistent beings that the
Israelites were tempted to worship because of the influence of the people
around them; this was “idolatry.” The first of the Ten Commandments is:
“You shall have no other gods before me.” (Exod 20:3) 2
The Second Commandment forbids the use of “a graven image or any
likeness” of anything in human experience to represent a divinity and to use
in worship:
“You shall not bow down to them or serve them.” (Exod 20:5)
Moreover, the Old Testament makes it clear that no human being can
be a “god,” in the absolute sense that the God of Israel was the God of the
whole universe. The Old Testament teaching is equally against the idea of
2The biblical quotations are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible
unless otherwise specified.
SALVATION AS “DEIFICATION” 9
one most powerful or “High God” who is surrounded by other less

powerful gods or that human kings were divine beings. This was the basis
of the challenge that Moses brought to the Egyptian Pharaoh, who was
believed by his people to be a god among the other great gods of Egypt.
The Lord tells Moses that Pharaoh will be shown to be a mere mortal by
the power of the One True God’s actions in freeing his people from
slavery, so that “the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD” (Exod
14:4). 3
However, there is another, less familiar sense of the word “gods,”
which is preserved in Jewish tradition, namely that of “the celestials” or
created heavenly beings who shared God’s work and were his messengers:
there are references in the Old Testament to angels, strictly speaking
“messengers”; to the “host” (Neh 9:6) of the Lord—that is, his celestial
army—who fought beside the Israelites against their enemies; and to the
“assembly of the gods” or the divine council of heavenly creatures who
surround the throne of God. One may also mention the “Seraphim” (Isa
6:2, 6:6) and the “Cherubim,” 4 mysterious fiery and powerful creatures who
appear when the Lord made himself present on earth. These “celestials” are
not like the lesser deities of paganism, because they really do exist: they are
essentially created beings, who depend for their existence upon the One
and Only God. The Orthodox Church agrees with Jewish tradition in this
respect and calls them “the Bodiless Powers.”
In addition, Jewish tradition inherited from Scripture the idea that Man
was, in some true sense, divine, because God said,
“Let us make Man in our image and according to our likeness.” (Gen
1:26) 5
The Jewish interpretation of the words “Let us make” and “our” (Gen 1:26)
is that God is addressing the heavenly council of the celestial beings who
3 I am grateful to my friend the Romanian theologian, Mihail Neamts, for the

point that the Israelite conception of divinity and the dignity of Man were opposed
to all forms of dictatorship and totalitarianism.
4 The Prophet Ezekiel has a vision of the Cherubim surrounding the Lord in
chapter 10 of his book. However, the Cherubim were also associated with the glory
of the Lord manifested in his Tabernacle. The Cherubim were made into the form
of a throne for the Lord’s presence or glory (Exod 26:1, 31). The Lord was
customarily described as “dwelling between the Cherubim” (1 Sam 4:4), which
refers both to the Man-made throne and to the reality of these mysterious
creatures.
5 My literal translation.
served him: the angels. By contrast, Orthodox Christianity interprets

Genesis 1:26 as God the Father addressing the Eternal Son and the Holy
Spirit, so that the creation of Man is through the will of the divine Trinity.
Despite this difference, however, both in Judaism and in Orthodox
Christianity, Man is accorded the highest dignity of any created being by
possessing the image of God; and in this latter respect there is a degree of
convergence between Orthodox Christianity and Judaism as well as
difference.
Judaism had, and has still, a distinctive interpretation of Psalm 82:6,
where God himself declares that men were “gods and sons of the Most
High.” This Psalm begins:
God is standing in the company of the gods; in the midst of the gods he
holds judgment. 6
It refers to the unjust judgments of “the gods” and asserts the duty of “the
gods” to look after the weak and give them justice. God declares that “the
gods” have a choice: they can judge justly and be heavenly beings, or fail in
their vocation and die.
I said, “You are gods, all of you sons of the Most High. Nevertheless,
you shall die like men and fall like any prince.” (Ps 82:6)
In Jewish tradition, this text refers to those at Sinai who were “gods” by
receiving the Word of God but “died like men” in disobeying it. It had a
special relevance to the “judges” who were appointed to help Moses rule
Israel (Exod 18:13–27). Moses acted upon the advice of his father-in-law,
Jethro, who was, strictly speaking, not even an Israelite. Jethro advised
Moses to delegate the work of judging cases that were brought to him for
dispute, so that he might not “wear himself out” (Exod 18:18). The
arrangement came about, then, not as a direct command from the Lord but
as a piece of quite secular advice. However, the people to whom Moses
delegated his work were nevertheless accorded a divinized status by God.
These men had to cooperate with God in the implementation of God’s Law
and, in doing so, were dignified with a divine status. For this reason, they
drew near to the glory or presence of God along with those whose cases
they were judging (Deut 19:17). Having seen the glory of God to some
extent, because they “appeared before the Lord” (Deut 19:17), they were
made like God because they experienced God’s “glory,” or presence with
the people of Israel, which he had put forth from Heaven and which guided
My literal translation: elohim is used twice, first to refer to God in the singular
6
and second to the gods in the plural.

them and did mighty acts for them. God had put forth his holy glory, and
those who had contact with his glory were either sanctified or consumed as
by fire. Having neglected their duties, the bad judges were condemned to
“die like men”—that is, like any other bad ruler (Ps 82:7). The Jewish
traditional interpretation that this Psalm condemns bad “judges” shows that
judging Israel well was a matter of sharing something with God and so
becoming “gods,” just as judging Israel badly led to death. Deification, or
its opposite, can come about in the practical business of living.
The question is discussed in the Talmud as to whether Jews owe their
very existence to the sin of their ancestors at Sinai, in worshiping the
Golden Calf: if the Jews then had remained “gods,” by obeying the Law
against idolatry, would they have procreated, that is, remained ordinary
human beings? Would they not have become as the “celestials” like the
angels and so not lived together as husband and wife and had children? The
answer is that Jews had already been commanded to procreate (Gen 1:28),
so that normal family life is not inconsistent with the “deification”
envisaged by the Jew—to be as a “god” is not to become a supernatural
being but to share in God’s work by fulfilling his will. 7
There was, then, already in Judaism the idea that human beings can be
“heavenly beings” while at the same time living an earthly life. What makes
men “gods” is not the possession of magical powers or a complete and
radical alteration of their created nature, but the sharing of God’s life:
having God’s thoughts revealed to them and doing his work, freely
cooperating with the revealed will of God. It is against this background that
one of the hardest and least familiar of Jesus’ hard sayings may be
understood, when Jesus quotes the Law 8 to the effect that that human
beings are gods.
“I SAID ‘YOU ARE GODS’ ”—STARTING FROM THE BIBLE:

JOHN 10:34, PSALM 82:6
John’s Gospel tells us of a confrontation in the Temple between Jesus and
“the Jews.” 9 They pushed him to say if he was the Messiah, or Christ (John
10:24). Jesus said:
7 See Babylonian Talmud, tractate ‘Aboda Zara, 5a.

8 Jesus actually refers to a psalm, Psalm 82, rather than to what is strictly
speaking “The Law” or Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. He must
be understood as referring to what was accepted at that time by Jewish tradition.
9 This does not mean that Jesus was not himself a Jew in his human nature; St.
John, the Evangelist, was a Jew; Jesus’ disciples were also Jews; many Jews received
“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

Considering this statement as blasphemous, they took up stones to stone
him (John 10:31). Jesus argues that this is not according to the Law a
blasphemous claim and cites part of Psalm 82:6:
“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said you are gods’?” (Ps 82:6)
Jesus says that those “to whom the word of God came” were called “gods”
by the Scripture “and Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Even
more, therefore, is it true of him, that he can claim to be God, since he is
the one “whom God has consecrated” (John 10:36) and who does the
“works of God” (10:37–38). His opponents were not convinced and tried
to stone him (Jn 10:31, but they were unable to lay hands upon him (Jn
10:39) and he withdrew.
The form of argument Jesus used was a rabbinic one, from the lesser
to the stronger (qual wa homer), literally, “from the lighter to the heavier” or,
as we would say, “a fortiori.” But is this all there is to it? Did Jesus win the
battle of words and out-quote his opponents by lifting a convenient phrase
from one of the Psalms? Then he showed his fleetness of foot in making a
quick escape. 10 This is a very humanistic way of seeing this whole exchange.
There is some profound theology here—and this theology is about
deification: it addresses a real concern that you, my readers, may now be
experiencing: Christ may have been God, but surely it is blasphemy for us
the faithful to claim that we are “deified”—that is, made into “gods”? There
is a link between Christ’s divinity and our deification which comes out in
this passage. It is a teaching which must not evade our grasp as Jesus’ whole
teaching escaped his opponents.
The traditional Jewish reading of this Psalm is, as we have seen, that
the “gods” are human beings in this passage; they are the “judges” or
officers who were appointed to help Moses rule over Israel and to share his
work.
Jesus broadens the point with his interpretation that God “called them
‘gods’ to whom the word of God came.” Christ teaches that all those to
whom God’s “Word” came were “gods,” because all who were called to
Jesus as their Saviour; others did not but treated him courteously and fairly. “The
Jews” means in John the religious authorities who particularly hated Jesus and
resisted him very strongly.
10 The RSV translates “but he escaped from their hands,” and Fr. Raymond
Brown has “he slipped out of their clutches” (John i–xii, 402), as if Jesus was a
“slippery customer” or had the qualities of the Scarlet Pimpernel!
participate in God’s work or proclaim his message during the Old

Testament period were raised up to the level of the “celestials” or “gods”
(John 10:35). This is a reference not only to the revelation to Moses on
Mount Sinai but also to the Prophets—and, indeed, to every Jew who
devoutly obeys the Law with his whole heart. The revelation makes holy
those to whom it comes and deifies them. However, one may go further
and say the person—that is, the divine Word of God—who came to the
people of Israel before the Incarnation made those people “gods” to some
extent. Jesus’ teaching, then, has three strands, which may be summarized
as follows.
Firstly, already in the Old Testament sharing God’s work meant
sharing in his life and receiving grace to make one a “god,” or a heavenly
being. By obeying the divine revelation of the Law, a human being develops
his true nature, given to him at Creation, being made in the image and
according to the likeness of God.
Secondly, the context of the passage where Jesus teaches about our
being “gods” is that of the Gospel of St. John, where Christ is the
Incarnation of the ever-existing “Word” (logos). Consequently, in context,
Christ, in referring to the “Word,” is alluding obliquely to himself and
saying that he had himself come to the people of Israel once already in the
Old Testament, before his Incarnation. The “Word” came to the people of
Israel in this sense in the revelation on Mount Sinai to Moses and in all the
revelations to the Prophets.
Thirdly, and as a consequence of the second point above, Christ
teaches that his coming as the Incarnate Word of God was the fulfillment
of the Old Testament, 11 which was written as a result of the action of the
“Word” of the Lord upon the Prophets. While the presence of the Word of
God in the Old Testament is by way of prophecy and expressed in a dark or
implicit way, the person the Prophets met in encountering the “Word of the
Lord” was finally made known to all peoples in Christ.
THE HUMANITY OF GOD MAKES POSSIBLE

THE DEIFICATION OF HUMANITY
The Incarnation of the Word is the union of the divine nature and person
of the Word of God with a human nature, so that Christ could rightly say “I
and the Father are one” (John 10:30). The purpose of the Incarnation is
11 The ideas of Old and New Covenants or Testaments as it applies to

deification is explained in chapter 5.
that all people might be united to God. In his final discourses to his
disciples, Jesus made it clear that his union with God was also to be theirs:
“No one comes to the Father but through me. If you had known me,
you would have known my Father also; from now on, you do know him
and have seen him.” (John 14:6–7)
To know Jesus Christ is to know God because “I am in the Father and the
Father is in me” (John 14:10).
This knowledge makes us “gods” because it takes us up into the life of
God; or, if you prefer it, because this knowledge brings the life of God
down to us. In knowing Christ, we know God as people who have been
transformed to a new level of existence which is different from before,
since it is a glorifying knowledge of the glory of God and makes us into
sons and daughters of God.
I have now given some account of what the Orthodox Church means
by “deification,” and it should be clear that it has nothing to do with the
Egyptian Pharaoh or with the Greek pagan “apotheosis” by which
remarkable human beings were made into gods by human beings and
worshiped in a cult. Nor does the “deification” of which I am speaking
have anything to do with the tragedy that befell “Adam and Eve” when
they reached for the fruit by which the serpent promised that they “would
be as gods knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5). If there is a wrong kind of
deification as a result of our perverse desire to be independent of God,
there is also another right kind of deification which God, in his generosity,
had always intended for human beings.
Consequently, deification is a Christian and biblical idea, which the
Greek Fathers used to describe the heights to which we are called by God’s
grace. The purpose of this book is to show that the Orthodox teaching
about deification is rooted in the Bible.
2 DEIFICATION: OVERVIEW
OF THE EASTERN ORTHODOX TRADITION
How is it Thou makst men Gods?

How is it Thou makst dark light?
How comes Man from out of Hell?
How rendered deathless from death’s blight? 1
St. Symeon the New Theologian
A TOTAL THEOLOGY
In the following account of deification in the Orthodox tradition, you will
find that I have overlapped in my discussion into a number of very
important areas of theology that are often separated into distinct topics in
textbooks: topics such as Christology, or the theology of the person of
Christ, who and what he was and is; the Trinity, how God is both one in
nature or essence and yet three in persons; ecclesiology, or the theology of
what the Church is; theological anthropology, or the theology about what
human beings really are; liturgy; and the doctrine of the Communion of the
Saints. Salvation is in Western Christian theology often treated as a separate
topic, the “work of Christ” or “soteriology,” the theology about salvation. 2
The combination of such a number of important doctrines in one
discussion can appear at first to be rather rambling, because it does not
stick to one topic and discuss the various topics in order but moves rapidly
between all the facets of theology to show how they interconnect in relation
to our experience. There is a tendency in Western theology to divide
theology up into topics in order to understand the parts of theology. This is
systematic theology. However, the greatest summarizer of the Orthodox
1 Symeon le Nouveau Theologian, Hymnes, SC no. 156, Hymns 6, stanza 2, ll, 5–

8, 204 [my translation].
2 From the Greek soteria, salvation.
15
Faith, St. John of Damascus, also divided his work systematically into
topics. 3 There are in fact a number of excellent modern works of Orthodox
theology that also take this topical approach. 4
By contrast, the earlier Fathers, for example St. Irenaeus (2nd century), 5
St. Athanasius (4th century), 6 or St. Gregory Nyssa (4th century), 7
incorporated into a history or narrative account their explanations of
doctrine as the issues arose, in the less formal method of organization
which I will adopt in this chapter. This method of theologizing is not
irrational or incoherent; it is a theology which uses the Bible as the
framework and may be described as “salvation history.” 8 What holds it
together is the focus upon the personal experience of salvation and the
relationship of this experience to the historical events that comprise God’s
actions toward us. What a topical approach separates into distinct headings,
a salvation history incorporates into one story, weaving together all the
main teachings of Christianity and relating them all to our salvation.
Since the center of gravity of this book is the Bible, it seemed to me
appropriate to use this salvation-history approach by which the Fathers
fitted their doctrine into the overall scheme of the Bible.
This chapter, then, tells a story, the story of the human race from the
point of view of salvation and grace, with a biblical framework. Its
parameters are the Creation in the Book of Genesis at the beginning of
human history and the Book of Revelation at the very end of human
3 In his main work, On the Orthodox Faith, NPNF, PNF (2), IX. The systematic
nature of On the Orthodox Faith is more apparent than real and has much to do with
the Damascene’s editors. This work rather belongs to the category of the “century”
or collection of sayings or paragraphs. St. John is not systematic in the way that St.
Thomas Aquinas is systematic.
4 Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Justin Popovitch, The Philosophy of the
Truth (in French translation).
5 In his Against the Heresies, NPNF, ANF, I and selections in ed. Grant.
6 In his two-volume work, Against the Pagans and On the Incarnation of the Word.
There is no good current English translation of Athanasius’ volume I, Against the
Pagans. Both texts may be found in English and in Greek in ed. Thomson,
Athanasius Contra Gentes and De Incarntione.
7 In his Great Catechism, NPNF, PNF (2), V, and in his Life of Moses (CWS).
8 The expression “salvation history” was popular in Catholic theology of the
1950s—Heilsgeschichte. I have developed the expression, however, in my own way to
describe the orderly linear narrative, inspired by the impact of the uncreated
energies upon the grace-filled biblical writers, from creation to the End of the Age,
which expresses God’s active quality in bringing grace to Man.
DEIFICATION: OVERVIEW 17
history. I begin from one crucial fact which is associated in biblical theology
with an event of some kind: the human sickness which causes us to need
salvation is bound up in Orthodox thinking with Adam and the loss of
Paradise. Consequently, salvation history is not history in the sense of that
pursued by historians today, because salvation history begins and ends with
mysterious events which are at the very stretch of human understanding,
even if one may recognize, in the middle, the story of the human race which
historians tell. 9 However, even with regard to the middle, salvation history
differs from academic history. Historians historicize in a line moving always
toward the future, the future of Man and the future of knowledge about
Man. However, salvation history constantly refers either back or forward to
a central point, the coming of Jesus Christ.
THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF DEIFICATION: A SUMMARY

Deification is the end of human life, in the sense that deification is the
purpose of life and the end or conclusion to which our lives are intended by
God to reach. This end is constantly present to someone for whom Christ
is central for salvation. It is present as hope and that for which a Christian
prepares for the whole of his or her life. It is also present, in Orthodox
spirituality, to our experience now to some extent.
Before I begin the history of our salvation according to Orthodox
tradition, some revision by way of summary is necessary, in order that the
end of human life may be clearly before our minds as the chapter proceeds.
Deification is the Orthodox word for the transformation brought
about by God in us—a transformation that takes us up to the level of a
sharing in the very life of God. It was called “deification” in the period after
the New Testament and is an interpretation of ideas in the New Testament
itself. These ideas are ideas about our being sons of God by adoption, of
our inheriting eternal life, of being “in Christ,” and of being united to the
Father through the Son. Orthodoxy teaches that there is a real sense that we
become “gods” in that we can become sons of God by grace sharing in the
eternal sonship that Christ has by virtue of his divine nature. As synonyms
of “deification,” Orthodox Fathers and spiritual writers often use simple
words and phrases like “life,” “union with God,” and “grace.”
The last word, “grace,” is especially important because it means a gift.
If we are deified, it is through God’s free gift. We cannot reach God by our
9 The real problems in believing in the historicity of the Adam narratives in

Genesis 1–3 will not be avoided but will be dealt with in the chapter on the
Orthodox meaning of the Old Testament. See chapter 5, “Excursus”.
own efforts. He comes to us. We know God truly because of God’s

initiative in making himself known. God’s gift is to be seen firstly in the
creation of the universe, which was brought out of absolutely nothing and
is a sign of his goodness. Moreover, what God created he originally
intended to make holy and to exalt it by contact with the eternal life and
power of the divinity. God’s gift is also to be seen in the gift of knowledge
of himself which he gave by revealing himself in his dealings with Man, so
that in the Old Testament we have a reliable record of what God is like. At
last God gave his very self to us, uniting himself to our human nature in the
Incarnation. The Bible presents a picture of an increasing intensification of
grace.
In the Old Testament, God says he is a “jealous” God (Exod 20:5;
Deut 4:24, 5:9, 6:15; Josh 24:19). However, he is not jealous in wanting to
stop us from sharing in his life or because he has privileges, such as
immortality, which he does not want to share with his inferiors. The
revealed God’s jealousy is very different from that of the Greek gods and
the gods of Mesopotamia. In both Greece and Mesopotamia, the gods are
described as punishing humans who try to acquire divine qualities. The
revealed God of the Bible is jealous as a lover is; he does not want to share
us with “other gods,” that is, with the demonic, or even with any idea that
we make into a “god,” by giving human ideas an ultimate value that
excludes God from the picture.
From an Orthodox point of view, the aspiration to “godhood” is not
bad in itself, because there is a true sense in which God wants human
beings to share in his life and to achieve immortality. However, there is also
a kind of deification which is the lie of the demonic, which offers to human
beings what appears to be divine status, as the serpent did to Eve. This false
deification has a superficial attractiveness in being permissive with regard to
our passions and in offering some apparent benefits, but such deification is
really a form of death; it is servitude to the demonic and to our passions.
The lie mimics the truth and in this mimicry is to be found the key to its
seductive power. Significantly, the early Church Fathers were opposed to
pagan cults and to the apotheosis of the emperor, to the point of facing
death by their refusal to worship these false gods, but at the same time they
taught that there was a true deification, which comes from God’s grace.
Deification is a possibility for us brought about by the arrival of the
Kingdom of God. It is a time of feasting and celebration every time
someone becomes converted to Christianity, because that person has
entered this beautiful Kingdom, where we share the life of God, even here
on earth.
DEIFICATION AS HEALING
However, the convert is at first someone recovering from an illness. A sick
person cannot enjoy a party!
The first stage of deification, then, is that of healing. Orthodoxy
teaches that human beings, whom God had originally created for a happy
life in fellowship with him, have without exception fallen into a sickness.
The illness is the result of a tragic mistake or lapse. It is a spiritual illness, a
tendency to turn away from the source of all good, light, and beauty—that
is, God—toward a selfish attitude where material things are seen as the only
good, and where our ability to relate to our fellow human beings has been
so damaged as to make us envious and cruel. Orthodoxy sees actual sins as
arising from the damaged and diseased state in which human beings
mysteriously find themselves. St. Paul found himself, as an unwelcome fact
of his existence, to be in a state which he called being “under slavery to
sin”:
I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but
do the very thing that I hate. (Rom 7:15)
One does not necessarily have to accept the story of the loss of Paradise by
Adam and Eve to share this view. The urgent need to overcome or escape
slavery to perversity and uncontrollable passions is the starting point of
many philosophies and religions. “Sin” is the Christian word for falling
short of what is possible for us in our relationship to God and our fellow
human beings. 10 Man disobeyed God, tried to do things in what appeared
to be “his own way,” although his delusion was prompted by evil forces, by
the envy of the Devil. Man lost Paradise, a blessed state which could have
developed to even better things. One great thing to come would have been
the population of the world with human beings in a blessed and undamaged
state, ready to develop toward ever fuller communion with God, without
pain or death in their lives and where relationships would have been free
from anguish and conflict. In his wounded state, however, Man found his
way to Paradise barred by the Cherubim and by fire (Gen 3:24). The human
race still multiplied, as God had willed, but there was pain and sorrow
associated with childbirth and the equal relationship between man and
woman became one of subordination of female to male (Gen 3:16–20). All
human beings, then, inherited a condition by which they had a tendency to
10 Greek hamartia, translated as “sin” in the New Testament, means “to miss a
target, to fall short of a goal.” Thus St. Paul explains the term when he uses it: “All
have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23).
sin as a result of the damage done to human nature by the original

disastrous mistake of Adam and Eve. The evidence for the diagnosis that
Man has fallen into a state of spiritual sickness is all around us: human
history defeats the idea that we are developing by our independent reason
toward better and better things, as may be seen in the chronic persistence of
war, genocide, torture, and greed.
Man chose the wrong kind of deification through the deceit of the
Devil, represented by the serpent, who promised that Adam and Eve would
“be as gods knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5). The wrong kind of
deification was that Man went his own way, independently of God. This is
the attitude that some modern philosophers express when they say that
“God is dead”—that is, that God is an idea that we no longer need, because
we can choose how to live by our own understanding. Such philosophers
argue that the idea of God restricts human beings from achieving their full
potential by restricting their choices as a result of superstitious fear. The
“knowledge” promised by the serpent was “of good and evil” (Gen 3:5)—
that is, knowledge mixed up with evil. 11 It was not a pure knowledge but the
kind of combination of good and bad that results when people make their
own experiments and reject God’s help.
There is the right kind of deification, which is, above all else,
relationship to God.
This deification brings the healing that enables Man to return to
Paradise. Deification is the restoration of Man, holistically, in body and
soul. It overcomes spiritual evil—that is, sin—and physical evil—that is,
death. The restoration from a state of “corruption” 12 to “incorruption” 13 is
a change from both spiritual corruption and physical corruption. Aging,
illness, and death are the signs of the corruption of sin just as much as
immorality. Sin has had physical consequences for ill. Deification also has
physical consequences for good. It is the victory over death. The incorrupt
bodies of the Saints are a sign of their deification and prophetically point to
the restoration of the body at the Final Resurrection, when the souls of the
blessed will be reunited with their bodies. Deification also produces moral
regeneration. One cannot be deified and at the same time lack in love
toward both brethren and enemies or be an adulterer or merciless or unjust.
In fact, the moral regeneration enabled by deification is that of a high
This is the interpretation of St. Gregory Nyssa in On the Making of Man,

11
NPNF, PNF (2), V, 409–10.
12 Greek phtharsia.
13 Greek aphtharsia.
degree of perfection, in which love even of enemies and nonresistance to

evil are practical possibilities.
The good tree brings forth good fruit (Matt 7:17–19). The bad tree,
which has a sickness at its root, can be restored both to life and to fertility,
so that it grows again, and its abundant fruit is good for others and feeds
them.
The contemporary Orthodox theologian Jean-Claude Larchet sees the
imagery of sickness and healing as central to Eastern Orthodox teaching
and the key to the teaching of the Fathers:
Seeing in the original state of Adam the healthy state of humanity, the
Fathers and the whole tradition saw the sinful state characterizing fallen
humanity as a result of original sin, a state of illness with many
symptoms affecting Man in every aspect of his existence. 14
The state of mind brought about by illness results in many errors. If
one is in a constant state of pain and if one’s life has been, over a long
period, restricted by a chronic illness, one can get used to it, and the
mentality that one has acquired during the illness comes to seem normal to
the sick person. However, if a person is restored to health, the first thing
that they see is how narrow their perspective has become and how the
illness has weighed them down and lowered their expectations. The
sickness which all human beings suffer as a result of being strangers to God
has altered our perspective and, without healing grace, we are accustomed
to seeing things in a distorted way. The joy of receiving God’s healing grace
is when our perception and strength are restored, so that our whole attitude
is changed. This is the beginning of our restoration from the morbid
condition in which we had been living. It is the Good News that Christ
brings.
What about “justification,” one may ask? Does not the New
Testament also use pictures about our salvation drawn from the law courts?
St. Paul, for example, speaks in terms of the reestablishment of justice. In
the Letter to the Romans, St. Paul says that we can move from a state of
being wrong before God to a state of justice or “righteousness.” This
“justification” or “putting right” takes place though trust in God, or “faith”
(Rom 3:21–5:2). These are metaphors or figures of speech and, in dealing
with any comparison or metaphor, one has to be careful in explaining a
metaphor in terms of logical argument. One should look at all sides of the
comparison and try to clarify the writer’s main emphasis. The idea of being
14 J.-C. Larchet, Thérapeutique, 10.

pronounced not guilty by a judge in a law court 15 conveys an idea of

enormous relief. It is also a change of status, from that of prisoner or
defendant to a free person. St. Paul uses the language of law in a powerfully
unexpected way; one expects judges to condemn and give a sentence to
those who deserve it. But God is the merciful judge: he abolishes the
sentence altogether even though we deserve punishment by the standards
of justice. The language of law is used to convey a “realm change” 16 and is
consistent with Orthodox teaching that we have actually changed by virtue
of conversion to Christianity through the power of grace. We change into
people capable of sharing the life of God.
The Eastern Fathers take a softer view than the need to punish Man
for his tendency to sin. To give an illustration, if a person behaved in a
strange, rude, or even violent way, it would be wrong to blame that person
if one discovered that he was suffering from an illness of the brain or a
psychiatric illness, such as a personality disorder. A kind, good, and
reasonable person, seeing him and knowing the facts, would not want him
to be punished but to be cured. That is how the Eastern Fathers explain sin.
Sin is a personality disorder. It is, however, a personality disorder that
affects our physical well-being. 17
The medieval West, on the other hand, gave a different account of sin
and salvation. In the eleventh century, the Latin theologian St. Anselm
wrote a book called Why Did God Become Man? 18 Anselm explained Christ’s
suffering as paying a debt of justice, required by sin. Christ paid our fine,
15There was no trial by jury in the time of St. Paul: the magistrate, provincial
governor, or, in the case of a Roman citizen who appealed, the Emperor, heard the
case, weighed the evidence and decided the verdict, as for example Pontius Pilate
was expected to do in Jesus Christ’s case.
16 Douglas Moo, a distinguished scholar declaredly in the conservative
Evangelical tradition, comments on Rom 5:1–2, “Jesus Christ through whom we

also have access into this grace in which we stand,” that St. Paul balances the language
about God’s action with its effect: “It is the realm in which grace reigns, a realm
that is set in contrast to the realm or domain of the law.” Moo concludes that
“while this state of grace includes our justification as a key element, the notion goes
beyond justification to all that is conveyed to us by God in Christ” (Romans, 296–
301; quotations from p. 301).
17 It is debatable how much all “mental illness” is purely mental, rather than a
chemical imbalance in the brain. Moreover, extreme emotions, such as grief, can
adversely affect the body.
18 Cur Deus Homo. English translation in ed. Davies & Evans, Anselm, Major
Works.
since we could not bear the severity of what was due. Christ’s work satisfied
love and justice at the same time. The idea is that justice must be satisfied
for God to remain just. But Man’s sin was an offense against an infinite
person, God, and so required an infinite punishment. Finite human beings
could never put right this injustice against God’s nature. Therefore a person
with an infinite divine nature—that is, the Son of God—suffered for our
sakes. The result was not only that justice was done but also that love was
able to find expression in God’s forgiveness of us. This view has dominated
both the Catholic and the Protestant understanding of salvation.
There is nothing quite like this in Eastern Orthodox thinking, which
sees Christ primarily as a healer. Some Eastern Fathers, such as St. Isaac the
Syrian (7th century), say frankly that God’s restoration of Man has nothing
to do with justice but everything to do with mercy:
We cannot possibly say that God acts out of retribution, even though
the Scriptures may on the outer surface propose this. Even to think this
of God and to suppose that retribution for evil acts is to be found in
Him is abominable. 19
This idea is not just a marginal one in Orthodoxy. The popular and much-
venerated nineteenth-century Russian Saint, St. Seraphim of Sarov, said the
same thing, citing a homily of St. Isaac:
Do not call God just, says St. Isaac; for His justice is not evident in your
deeds. If David called Him just and righteous, His Son, on the other
hand, showed us He is rather good and merciful. Where is His justice?
We were sinners, and Christ died for us. 20
The Orthodox Church sees mercy as a greater quality than justice. The
parables about the “injustice” of the father of the Prodigal Son (Luke
15:11–32) and about the owner of the vineyard who pays all the workers
the same amount irrespective of how long they have worked (Matt 20:1–16)
convey both God’s mercy transcending justice but also our inability to
receive this idea; we find a merciful God hard to grasp: the complaints of
the eldest son in the parable of the Prodigal Son and of the workers in the
parable about the vineyard where those hired late in the day are paid the
same as those who toiled all day, are warnings to us. Let us not murmur
(Matt 20:11) against God’s mercy and prefer his justice!
19 Isaac the Syrian (Isaac of Nineveh), The Second Part, Chapters IV–XLI, 63.
20 Little Russian Philokalia, I, St. Seraphim of Sarov, (New Varlaam Monastery,
1991), “The Spiritual Instruction for Laymen and Monks,” 25.
The Eastern tradition calls attention to Jesus’ statement about his

mission to the world:
Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Go and learn what it means, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” For I
came not to call the righteous but sinners. (Matt 9:12–13, Hos 6:6)
It is clear from this that the disease is sin and Jesus’ call is a call to
repentance and salvation seen as healing. 21 Throughout the Gospels, the
healing of physical illnesses is accompanied by statements about forgiveness
of sins (Matt 9:2–6; Mark 2:5–9; Luke 5:20–24, 7:48). The Orthodox
Church takes this quite literally. Repentance is customarily described as a
medicine, and the sacraments are for healing of soul and body.
This is not to deny that the fruits of this sickness are wickedness and
all kinds of cruelty and destructiveness. Sin is a morally degrading and
debasing illness. 22 However, Orthodoxy sees sin as a kind of madness
rather than something that can be put right by punishment. Man must
somehow be called back to his true nature. Man must “come to himself”
(Luke 15:17) and realize that he is being deformed by passion and ruled
over by the demonic. This realization is the first step toward repentance, a
renewal of the mind by which one starts to see things as they really are. The
first step toward healing is for someone to realize that they are ill and go to
the doctor. Christ is that Good Physician.
God matches repentance with the gift of the power to overcome the
spiritual and moral death which is in us. But more—God puts us in close
contact with himself, so that we can be transformed by the bright rays of
his goodness. In Christ, God got as close as possible to fallen Man, by
taking up a human nature. The healing power of the divinity could flow
through Christ’s humanity to us.
THE TRANSFORMATION OF OUR NATURE

Deification has three related senses. So far, I have explained the first stage:
it is salvation or redemption by which the sin or alienation from God and
the fruits of sin—disease and death—are overcome in each one of us. This
is the healing which is the proper meaning of the word “salvation,” because
at its root the word means to be made whole or healthy.
21Luke 5:31 has ugiaiontes, the healthy, bringing out the point even more clearly
than Matt 9:12 and Mark 2:17, which have “the strong.”
22 Thus St. Paul describes the shameful and debasing effects of sin Rom 1:18–
32, where sin is a force ruling over people.

Secondly, there is the more proper sense of the word, which has to do
with our development into beings like God: in our relation to God we can
overcome the finite limitation of created human beings, since by grace we
share personally in the divine life of the Trinity. The grace of God is an
uncreated active power or energy. This energy is “attached to its source,” 23
that is, to the divine nature. Consequently, in receiving life from Jesus, who
is both God and Man, our natures are transformed:
Those who share in the energies and act in conformity with them are by
God made gods without beginning or end through grace. 24
This last idea, which was a great part of the teaching of St. Gregory
Palamas (14th century), will be unfamiliar to Christians in the Western
traditions. It may strike some as a scandalous idea, because it seems to be
saying that the statement “I am God” is possible for a Christian. St.
Gregory Palamas, and with him the Orthodox Church, 25 does make bold
claims about what is possible for human beings under the influence of
grace. This is the first important point—grace. The sharing in the divine
Trinitarian life which brings about deification is not the result of our own
efforts. Moreover, grace takes us beyond what we are capable of by our
nature. We do not become God by our very nature. Only the persons of the
Trinity are God by their original nature. The form that the Fathers use is
that we become “gods” (theoi/theous), not “God” (ho theos/ton theon). We
become “gods” in the sense of the poem at the beginning of the chapter by
St. Symeon the New Theologian.
Even so, the Orthodox theology of grace is about a transformation of
our human natures. Grace, so to speak, expands the capacities of our finite
natures to be able to receive the divine life. St. Gregory Palamas was in fact
attacked by Catholics until very recently for this alleged heresy, and the
audacity of his language no doubt had a great deal to do with this.
Catholicism is much more modest in its view of the effects of grace upon
us in this mortal life. Orthodoxy, then, claims that more experience of God
is possible in this life than is usual in the Western Christian traditions. The
Orthodox use of the word “Paradise” is an example of this. While its
Western use is reserved to describe the state of the blessed in Heaven after
death, the Eastern tradition teaches that the return to Paradise can begin on
23 St. Gregory Palamas, cited by John Meyendorff, Study of Gregory Palamas, 176,
in a section entitled “Uncreated by grace” (176–77).
24 St. Gregory Palamas, Against Akindynos 5.24, cited in Meyendorff, Study, 177.
25 St. Gregory Palamas is very much a Father of Orthodoxy and by no means
an eccentric or marginal figure in the Orthodox tradition.

earth. Moreover, we can go even beyond the blessed state that Adam had
with God. Adam lost Paradise before he could fully develop the potential
that God had given him and experience the fullness of God’s deification.
We can develop into the fullness of the stature of Christ (Eph 4:13, see also
Luke 2:52). In a spiritual maturity achieved by a mixture of hard work 26 or
ascetic struggle and God’s grace, 27 we can know God as his friends or as his
sons; we can become children who have God as our inheritance. This is the
pledge or anticipation of Paradise in this life. We can start now to live
eternal life. If the Devil through jealousy tries to seduce us, we can beat
him. The Saints were always on their guard against the tricks of the Devil
and his use of our passions. They were forewarned by the seduction of
Adam. The beauty of their experience of God made them very determined
not to lose grace as Adam did.
PARADISE AFTER DEATH

Thirdly, there is the blessed life of the souls in Paradise after death, with
Christ, the Mother of God, the Saints, and the angels. Paradise is the victory
over death which gives us hope and optimism even in a darkened world and
is the word Christ used to promise the good thief that he would be “in
Paradise today with me” (Luke 23:43). God in his mercy and love gives this
new life in Paradise even to people who have not lived on this earth
dedicated lives of prayer but who have at least humbly followed the
Church’s teachings and benefited from the effect of the sacraments. Like
the humble publican, one can say “God be merciful to me, a sinner” (Luke
18:13).
In Paradise after death, there is no longer any possibility of falling.
This does not mean that Heaven is a static condition, nor even that the
degree of knowledge of God is the same for all. Because God is infinitely
beautiful and good, there can never be an end of our enjoyment of him
through satiety. All the Saints in Heaven continue to progress “from glory
unto glory”—an expression of St. Paul (2 Cor 3:18) which St. Gregory
Nyssa developed to explain how beatitude is an endlessly developing vista
of the knowledge of the divine Trinity. 28
The Orthodox word for this is “asceticism,” which means “training.”

26
27This blend, in which God is the chief partner, is called “synergy” in
Orthodox theology—that is, a combination of energies.
28 See the texts in From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical
Writings.
The infinity of God’s goodness is one reason for the Orthodox

teaching that God’s nature or essence is incomprehensible: God is
unknowable by virtue of the inexhaustibility of his riches—knowledge of
him can never be complete. The second reason for why God is
incomprehensible in essence is that he can never be contained by our finite
minds.
Yet God wants to be known. We will know him in Heaven by the
eternal shining upon us of his glory.
Even concerning Paradise after death, however, there is nothing
corresponding to the Catholic teaching of the “Beatific Vision,” to which
Thomas Aquinas gave so much thought in the thirteenth century.
According to Catholic doctrine, the Beatific Vision is an intuitive
knowledge by the blessed of God’s very essence. By contrast, blessedness in
Paradise is, according to the Orthodox picture, a development of what we
have begun to experience even here below and which does not differ in
kind from it. It is both stable and fuller knowledge of the uncreated energy
or divine light. In other words, it is knowledge from which we cannot fall
away: loss of grace is no longer possible in Paradise; we can only increase in
our knowledge of God. However, even in Paradise, the blessed do not
know the essence of God: only the persons of the Trinity know their divine
essence or nature.
THE RESURRECTION OF THE GLORIFIED BODY

AT THE END OF THE AGE
Deification on earth is a holistic deification, of soul and body. Whether
married people or monks or laypersons, if we struggle with the body, it is to
subdue it to the spirit and not to destroy it. Part of the ascetic struggle is the
sanctification of the body. Although when we die, we leave our earthly
bodies, our final perfection is to be in the body. The souls of the departed
wait in either happiness or torment for the Final Judgment and complete
restoration of all things, or endure an intermediate and uncertain state,
assisted by the prayers of the faithful. St. Paul teaches that then “with the
resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor 15:42), we will not be disembodied spirits
but will have a body. This new body is a glorified body, like the glorified
and risen body of Christ, which is in Heaven. St. Paul calls this body a
“spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44). 29 The “resurrection of the dead” will take
place at the end of history together with the restoration of all matter.
29 According to St. Paul, the relationship of our earthly bodies to our spiritual
bodies is as seed to fully-grown plant.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning in sorrow together
until now; and not only creation but we ourselves, who have the first-
fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the
redemption of our bodies. (Rom 8:22–23)
DEIFICATION AND THE COMMUNION OF THE SAINTS

We are not deified alone but together with our brethren in the Church. If
someone claims to be deified in a way that sets them apart from their
brethren, it is a bad sign. We can only be deified in the Body of Christ. The
Body of Christ, risen and glorious, is in Heaven with the Saints. The Body
of Christ also exists now on earth, being the gathering into Christ as its
head of all those who have faith in him. This gathering is not much use if it
does not put love first. Love brings people together. Even hermits, whose
vocation is to live in isolation, live their lives in the Body of Christ. They
pray for the world more intensely than those who have to make their living
in the world. But we should all pray for one another. It is part of our being
together in the Body of Christ and mutually supporting one another. The
Saints in Heaven are also active in this way. They pray for the world and
can help us if we ask them. It is the same principle as if we ask someone on
earth to pray for us; but the prayers of the Saints are more powerful
because they are closer to God. The heavenly realm and the Church on
earth are thus bound together in a relationship of love, the “communion of
the Saints.” This communion is held together by Christ in a very physical
way, because Christ’s body is not restricted to place or time. Christ’s body is
in Heaven but it is also in the Eucharist, where the faithful receive the body
and blood of Christ to deify their bodies and souls. Christ will continue to be
incarnate having a glorified body, for ever, even after the Final Judgment and
restoration of all things.
IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD

The Eastern Church’s idea of deification lost “in Adam” and regained in
Christ has resulted in much reflection and teaching on the Genesis text
which first describes the making of Man:
Then God said, “Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness. …”
So God created Man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them. (Gen 1:26–27) 30
30 Quoting KJB.
The human being was created in the image (eikon) and likeness (homoiosis).
The Eastern Fathers have woven around the words “Man in the image and
likeness of God” its whole theology of the human person.
The image (eikon) of God is indestructible. It is what makes a human
being to be truly human and a real person because it directs us toward a
relationship with God. It is like a mirror in which we can see reflected what
we really are and in which we can see a reflection of God. This mirror can
never be shattered, but it can be darkened, as a mirror can be with dirt and
soot with the result that it reflects back nothing. The darkening of the
mirror’s surface is caused by sin: not only the sins that we commit through
selfish passions, but also the condition of the spiritual sickness which we
share with every member of the human race. The Church teaches that this
mirror exists and exhorts us to clean and polish the mirror until it shines
brightly and reflects back to us what we were created by God to be like. In
fact, the image of God within us is an image of the perfect image of God,
Jesus Christ.
What polishes the mirror is repentance: in Greek in the Gospels the
word for repentance is metanoia, meaning a change of our attitude to life as a
whole, accompanied by steady and determined action. Both St. John the
Baptist (Mark 1:2–4) and Jesus (Mark 1:15) preached this metanoia and gave
specific ideas about how to begin to live it out. In response to the teaching,
we have to take the first steps and do something by our own wills, all the
time referring back to the beautiful picture or image of what we should be,
which is now shining more and more clearly.
Orthodox theology distinguishes between image and “likeness”
(homoiosis). The latter, “likeness,” is the realization of the potential that we
have by virtue of our creation actually to be as God is, really to be sharers in
the intimate life of God and to manifest this by God’s leading characteristic:
love, even of “enemies.” Orthodox theologians describe the “likeness” in a
variety of ways; what they have in common is life at a completely new level,
the uncreated divine level.
DEIFICATION AND THE WORK OF SALVATION

“Christology” means the teaching about the nature and person of Jesus
Christ. Orthodox Christology still holds in a living way to the expressions
that were decided by the Ecumenical Councils 31 of the early Church in the
31“Ecumenical” means councils that were universally accepted, as distinguished

from either orthodox councils of a lesser authority or from heretical councils.
period 325–787. 32 Christ was and is still and will be always the person of the
eternal preexistent Son of God or Word or Logos of God, whose nature is
equal to that of God and who took upon himself a full and perfect human
nature, that is, a human body, a human psychology and a human intellect.
This union took place in history by God’s action, being accomplished by
the Son with the active cooperation of God the Father and God the Holy
Spirit. This action brought about our salvation, human nature being healed
by the union of God and Man. Christ’s life on earth was, moreover, a
progressive sanctification of all that had become unholy and had as its
climax the conquest of death, which Christ truly suffered but which was not
able to hold him because of his immortal divine nature. The risen Christ
who appeared historically in his glorified body to his disciples and to many
witnesses (Luke 24:48; Acts 2:32) shows what our destiny is to be in Christ:
we can overcome death and rise again with glorified bodies.
The standard Orthodox account of why the Incarnation was necessary
for human salvation is by St. Athanasius of Alexandria (4th century) in his
On the Incarnation of the Word. St. Athanasius defends the divinity of Christ
with reasons that are characteristic of the Eastern Christian tradition: Christ
had to be divine in order that our nature might be healed. St. Athanasius
taught very exactly that the Son and Word or Logos of God existed before
all creation and was of equal divinity with God, of the same essence as the
Father (homoousios to patri ). 33 The person of Christ had to be a divine person
so that the Incarnation might be the means of healing human nature by
mingling it with the divine nature, through the union of human and divine
natures in Christ.
The key idea for human history here is that a person equal to God
could become united to humanity. At a particular time and place, the
second person of the divine Trinity, the Eternal Son, became incarnate in
the womb of the Blessed Virgin, by the operation of the Holy Spirit and the
will of God the Father:
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)
The Arians, against whom St. Athanasius was arguing, thought that the
Word or Logos was a being inferior to God, so that an angelic created
32 The Seven Ecumenical Councils are: Nicea I (325), Constantinople I (381),

Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople II (681),
Nicea II (787). See NPNF, PNF (2), XIV.
33 This expression, variously translated, is still in the Nicene Creed, which is
part of the Eucharistic liturgy of the Western and Eastern Churches.

being became Man in Christ. St. Athanasius asserts that the Word existed
with God from all eternity, before there was time. It was this Word that
became flesh in Christ, so that what is intrinsically timeless is manifested in
time for us, through God’s initiative, in order that in time we may
experience the timeless and uncreated realities which deify us.
The experience of God is inseparable from the historical way in which
grace was offered to Man in the person of Jesus Christ. The Eastern
Fathers express salvation-as-deification in a salvation-history narrative.
Salvation history is the history that the Bible narrates. It begins with
Creation, in which everything was created “good” and Man “very good.” It
tells us, admittedly in a difficult and poetic manner, something about how
the first created human beings damaged their goodness through bad
choices. It tells us how God worked through history, over thousands of
years, to put things right. It points toward the end of Man, not in death, but
in a new form of timeless life in Heaven with God. The central point of this
history and the climax of history is the coming of Christ, when the person
of the Son of God, one in essence with God the Father, became Man.
The divinity of Christ is agreed by all traditionalist Christians.
However, St. Athanasius argues that something follows from this, namely,
the deification of Man. There is a sense in which Man can be made into a
god, in that he can gain, through grace, immortality and a share in the life of
the Trinity. The consequence of the humanization of God, then, is the
deification of Man. At the end of his treatise On the Incarnation of the Word,
St. Athanasius declared:
He became incarnate in order that we might be divinized. 34
This deification is our salvation taken further than the reversal of the effects
of sin by the generosity of God, so that we are restored to the potential for
deification that Man had in Paradise before the fall. Our salvation is, as it
were, the first stage in a process that we can begin even here on earth.
The connection between Christology, deification, and salvation is
typical of the theology of the Orthodox East. Salvation does not stop at the
remission of sins but includes the complete restoration of the human being
34 St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione, SC no. 199, 458, “enanthropêsen, hina emeis

theopoiesen.” The translation in the SVS series is perhaps a little too bold, “He
assumed humanity that we might become God” (St. Athanasius on the Incarnation of the
Word, SVSP, 93). The capital G here does not mean that the human being can be
God by nature, but rather that he can become a sharer in the life of God by
adoption or grace.
to the purpose for which humanity was originally created: fellowship with
God.
DEIFICATION IS THE GRACIOUS WORK OF THE WHOLE TRINITY

God is a unity of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The operation
of the Son cannot be separated from the will of God the Father and of the
Holy Spirit. Deification is the gracious work of the whole Trinity.
God has revealed himself truly as a unity of three persons by means of
his actions, operations, or initiatives in human history. Though grace, that is
a free gift, the persons of the Trinity call upon human beings to know the
Trinity: first through Jesus Christ, and then through the Holy Spirit
eternally proceeding from the Father, whom Christ prayed to be sent to us
(John 15:26; 16:7, 13). Knowledge of these persons, a living encounter with
them, brings us to God the Father. Our relation to God in deification is to
a community of persons: one cannot know one person without also
meeting the other two. The Orthodox Church uses St. Paul’s words at the
end of his Second Epistle to the Corinthians (13:14), adding “The Father”
to make clear that it is a Trinitarian blessing:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God The Father and
the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen. (2 Cor 13:14)
This blessing contains a wealth of teaching about deification and the
actions of God toward us. In St. Paul’s blessing we find a characteristic
action associated with a particular person. Jesus Christ sends us “grace”
(charis), a gift which is a transforming reality. St. Paul, especially, used it to
describe how our relationship to God is changed. The Father’s love (agape)
is not a general, remote benevolence but the dynamic love which made him
send his Son. In this St. Paul unites in his teaching with St. John:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John
3:16) 35
The Holy Spirit gives koinonia, a Greek word that can be translated as
“fellowship,” “sharing,” “partnership,” or “participation,” and which here
refers to the fellowship among believers produced by the activity of the
Holy Spirit. But it is first a fellowship with the divine life which produces a
bond of love between believers (1 John 1:3). However, the divine persons
do not act separately, being always united in will. Moreover, “grace,”
35 My literal translation; RSV omits “only begotten,” Greek monogene.

“love,” and “communion” are not different things in themselves but

different aspects of God’s deifying action toward us as they strike us in our
experience of them.
THE “UNCREATED ENERGIES” OF GOD

From divine revelation, we know the persons and the operations of God.
However, Orthodox theology distinguishes this revealed knowledge from
the essence or nature of God as God is in himself. We know that the
persons of the Trinity are really in God and that there is a true sense in
which the Father originates or begets eternally the Son (John 3:16) and that
the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). However,
we have no experience of the essence or nature of God. Orthodox theology
understands by the divine “essence” or “nature” that concerning God
which we cannot know, because of the superabundance of God’s being.
God’s essence cannot be encompassed by our minds or our experience.
Nevertheless, Orthodoxy clearly does teach that we can really know God
and that those things which we know of God are divine things or uncreated
realities, which make God present to us by his actions. In being touched by
them, we are brought into the presence of the divine Trinity and can have
fellowship with the persons of the Trinity.
This knowledge is described in a variety of ways in the Bible, reflecting
the manifold and abundant quality of God’s grace, which is sometimes
experienced as “grace,” at another time as “love,” and at another time as
“communion.” However, we may add many other words which also convey
these graces toward us, as the Bible does. There is, however, a specific
expression, for which there is no exact equivalent outside Orthodox
theology, for these uncreated divine things: they are called the “energies” of
God.
The Orthodox theological expression “energies” with regard to God is
usually left virtually untranslated. In English the word “energy” renders the
Greek word energeia. This is no doubt because of the many-sided nature of
the idea that the word expresses. As we shall see, the expression “divine
energy” has various senses: it can mean the power that is in a mysterious
way essential or built in to the Godhead; then it can mean the continual
outpouring of God’s goodness which was being emitted even before the
creation of the universe; most frequently, however, it is used to refer to
God’s action in space and time by which he makes himself present to
humankind. However, thinking in English about the word “energy” can be
misleading. For example, one of the commonest uses of the word “energy”
in English is to refer to power in reserve, something that one uses up in
activity. It is less usual to think of the word as meaning activity. Thus, when
an athlete shows great “energy,” we think of him as showing this through
his actions: we would not normally refer to the “energies” of the athlete in
describing his activities but use other words such as “efforts,” “strength,”
“speed,” “agility” and so on, all of which derive partly from “energy” and
partly from skill. In Greek, by contrast, the word “energy” can have the
sense of power in reserve but also has a strong sense of activity. For this
reason, the divine “energy” has in Greek Orthodox theology a marked
sense of the active character of God and may be translated “operations.”
But the real problem is that there is no equivalent concept in Western
theology. Perhaps the nearest is the biblical idea of the “glory” of God
which he makes known to us and by which he glorifies us. If the theology
of the divine energies is explained as a theology of God’s sharing of his
glory, then the beginnings of understanding begin to be kindled, especially
amongst Evangelical or Bible-Christians.
Orthodox theology makes a clear distinction between the essence of
God and his energies. This distinction became very important in the teaching
of the three Cappadocian Fathers, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory
Theologian (Nazianzen), and St. Gregory Nyssa, who taught in the fourth
century against the Arian heretic Eunomius. The Cappadocians Fathers
taught that, while God’s essence (ousia) was incomprehensible, his energies
were knowable. St. Cyril of Alexandria, a Father who taught in the fifth
century, after a lifetime of study of the Bible, teaches as follows, continuing
the Cappadocian teaching and using “essence” (ousia) and “nature” (physis)
as synonyms:
The nature and Godhead are one and simple but we say that it is life
and power and wisdom and glory. And by life He quickens the one who
is made alive, by power He empowers the one who is empowered, and
by wisdom He makes wise the one rendered wise, by glory He glorifies
the one who needs glory, or what is glorified. 36
This is a classic expression of the distinction in terms of knowledge of God
between his essence and his energies. The energies of God are actions or
operations which have the power to produce in created beings an effect that
takes them beyond the limits of createdness into the very life of God.
St. Cyril refines the teaching about the energies of God with great
precision:
36Dialogue on the Trinity (in French and Greek), SC no. 231, 298–299, Dialogue
II (section 442d).
The essence being simple, whatever be the manifold fruit according to

energy, God operates in manifold ways but even so God remains simple
with regard to his nature. 37
This concise expression does full justice to our experience of grace and our
reading of the Bible as a record of that experience. Grace is experienced by
us as multiple—we have many ideas of it. This diversity reflects the
historical conditions of space and time in which grace is experienced by us
and our various needs and callings. However, St. Cyril is clear that God
does not become multiple or variable because of our manifold experience.
St. Cyril adds that how God is in himself simple but manifold in his
energies is not known to us because
God and those things which concern him in himself are beyond both
intellect and reasoning. 38
Indeed, even the energy of God is single: as St. Cyril says, God gives
manifold fruit “according to energy”—that is, according to the single
energy which the divine persons put forth from the nature. In that the
energies belong to the nature and are attached to the nature as their source,
there is really one divine energy.
In the Orthodox tradition, that energy is light, not created light but
Uncreated Light, which is healing, purifying, enlightening, inspiring, deifying,
uplifting, and even, to those who are opposed to this light, burning. Our
experience of the Uncreated Light as grace in a manifold way is that light
refracted through the prism of a variety of human experiences. The light
may take on a color according to our experiences without, however, being
reduced to a finite energy because it dwells in us; whether one say that it
dwells in us, or whether we say that we see it with the eyes of the body or
the eyes of the mind, the Uncreated Light remains uncreated.
Moreover, the Uncreated Light has been and can be experienced also
specifically as light, and it is correct to say that the uncreated energy of God
is a light. The experience of light characterizes Orthodox theology, which
describes the experience of the deifying energies as light. Its greatest
theologians and the three theologians whom the Orthodox Church gives
the title of “Theologian,” St. John the Evangelist, St. Gregory Nazianzen,
and St. Symeon the New Theologian, were all theologians of light and
describe grace as light. It is a light that is greater than created light and
37 Ibid., section 442e.

38 Ibid., section 442e.
outshines even the light of the sun. It is the light in which we shall dwell in
the Kingdom of Heaven.
Christians of a wide variety of traditions accept that God has made
himself known and that this is the way in which in practice we come to
know him, through divine revelation. The expression “energy” expresses
the idea that our knowledge of God is based upon the experience of his
actions in our history, as God breaks through into time and space. God has
proved his mercy by so many acts that we give to God this “attribute” or
quality of an “energy,” on the basis of repeated and consistent experience.
God’s actions make him present in a way that means he can become known
to us as a person. From the experience of this grace as energy the Bible was
written.
The energies of God are called uncreated firstly because of the nature
of the person who makes them known to us. Every nature has energies by
which its nature is known to the extent that it can be known. Natural
objects and creatures have natural energies. Persons differ from natural
inanimate objects, and probably to a great extent from animals, in deciding
their actions and so have some control over the energies that they show.
The impact of a human being upon another human being may be partly
inadvertent but also partly deliberate. The sun, on the other hand, cannot
help shining and we know it by its brightness and warmth—by its energies.
However, a person may or may not, according to choice, put forth his or
her energies. One can choose. God is an uncreated community of persons
perfectly united in will. When one of the divine persons chooses to put
forth his energy into space and time, the three persons of the Trinity are
united in will. The divine energies are uncreated because they are, unlike
human energies, put forth from an uncreated nature.
Secondly, the energies of God are called uncreated because when we
experience an uncreated energy we meet the divinity. In other words, the
effects of God’s actions upon human beings are of a different quality than the
effects upon us of human beings in their natural state. Human love, for
example, can have transforming effects. How much more the love of God,
which is an uncreated energy! Moreover, we can also pour forth this
uncreated energy of divine love, by sharing in God’s life through
deification.
Thirdly, the word “uncreated” is used about the divine energy, because it
is not created or time-bound as a result of its manifestation in time and
space. What is manifested through God’s grace to us is the energy which
was, in some sense, from all eternity associated with God’s nature and is
eternal, not coming into existence for us, so that it is “eternally existent
proceeding from the eternally existing God.” 39
Thus the energies of God are uncreated because they exist eternally in
God, being put forth by the persons for our benefit in the fullness of time.
Who would deny that “God is love,” that is, that love is an eternal quality of
God ever with him? The same is true of all the other positive attributes
which we accord to God, for example, his wisdom, his goodness, his
power, his perfect knowledge and his mercy. These energies belong to his
nature in a manner unknown to us and are in one sense ever shining forth
through God’s good will; in another sense, they need to be revealed by God
to us in our bodily existence, through the senses or in our intellectual
dimension, through the mind, or better still in our hearts, that is, to the
whole of us, as we move toward God in love. In this latter sense, by which
the energies are revealed to us for our salvation, they are an event in time,
which make present what is eternal and which draw us into the eternal life
of God.
The fact that the energies are both made known in time but also
uncreated and so timeless creates some intellectual problems. In
Orthodoxy, ultimately, the interest is in the experience itself, rather than the
intellectual solution of a problem: Orthodoxy is practical rather than
speculative. Therefore, to someone who doubts whether such things are
possible on the grounds of a particular philosophy, Orthodoxy relies upon
the confidence that such experiences are possible. It provides a description
of the kind of experience which can be attained and invites the skeptic to
follow the guidelines and give it a try. However, there are some
explanations to what appears to be the paradox of the infinite God being in
some way present in a finite human being. These explanations come from
the experience of the Saints and ascetics rather than from philosophical
reasoning.
The first problem concerns why God’s energies have an end, in the
sense that, in our experience, the uncreated energies come and go, if they
are uncreated and so infinite and eternal? Saints and Prophets have
experienced the Uncreated Light of God but only for a finite time. Why
does God seem to withdraw his presence?
39 St. Maximus Confessor, quoted by St. Gregory Palamas, The Hagioritic Tome,
Philokalia (Ware), IV, 419. The Hagioritic Tome was a statement of belief by the
fathers of the Holy Mountain of Mount Athos in 1340 which equated “grace” and
“uncreated energy” and which has a dogmatic force for Orthodox Christians. It
was drafted by St. Gregory Palamas (ibid., 418–25).
There is an explanation for this in spiritual experience. The uncreated

energy of God would in this life be unbearable if experienced continually.
In our sinful mode of existence, when we have not been fully purified, it
would burn us. Therefore God gives as much grace as we can bear,
exercising his freedom for our benefit with variety and a sense of the
individuality of each person and their particular state. The extent of what
may be experienced varies from person to person and from time to time,
but no one in this life has been sufficiently purified to withstand the rays of
God’s light continually. That is reserved for the next life. Nevertheless, when
a person is spurred on to seek the experience of God with his whole heart,
soul, and mind, such zeal is rewarded and encouraged. Conversely, when a
person falls away from a state of grace, especially when deluded by pride so
as not even to realize their fall, God withdraws his grace—as two Apostles
say (Jas 4:6; 1 Pet 5:5), quoting received wisdom (Prov 3:34, LXX), God
“resists the proud.” 40 This is a painful experience to a person who has
tasted God; it makes such a person sorrowful to have lost grace and causes
them to make a serious inquisition of themselves and be zealous to recover
what they have lost. The result is repentance and humility, qualities which
attract divine grace and which are beneficial to us. Thus the experience of
the divine energies as temporary is the consequence of the fact that God
acts as a wise shepherd with regard to us.
Another difficult question is: how can the infinite be experienced by
the finite human being? This raises the great controversy of “created grace”
and “uncreated grace,” which has been a point of dispute between
Catholics and Orthodox. Catholicism argues that grace at least has a created
mode of existence, so that it is proper to call it “created” although it is
supernatural and infinite. Orthodoxy, however, calls grace uncreated. The
reason is to do with the experience which Orthodoxy believes is possible
for all Christians, even in this life, but about which Catholicism is much
more cautious. However, it is worth observing that if it is impossible for the
human being to experience the uncreated life of God, then no real
experience of God has taken place.
40 Both Apostles are quoting the Book of Proverbs in the Greek Septuagint
version, where the word is antitassetai, which has the sense of conscious resistance
as in forming an opposition party to someone or something. This sense is less
obvious in reference to the Hebrew Bible, where the sense of Proverbs 3:34 is
more that “God scorns the scornful.”
Orthodox written theology, the knowledge that is expressed in words

and sentences, 41 is based upon experience of the uncreated energies toward
us, and their uncreated character is understood in its effects upon those
who have had a prophetic experience of the energies as a pledge and a
foretaste of the things to come. Just as in the Old Testament, the Prophets
knew in a certain manner the Trinity and the Logos or Word of God and
had an understanding of these realties to come, so in the New Testament
age, it is possible through prayer, the ascetic life, and obedience to
experienced spiritual fathers, even in this age, to have by “actual
experience” “the blessings of the age to come which are promised to the
saints.” 42 It follows that one cannot be a “theologian” in the Orthodox
tradition by virtue only of skill with words; to be a theologian, one must
have the experience which one is describing.
Our movement toward God in love is, at least in its first steps, ours,
our free created energies moving toward the goodness and beauty of God.
Human beings are made like God in that we are absolutely free to choose in
our relationships. Thus we can refuse God. For those who choose God, a
union of free will and grace takes place called synergy. Synergy means a
joining of energies: the uncreated energies of God are united with the
created energies of the human person. The personal distinctions remain.
God respects freedom; the last thing he wishes is to swallow us up! 43
We have seen how there are some differences between Western and
Eastern Orthodox theology concerning the uncreated energies. The matter
of created versus uncreated grace can be overestimated in controversy with
Catholics, if we say that Catholics only experience something created. 44
What cannot be overestimated, however, is the utter lack of any concept
with which to compare uncreated energy in Western theology. Hilda Graef was
unusual among Western scholars of the Greek Fathers in being aware of
41 In addition to formal written theology, such as dogmatic theology, there is in

Orthodoxy theology in images (that is, icons), and theology as prayer. Moreover,
there is the theology of the liturgy and of the lives of the Saints (or “Synaxarion”)
which is theology as much as, or even more than, the theology written in treatises
or homilies.
42 Hagioritic Tome, ed Ware Philokalia, IV, 418–19.
43 A relationship in which one person was so dominant could hardly be called a
relationship!
44 Like the Orthodox, for example, Catholics believe that they receive the
realities of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, which is not a merely
symbolic act.
this disparity between Western and Eastern Christian ways of thinking

about grace:
The energies of God, as distinct from the Divine Persons, are according
to Greek theology, certain Divine operations, such as sanctifying grace,
which establish a connection between the inaccessible Divinity and the
created world. This conception, which is quite foreign to Western
theology, is already in St. Basil, Gregory (Nyssa) and other earlier
Fathers. It was later elaborated especially by Gregory Palamas. 45
Western theology is the same as that of the East in basing its ideas
about God upon revelation. Human language expresses the experience of
God’s grace. Also like the Orthodox Church, the West has a Negative
Theology (apophaticism) 46 in order to insist that God cannot be
encompassed or fully comprehended by the human intellect.
Eastern Orthodox theology differs from the West in regard to the kind
of knowledge we have of the positive attributes or qualities of God: that is,
for example, his love, his mercy, his justice, his foreknowledge, and his
creative and miraculous power in and over nature. Orthodoxy teaches that
we can share these qualities, ourselves becoming infinitely loving and
merciful and capable of miracles and prophetic foreknowledge. When one
encounters an uncreated energy of God, one meets the expression of the
divinity, which communicates itself to us according to the measure of our
willingness to receive it and our spiritual and moral state. All meetings with
God are meetings with his uncreated energies and a participation in them.
I have tried to answer the question as to why the phrase “uncreated
energies” is used by Orthodox theology in a context, our context, as
Christians in the West with our own history, where there is no simple
equivalent of the idea. Nevertheless, the teaching about uncreated energies
does have positive value and, for all the difficulties of explaining it, is worth
persisting with.
Firstly, the expression “uncreated energies of God” reflects the
maximalism of Orthodox teaching. Orthodoxy teaches that Christianity is
about the most, the maximum that is possible for human beings to know of
God in this earthly life—that is, what they can experience of God and to
45 Hilda Graef, St. Gregory Nyssa: The Lord’s Prayer; The Beatitudes, 197, notes in
Homily on Beatitude 6.
46 That is, what is a matter that we cannot speak about, from the Greek phemi,
“to speak” and the preposition apo, which indicates a movement away from
something: to be “apophatic” is to be moving away from giving a reality a definite
expression in words and having recourse to silence.
what a great level we are exalted by grace. It teaches how generous God is,
how much he wants and expects from us, and how great is our Christian
calling.
Secondly, “uncreated energies” makes clear the relationship between
revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, Christology, salvation theology, and
Trinity. It shows clearly that sense of interconnectedness between all facets of
Christian teaching with which Orthodox theology works in its method,
relating these various aspects of theology to our experience of God.
DEIFICATION THROUGH A FULLY LITURGICAL LIFE

The blessing of St. Paul “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of
God (the Father) and the communion of the Holy Spirit” is addressed to a
group of people: the “you” of “be with you all” is plural. It calls attention to
the communal reality of our deification, which is the fulfillment of the
teaching about the communion of the Saints to which I have earlier
referred. We cannot be deified on our own, but together with our brethren
in the Body of Christ. As Christians we have been called out of the world
into the Church to be together with Christ as our head. Deification involves
making the Church as the Body of Christ actual, real, and tangible as a sign
of God’s love toward the whole of the human race.
In the Acts of the Apostles, the Apostle Luke gives a clear example of
how this communal dimension of deification should be realized when he
describes the Church at Jerusalem:
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship
(koinonia) to the breaking of bread and to prayers. (Acts 2:42)
Here we find four things: first, a definite teaching; second, community;
third, the Eucharist (“the breaking of bread”); and fourth, prayers. The
Orthodox Liturgy is well known as celebrating the presence 47 of the
Heavenly Kingdom, so that the faithful go up to worship along with the
Heavenly Host. Before the faithful join in the hymn to the thrice-Holy Lord
of Hosts, the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great has the priest pray to the Holy
Spirit not so much to bring Paradise down as to take us up to the level of
the hosts of angels and archangels and the Cherubim and Seraphim; the
Spirit is
47 Thus the End of the Age and the coming of the New Age take place in the
Eucharist. The Early Christians expressed the Second Coming of Christ as the
Parousia, the “appearing” or “presence.” But every time we celebrate the Liturgy,
the Parousia is manifested—or more accurately, a pledge or foretaste of the Second
Coming.
“the fountain of holiness that enables every rational creature having

understanding to serve Thee and pour forth an unceasing doxology, for
all are thy servants.” 48
The triumphal hymn is doxology, giving glory or celebrating glory.
“Doxology” or giving glory to the three persons of the blessed Trinity can
only be sincere and sure if we have received the grace to be able to
understand, know, and be united with the “glory” (doxa) of God. This is to
come into contact with the divine energy that radiates from God’s very
nature, which was expressed in the Old Testament in the fire sheathed in
cloud that hovered on the throne of the Most Holy Place or “Holy of
Holies” in the Tent of Meeting where there is the presence of the
mysterious created beings—the Cherubim or throne-guardians and the fiery
Seraphim. It was called his “glory.” We have been taken up to the highest
level of the “celestial hierarchy.” The Church is a place of miracles and
wonders (Acts 2:43).
However, the “rational service” of the Liturgy has also a concrete,
tangible, and practical side. St. Paul’s “rational service” is the offering of our
bodies (Rom 12:1). The Orthodox Liturgy sends us out into the world
without conforming to its pattern to make our whole lives a continuous
testimony to the divine glory. In the Book of Acts, those in the community
love one another and like to meet together to pray, to have meals
together—that is, ordinary meals by contrast with the Eucharist, but also
extraordinary meals in that the Christians are sharing one another’s lives.
During this time, community of wealth was practiced to express the depth
of the union they experienced with one another as a result of the
supernatural union they had been given with God:
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling
their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone who had need. (Acts
2:44–45)
This also is deification, because the Christian people have become like God
having in themselves his generosity, God’s philanthropy, his love of Mankind.
The Christians who sold all they had “gave to every one who had need.”
The Scripture does not say that they restricted their charity to those in the
Church. To be philanthropic as God is means caring for all human beings
48 From the anaphora or Prayer of the Offering of the Holy Gifts of Bread and
Wine in the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, celebrated on important Feasts of the
Church, Divine Liturgy, 121, where the Greek aidion doxologian is rendered “unceasing
hymn of glory.”
and making sacrifices for them. “To every one who had need” also applies
to the gift of healing which the Holy Spirit gives to some people in the
Church. When St. Peter did not have any money, he gave something even
better to a paralyzed beggar who was begging from him:
“I have no silver and gold but I give you what I have” (Acts 3:6)
St. Peter gave the man his health back; he could walk again.
THE NATURE OF ORTHODOX MYSTICISM

When the “mysticism” of the Orthodox Church is referred to, it is to this
experience of likeness to God that the word “mystical” refers. “Mysticism”
means the experience of supernatural realities. The word is related to
“mystery” because such experiences are experienced as mysterious. There is
no doubt that deification is “mystical” in the sense that it is about having a
transforming experience of the Ultimate Reality. On the other hand, not all
mysticism is Orthodox. Throughout human history, there have been people
from every part of the world who have experienced with a great sense of
immediacy some Ultimate Reality as good, beautiful, and true. Some have
been what we now call philosophers, such as Plotinus (3rd century A.D.) and
perhaps Plato (4th century B.C.) in Antiquity, and in the modern period,
Spinoza (17th century). Others have been founders of religions: for example,
Buddha may be described as mystical because he got over the suffering
created by desire in experiencing through meditation a cessation of the
greedy self in him. In Islam, the Sufi sages took long and deep journeys into
their souls, to the alarm of orthodox, mainstream Islam.
Mystics have often been regarded as controversial and dangerous
figures by the Christian Church, and opinions were at first divided about
some of them, for example, St. John of the Cross in the Catholic Church or
St. Symeon the New Theologian in the Orthodox Church. The reservations
which people had about them were on account of the boldness of their
claims about what a human being could experience of God. When they
eventually became accepted as Saints and teachers about the spiritual life, it
was because they were centered upon Christ. It was realized that they were
living out a dimension of life in Christ which had been lost through a false
timidity, as if the things that the Apostles experienced were dead and gone
and in the past.
Thus Catholic and Orthodox Christianity distinguishes between a
general kind of mysticism, which is a communing with an Ultimate Reality
of some kind, and christocentric mysticism, which may be found in the
Apostles. The general mysticism seems to have to do with a particular
personality type, while the mysticism of the Catholic Church and of the
Orthodox Church is open to anyone who has faith in Christ and loves him.
There is no particular type of Christian mystic. The Christian mystic is
saying with St. Paul: “It is not I who live but Christ who lives in me” (Gal
2:20).
Protestantism has been historically suspicious of mysticism.
Catholicism, on the other hand, has wanted to control it very tightly
through external structures. Orthodoxy is a “dogmatic mysticism,” as V.
Lossky explained, in which theology is not put in a separate compartment
from the living out of that theology: “mystical theology” meant for Lossky
a balance between dogmatic belief and personal experience, in which the
two are closely related. 49 The revelation from God cannot be completely
understood by the intellect, but it can be taken up by the whole person in
faith and love as to produce a radical change in us, the transformation of
the inner Man and fellowship with God.
The mysticism of the Orthodox Church is a Church mysticism,
because of the union of Christ with his Body the Church. The Orthodox
Church is “in Christ.” It is in Jesus Christ, who is both God and Man. The
Church also has been given the Holy Spirit. Deification cannot be separated
from the Gospel preached by the Apostles:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel
contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As
we said before, so now I say again, if anyone is preaching to you a
gospel contrary to that which you have received, let him be accursed.
(Gal 1:8–9)
These words may seem to many people today to be bigoted and full of
hatred—but they are the words of the Apostle St. Paul (Gal 1:8–9). St. Paul
is absolutely clear and repeats the point to make sure that the point has got
home. The Orthodox teaching about deification is the teaching of the New
Testament, and the nature of our union with the Ultimate is personal:
persons to persons. Orthodox “mysticism” is not just a mysticism that
happens to take place in a Christian tradition. It is the mysticism that is the
living experience of God the Father of Jesus Christ his only-begotten and
eternally-begotten Son and of the Holy Spirit. While the Orthodox Church
does not deny that other religious traditions and philosophies express some
wisdom and that the experience of mysticism in general may on occasions
49 See V. Lossky’s very careful account in chap. 1, “Introduction: Theology and

Mysticism in the Tradition of the Eastern Church,” The Mystical Theology of the
Eastern Church, 7–22.
be the result of an encounter with God’s love and mercy—the Church does
not presume to restrict God’s activity—nevertheless, once as a Church we
lose contact with Christ its Head, it is not safe.
Mystical experiences can seem good but be deceptive:
Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. (2 Cor 11:14)
The test for Orthodox as for other Christian traditions is whether or not
the life of the “mystic” has been transformed in a Christian way, in
accordance with the tradition handed down which makes Christ alone the
Savior of all Mankind.
Orthodox mysticism, then, is not the same as the mysticisms found in
either world religions, or the kind of mysticism universally accessible to
spiritually sensitive people. The “mystics” of Orthodoxy are those who are
the “illuminated” through baptism, who have united themselves to Christ in
the Body of the Church, and who are nourished and fortified by its
sacraments and fellowship. Orthodox “mysticism,” then, is not elitism but
is about living out the mysteries of Christianity in the Church.
There is another way in which the word “mystical” must be qualified
in relation to deification. Orthodoxy does not recognize the language of the
mystic who is so totally absorbed in his experience that the distinction
between him or herself as an individual and the Ultimate disappears in a
one-ness where the person disappears. When such mystics say “I am God,”
they are describing a deification in which the words “I” and “God” no
longer have any meaning as distinctions. The Orthodox Church upholds
personal distinctions, so that no individual can ever be absorbed by the
divine nature in such a way that personal distinctions are no longer real. For
this reason, the Orthodox Church is against speculations concerning the
divine nature and declares this nature to be incomprehensible and
unreachable directly.
ORTHODOX THEOLOGY IS PRACTICAL, NOT SPECULATIVE

To be like God in this way is a tall order. The Orthodox Church teaches
that this is not impossible, because our Savior Christ told us actively to be
this way and because he did not command the impossible. The canonized
Saints of the Church to whom we turn as inspiring examples are not
different in kind from us: they were not angels but human beings in the
same sinful state as the rest of us. The Saints show us what is possible for
us. The Orthodox Church teaches people all to be Saints in the sense that
the canonized Saints were: likeness to God can be actualized in deification.
Orthodox theologians, then, are confronted with a question from the

people, who rightly ask them about the practical value of theology for the
attainment of sanctity in the particular circumstances of their own lives. The
dogmatic side of Orthodox theology is concerned with this question: the
Fathers customarily argue in support of correct doctrine by reference to the
difference it makes concerning deification. This applies to the Church
teaching about the Trinity and the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ.
The Church Fathers adopted language from their own time, from the world
of the Greeks, just as the divinely inspired writers of the Bible used the
existing languages and concepts. It follows that abstract terms such as
essence, nature, person-“hypostasis,” theosis, and energies were adopted for a
practical purpose—that is, to help us to know how to be Saints in actuality
in a world which is complex and difficult to understand. Orthodox
theology, even at its most intricate, however, remains close to this practical
purpose. The “knowledge” that it teaches keeps more to the Hebrew sense
of “to know” than to the Greek philosophical sense. In Hebrew, the root
ydh means to know by sharing in the life and being of another. There is no
distinction in Hebrew between physical intimacy with a person and
knowledge generally:
And Adam knew [yadah ] Eve his wife and she conceived and bore Cain.
(Gen 4:1)
The speculative genius of Western theology during two periods of
enormous intellectual creativity, the Latin Middle Ages and the modern
period, since the Enlightenment has generated an agenda in theology with
which Orthodoxy is uncomfortable and the value of which it tends to be
unsure. This agenda is the answering of questions which the intellect asks in
the light of the existing state of knowledge. Orthodox theologians can be
very critical of this kind of theology. They denounce it as “scholastic” or
“rationalistic” and describe their own approach as “existential.” 50 What
underlies this often too-dismissive approach to intellectual problems is the
question “What shall it profit a man…?” 51 One may gain the whole world
50 For example, Fr. John Meyendorff describes St. Gregory Palamas as having
an “existential theology” (Study of St. Gregory Palamas, 1998, 202–27).
51 Mark 8:36 in the proverbial form of the King James Version of the Bible,
“What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” It is
possible that this saying of Jesus is even more urgent, if the word for “soul” (psyche)
is translated “life”—“What does anyone gain by winning the whole world at the
cost of his life?” Revised English Bible; “forfeit his life,” Standard English Version,
by explaining it as a system but lose one’s very life or soul, that is, one’s true
life, by missing the transforming experience and ethical actuality of
deification. This is what caused Evagrius of Ponticus (4th century) to say:
If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are
a theologian. 52
and it is what causes him to be often quoted in Orthodox circles. The
Orthodox identification of theology with prayer and devotion raises what is
to many a big problem area of Orthodoxy, namely its apparent anti-
intellectualism. On the other hand, the brilliant intellects of Church Fathers
and Orthodox theologians have found plenty of exercise nevertheless. This
is first of all because the human mind and psyche (or emotions) are a
labyrinth. Prayer is not easy, and it is often difficult to assess the value or
fruits of one’s spiritual experiences. The Orthodox guides for the life of
prayer, the ascetical writers, applied many carefully thought out, rational
distinctions to prayer. Moreover, the dogmatic writings of the Church
Fathers are arguments of a kind: their identification and analysis of error or
heresy works in terms of how deification is, or is not, enabled by a
particular teaching. Clearly, Orthodox theology demands personal
experience and discernment in prayer: degrees and learned publications do
not necessarily cause the faithful to describe a person as a “theologian.”
This makes life difficult for people like me! What is the value of what I say,
if I do not have very much spiritual experience behind me? Orthodox
theology is not irrational, and it respects scholarship. One thing that a
scholar can do is to follow a time-honored path: to summarize and even to
summarize the summaries. But this is not as good as reading the books of
someone who has experience (empeira) of the divine realities of which he or
she writes and the truth of whose experience is witnessed to by the gifts
which the Church has always acknowledged as signs of the presence of the
Holy Spirit. 53
following the Revised Standard Version, of which it is a revision. However, the

New International Version keeps to “soul.”
52 Evagrius, On Prayer, 61, in Philokalia (Ware), I, 62.
53 That is, love, especially love of enemies, exact teaching in accordance with
tradition, steadfastness in the face of heresy, miracles of healing, ability to predict
the future, deep prayer, and humility.
ORTHODOX THEOLOGY IS BASED ON THE BIBLE

However, although the Church Fathers were Saints and inspired people,
they were not infallible. They were not divinely inspired in all that they
wrote, as were the writers of Scripture. On initial acquaintance with an
Orthodox service, prayers in the home, or even a meal, the first impression
may be of a kind of exoticism generated by a multiplicity of words.
However, there is hardly a phrase in the Orthodox services or prayers
which does not come directly from the Bible. Moreover, although the
spiritual teachings of the ascetical writings and contemporary teachers or
“Elders” 54 use unfamiliar language, there has never been an Orthodox
teacher who is not rooted in Scripture.
To have a solid foundation to understand deification, uncreated
energies, divine essence, and persons, one needs a thorough knowledge of
Scripture. When terms from outside the Bible are used, there is good
reason—but they are only valid if they check out against Scripture.
Conversely, Scripture can open out wonderfully if it is interpreted in the
light of Orthodox teaching about deification.
54 “Elders” translates the Greek geronta. Elders are usually monks. Much
contemporary teaching of great value comes from the Fathers of Mount Athos.
The Athonite Fathers of today use the ancient language and categories of their
forebears and belong to a tradition going back to the Desert Fathers of Egypt in
the fourth century.
3 REVELATION AND EXPERIENCE
DEIFICATION IS BASED ON DIVINE REVELATION

The Orthodox Church balances its sense of the value of a living personal
experience of God with respect for the dogmas or teachings revealed by
God. The dogmas are found in the Bible; for example, the teaching that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God or that there are three persons in one God,
the Trinity. The dogmas are expressed by the Church on the basis of what
God has revealed through Scripture or, on the other hand, through
tradition, for example in the Creed that is recited by all the faithful at the
Eucharist.
If one has experience of God, you may ask, who needs dogmas? Isn’t
one’s own inner conviction the real thing? Why does one need teachings
coming from a source outside one’s own experience?
In Orthodoxy, both experience and dogmas are correctly seen as
belonging together. There is another point of view and you will often come
across it in the world; that is, the view that experience and dogmas are
actually opposed to one another, that experience has its own authority but
that it has been repressed by institutionally minded dogmatic people who
are jealous of those who have the real thing, the experience. This puts the
mystic at a higher level than the church theologian. This is not Orthodoxy.
Our greatest mystics are also our greatest dogmatic theologians: they had
either an exact theology or a definite ascetic teaching based upon the
theology of the Church.
It is very important to get right the relationship between personal,
inner experience and the corporate language of the Church. Ortho-doxy
means “right opinion.” However, anyone who has attended a Greek
Orthodox service will know that the word for opinion, doxa, also means
“glory,” a word having to do with prayer, worship, and our personal
orientation toward God:
“doxa Patri kai Huio kai Hagio Pneumati”
49
“Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit!”
In this infinitely repeated exclamation, in this doxology, the intellect, with its
beliefs, and our heart, with its experiences, meet. We proclaim the doctrine
of the Trinity but surely not just with our lips but from our hearts, as
people who have to some extent come to know the persons. We join with
the Church’s “unceasing doxology,” 1 its teaching-prayer which cannot be
too often repeated. This is not the empty repetition of the pagans who
think that their prayers are more powerful for being repeated (Matt 6:7).
The “unceasing doxology” expresses the eternal truth to which one should
constantly return in mind and heart.
Orthodoxy teaches that knowledge of God can be acquired by
personal experience; there is a strong, constant tradition of the “acquisition
of the Holy Spirit.” 2 This knowledge is not just “for information” or to
satisfy our curiosity. Moreover, only part of the knowledge of God that is
revealed is about God’s will and the kind of morality which brings us into
harmony with him in our actions and thoughts. Divine revelation is also a
saving knowledge because it transforms us; it can turn our whole life
around; it is nothing less than an experience of the energies of the Holy
Spirit and fellowship with the very life of God and is both knowledge of
and living contact with the personal dimension of God, the persons of the
Holy Trinity.
Thus the dogmas bring with them the possibility of an experience of
God.
The mistake is to confuse this experience with religious or spiritual
experiences in general and in a rather vague sense. It is an easy mistake to
make, because, in the realm of spiritual things, the realities are more
difficult for us to perceive than is the case with physical things. To give an
example, peaceful and happy feelings as a result of meditation or yoga are
not the same as the experience of the Holy Spirit. The inexperienced might
jump to that conclusion, but those who are more thoughtful should be able
to see that distinguishing between different kinds of happy experience is
quite difficult. It needs discernment.
One of the tests for the truth and value of a spiritual experience is its
relationship with the person’s life. One asks whether a person’s way of life
involves the following qualities: benevolence, love of neighbor and enemy,
participation in the Church’s sacraments, and Orthodox belief. Moreover,
Divine Liturgy, 121, (Liturgy of St. Basil), see first quotation, Chapter 3, 42;
1
footnote 43.
2 See I. M. Kontzevitch, The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia.
REVELATION AS EXPERIENCE 51
the Church has always esteemed true and tested guides, who are more used
to the spiritual world, good and evil, than we might be ourselves. Such
“Elders” or “Spiritual Fathers” are a great blessing when they can be found.
What holds this whole package together in the Church, the place of
our deification? I argue that one essential pillar is the Church’s dogmas,
which it has not made up but which are divinely revealed and essential to
help us discern the right from the wrong in the spiritual life. Faith in the
Church’s teaching and commandments, which are those of Christ, is one
indispensable way in which we can distinguish between our own subjective
feelings and an experience of the Holy Spirit. If we are ignoring or going
against the witness of the Church down the ages, it is unlikely that our
experiences will be from God.
“Experience” is a feel-good word. It is wise to get a bit beyond this
and to ask oneself which of one’s experiences are, despite their pleasant
effects, good (and to what extent), bad and (to be shunned), or neither good
nor bad—and so a waste of time.
The Orthodox Church goes deeper than this. It recognizes the
fineness of the distinctions that need to be made and recognizes that
anyone can make mistakes which can be very damaging and which involve
our sanity and, in the end, our salvation. The Church has a special word, for
which there is no exact English equivalent, to refer to the confusion
between what is truly an experience of the Holy Spirit and a false
interpretation of a purely subjective and even egotistical experience as
coming from the Holy Spirit. That word is in Greek plani. 3 It means
“delusion.” The delusion that one is having an experience from God when
it is in fact nothing of the kind arises from the hardest thing to see in
oneself, pride. To fall into delusion separates one from one’s brethren and
makes one vulnerable to the evil, invisible powers, the demonic. The
demonic can induce visions and wonderful experiences of light (2 Cor
11:14), to which one can become attached or addicted. However, these
experiences do not bring lasting peace or joy and are often followed by a
sense of dissatisfaction with what seems ordinary by comparison—that is,
to love one’s brethren and to follow what the Church and the Bible teaches.
One of the most obvious signs of delusion is when a person in the
Church claims to have a “higher wisdom” than that taught by the Church,
resists criticism and enquiry, and argues that those who do not accept his or
her visions are narrow-minded and jealous. Having cut oneself off from any
corrective help, such people become the victims of the demonic. If one is a
3 Slavonic, prelest.
bishop, a priest, an abbot or a theologian, then one has the capacity to bring
harm to others along with oneself. Heresy is a form of delusion—tragically,
it is something to which the most learned and ascetic people are vulnerable
(Jas 1:19–20).
Warnings against being deceived by false teachers “themselves
deceived deceiving others” (2 Tim 3:13) are to be found everywhere in the
New Testament and in the teaching of Jesus Christ (Luke 21:8; Matt 24:24;
Mark 13:5–6; Eph 4:14; 1 John 3:7; 2 John 7; Titus 1:10; 2 Tim 3:13).
The dogmas of the Church were revealed to help us to stay on the
right path. The Church has, as we have seen, some concrete tests about the
matter of delusions. It is true that perhaps in the short term a holy person
may seem to be deluded according to these tests. However, there are time-
honored tests about the authenticity of a religious experience, and I have
referred to some of them above. The great test is whether or not an
experience and any spiritual teaching that results from it is strange to the
Bible and especially the New Testament, or basically in accord with it. If the
experience results in a spiritual teaching which at first seems unfamiliar, can
it be shown to be in harmony with the Bible by explaining this experience
and spirituality by reference to specific texts? From this it follows that the
Orthodox spiritual journey must be undertaken Bible in hand, and that one
must know one’s Bible very well and also have a good general knowledge of
Church teaching.
If someone insists upon the authenticity of their experiences alone and
will brook no argument, here is a sure sign of delusion. In this, the Church
follows the New Testament way, the way of St. Paul, St. John, St. Peter, all
of whom warned against the self-deceived deceivers, and all of whom
argued out their position in theological letters. Although St. Paul did have
some sublime spiritual experiences, he did not rely upon experience alone in
his apostolic teaching; he did not consider himself to be above his brethren,
despite a spectacular converting encounter with the uncreated Light of
Glory and a spiritual experience of Jesus.
These, then are some of the reasons why the Orthodox Church insists
upon divine revelation as our rock in the spiritual life. Without a firm
dogmatic foundation, our spirituality will be at best uncertain and at worst
evil and dangerous.
It is right to call pedantry an unnecessary concern with the details of
knowledge, making distinctions beyond the point when they are useful. For
many people today, that is just what they think of the doctrines of the
Trinity, and of the one person and two natures of Christ: it is pedantry,
useless knowledge; “it does not make one a better person.” Part of the
reason for the failure to see the practical need for the Church’s dogmas is
that with many people today, practicality is associated with visible and tangible
things, while in Orthodox teaching practicality encompasses the spiritual or
unseen world. The world sees us as bodies guided by the electrical activity
of the brain, so that only material things are practical. The Church sees us
as bodies and souls united, so that immaterial realities do affect us in a real
way. The superficial view is that guidance concerning what is unseen has
nothing to do with practical life or the “real world,” so called.
Greek Orthodox theology has a word for the precision and exact
distinctions of Orthodox theology: that word is akriveia, a rough translation
of which is “accuracy.” It means much more than “accuracy.” Aristotle had
already shown that, in some subjects, such as ethics, too much attention to
minute detail actually gets in the way of finding out about the subject, with
inaccuracy as the result. 4 Akriveia is the right kind of accuracy for the
subject. Akriveia in Orthodox theology means something more like a
perfect teaching about God whose wonderful harmony and provision for
every spiritual problem shows that it is wisdom from Heaven. 5 Orthodoxy
holds that all the dogmas of the Church are practical: they all have a bearing
upon deification, just as a false or defective teaching causes us to miss the
mark. Consequently, doctrine does make a difference to our lives as
Christians. The next section will give a brief account of that harmony of
divine revelation in all the beauty of its unfolding and show how it is
necessary to our experience of God and is the gift of the God who is a
“friend to Man” (philanthropos).
THE FORMS OF DIVINE REVELATION

What is revealed by God is revealed in three stages: first there is the general
revelation given through creation and especially conscience (Rom 1:19–20);
secondly and more completely, there is the revelation to God’s chosen
people in the Old Testament; and lastly, and finally and in the most
complete way there is the revelation in Christ, toward which the Old
Testament Prophets pointed.
Each form of revelation is a stage toward the completion of our
deification and has its own distinctive religious experience and forms a stage
in the process of deification.
4Nichomachean Ethics, Book I, iii, 1.

5Orthodox morality contrasts akriveia with economy, the latter a concession to
human weakness, as, for example permitting re-marriage after divorce.
Thus, God’s revelation through Creation leads to wonder, awe, and

reverence toward the Creator and, in the conscience, the “fear of the Lord”
(Prov 1:7) and a desire to do what is right.
The Old Testament revelation gives a much more exact knowledge of
what is right and wrong and shows forth the holiness and the love of God
for humankind. The Prophets of the Old Testament, especially Moses,
shared in God’s holiness and had a real and definite experience of the
personal God by sharing to some extent in the glory of God.
The New Testament completes the previous two revelations as Christ
“sums up all things in himself” (Eph 1:10) and enables the coming of the
Holy Spirit. In the New Testament, a close intimacy with God became
possible though grace, so that, being “in Christ,” we can say that there is a
true sense in which “we are gods”—that is, that we can be “divinized” or
made “divine” by sharing in the divine life.
1) God’s general revelation through creation

Natural revelation is not totally different in kind from supernatural
revelation and is not something “purely natural,” 6 in that it is bringing the
believer to God and points to the supernatural origin of created things. 7
God’s natural revelation is to all peoples from the very beginning of their
creation and was the gift of his goodness: it was a gracious action—he made
the universe from nothing. Creation is therefore in the realm of
supernatural grace, because, for a Christian, there can be no exclusively
natural knowledge. All natural knowledge brings us into the presence of the
Creator if we have the right attitude to it. This does not exclude scientific
research but encourages it; what is wrong is only the view that science
excludes the existence of the Creator, on the supposed authority of science.
In creation there are two main elements. Firstly, there is the order of
the universe which Man can understand by virtue of his intelligence. This
intelligence is what makes Man like God and enables him to see the signs of
God’s handiwork in the created world. Secondly, Man has a conscience, an
inborn knowledge of right and wrong. Even before God’s special revelation
through Moses, and then at last though Christ, all human beings had the
capacity to appreciate God’s generosity and beauty and to walk in his way.
Dimitru Staniloae, The Experience of God Dogmatic Theology, I, 2.

6
7Ibid., 1. The whole chapter 1 of Staniloae’s first volume of his Dogmatic
Theology deals with this difference of emphasis in the Christian East, 1–14 compared
with Western “natural theology.”
With regard to both elements of revelation—that is, both our

understanding of the order of creation and in our moral sense through
conscience—if we interpret these experiences rightly, then the beginnings
of deification are taking place in us. This is because we have started to
perceive the harmony between our intellects and that of the creator God.
Our pursuit of knowledge, in any area of science, can, for someone with a
sense of the grace of creation, be a form of worship in that it celebrates the
wonders of God’s work and his goodness (Ps 139 [LXX 138]:13–14).
The understanding of Creation is very important for a theological
insight vital to Orthodox theology: theology is rational (logike). This
rationality is a much broader rationality than the kind that materialists hold.
It is not the same, either, as those who hold that God’s existence can be
proven by anyone with training in philosophy, by means of logic, narrowly
understood as a technical process of reasoning: doing sums in words, or
“rationalism.” The rationality which is the culmination of all knowledge is
knowledge of the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, who created the
world with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. It brings us to a personal
God, not an abstraction as does the logic of philosophers.
From the earliest times, as the Book of Genesis shows, God’s
revelation through Creation drew human beings toward God and God did
not draw back from such people. Even after the fall of Adam and Eve, Man
continued to be in the likeness of God (Gen 5:1). There were people who
“walked with God” before God gave any special revelation of his
commandments. Such people gave glory to God through their intellectual
perception of Creation’s harmony and beauty, and they obeyed God and
were pleasing to him because they lived by an inner law, their consciences,
which God had placed in them to guide them. Such people were Enoch,
Noah, Melchisedek, the woman of Sarepta who revered Elijah, the
Shunnamite woman who revered Elisha, and Job. 8
However, God’s revelation in Creation has become obscure to us
because our minds have become darkened by the intellectual loss which is
the result of becoming a stranger to God. A tragedy has taken place in the
history of Man, which has caused human beings to be weighed down by the
body and its desires in the wrong kind of way, so that our minds are
unclear. This tragedy was the loss of Eden. 9 The result is that creation is no
longer transparent to us, pointing to God the creator. Creation has itself
8 See chap. 5, “The Old Testament,” 116

9 In what sense, if at all, the Adam and Eve story is to be taken as “history” is
discussed in chap. 5, “The Old Testament,” Excursus.
become thick and dark in our perception. The result has been, historically,
all sorts of religious misuses of Creation, worshipping as gods created
things. This is called idolatry and it goes together in the mind of the Fathers
with sexual immorality, another misuse of Creation.
Orthodoxy views the other religions of the world from the point of
view of God’s revelation in Creation and of the loss of Paradise. Firstly,
creation still teaches its message: “the heavens proclaim the glory of God”
(Ps 19:1) in an orderly way. One may see in aspects of the religions of the
world some true insights based upon natural religion: that is, that there is a
good Creator who made the world and that we have consciences that bear
witness to what is right. Those of other religions who, without knowing the
revelations God made to Israel or the complete fulfillment of the revelation
in Jesus, nevertheless give glory to a Creator-God and ascribe all things to
him, are pleasing to God. Moreover, all people, religious or not, have the
testimony of their consciences. The Bible makes it clear that such people
were and are pleasing to God and enjoy his mercy. This is because they are
imitators of God to some extent, living in his presence and walking his way.
However, world religions and philosophies are also full of mistakes:
for example, that matter is an illusion, or that there are many gods, or none.
The closest religions to the truth are Judaism and Islam. Both are based not
only upon natural revelation but also draw upon God’s revelation to Moses
of the Old Testament. In practice, God’s wisdom was scattered throughout
the philosophies and religions of the world in an incomplete way; and
human beings, with their intellects injured by sin, have not been able
consistently to come close to God through Creation alone. It is for this very
reason that God, in his mercy, initiated a special revelation to Moses, so
that the human mind might be strengthened by the illumination of divine
grace.
By contrast, the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament,
ascribed to Moses, teach both a very clear and exact knowledge of Creation
and a precise moral and ritual law, so that, as a start of the return to God
from fallen-ness, one nation might be brought back to the full
understanding of Creation and act as a light to other nations. Orthodoxy
does not therefore teach that other religions and philosophies are deifying
in themselves, although there may be many people who belong to these
religions who have understood the meaning of creation and led pure and
good lives and in this way have drawn near to God; in the absence of the
teaching of the Gospel, they are friends of God and, since God is merciful
above all else, we may believe that they are saved by his mercy and come to
know a fuller truth in the next life, when they can meet the Incarnate Savior
of all human beings in Paradise.
The example, then, of other religions and philosophies shows that in
practice natural revelation is not enough to bring deification. Moreover, the
very idea of deification shows that God always intended to reveal more
about himself than can be discerned in Creation. Deification is more than
appreciating God’s goodness and walking in his way, morally. These things
are certainly part of it, especially if God is understood to be personal.
However, as chapter 1 argues, deification involves a sharing in the very life
of God. Even had Adam not lost Paradise, a further revelation would have
been necessary for him to attain to that closeness to God that God willed
for humankind.
The Bible does, nevertheless, have a natural theology, a theology based
upon reflection upon the order of creation. This natural theology about
creation is different from a merely logical natural theology in that it is
strengthened by the divine revelation to Moses about God’s creation of the
world. With this perspective, one can look at God’s creation with God’s
own eyes and see the things of God’s work that would be hidden from the
natural man with his intellect darkened by the passion that is a symptom of
his sinful condition.
The Hexaemeron, or account of the first six days of God’s Creation by
St. Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea in the fourth century, is a classic
work of natural theology strengthened by divine revelation. St. Basil
thought that creation was revealed to Moses, whose knowledge was
imparted “by the dictation of the Holy Spirit” from God. 10 It is these truths
that Moses composed in a history—that is, in an orderly account. 11 Using
the Septuagint version of the Bible (ca. 3rd century B.C.), where the Hebrew
bara (“created”) is translated epoiesen, 12 St. Basil presents creation as an
artistic work, a “poem,” a word derived from this Greek word poiein, “to
make.” Thus Moses discerned through God’s inspiration the beauty and
rational coherence of nature. It is in the light of this aesthetic teleology—of
an account of God’s beauty and order—that St. Basil can call attention to
the natural witness of God’s handiwork: 13
10 Hexaemeron, Homily 1.1, in St. Basil: Letters and Select Works, NPNF, PNF(2),
VIII, 52.
11 Ibid. “Now it is Moses who has composed this history.” St. Basil is drawing
upon the etymological meaning of “history,” which comes from a Greek word
meaning “to set in order.”
12 Ibid., 56.
13 Ibid., 80.
Why is the vine-leaf serrated, if not that the bunches of grapes may at
the same time resist the injuries of the air and receive through the
openings the rays of the sun? Nothing has been done without motive, nothing by
chance. All shows ineffable wisdom.
St. Basil had been educated at Athens and had a good grasp of Greek
philosophy, the lasting importance of which was, for him, its rational
understanding of creation. Hence the Hexaemeron abounds with allusions to
Hellene learning and to Aristotle’s works of natural philosophy, as they
confirm what the Bible teaches. 14
In the following passage, St. Basil echoes Plato’s Timaeus, where Plato
argued that the world showed an order and beauty because it was made
according to an eternal and invisible pattern by a Creator:
Moses almost shows us the finger of the supreme artisan taking
possession of the substance of the universe, forming the different parts
in one perfect accord, and making a harmonious symphony result from
the whole. 15
St. Basil gives the argument of Plato in a very pure form: creation was the
ordering of matter, which was previously chaotic and was the work of an
“Artisan” (demiourgos) who is called “the god,” but who is not, in Plato,
exactly “God” in our Christian sense. This Being did not make matter from
nothing but worked with what already existed in a chaotic form:
When he took over all that was visible, seeing that it was not in a state
of rest but in a state of discordant and disorderly motion, he brought it
into order out of disorder, considering that this was in every way better
than the other. 16
This “Artisan” is not, in Plato, “the father and maker of this entire
universe” who would be a great work to find and who is “impossible to
speak about to all people.” 17 However, it is clear that St. Basil can supplement
Plato with the account of Moses and make the “Artisan” and the “father
and maker of the universe” into the same person, God, who first made the
14St. Basil refers to what we would call Aristotle’s “scientific works,” his books
about the natural world, and to a host of Greek authors not named but identified as
references to Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, Josephus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius,
Galen, and Cleanthes’ Hymn on creation; see notes, ibid., 51–107.
15 Ibid., 56.
16 Timaeus, 30, A.
17 Ibid., 28, C.
world “without form and void” and then ordered it with Man as its crown
and glory, the work of the sixth day. 18
The character of this “Artisan” has a very important bearing upon
deification, because the Artisan is characterized by Plato as follows:
He was good and in him that is good no envy arises concerning
anything. And being free from envy, he desired that all things should be
as like himself as they could be. 19
The Artisan’s generosity causes him to make an intelligent being like
himself, Man;
for which reason, he established intelligence in soul and soul in body,
that he might be the creator of a work which by nature was fairest and
best. 20
This “Artisan” of Plato is not like the imagined gods of Greece or the Near
East, who were passionate. Homer’s gods are proud beings with sexual
passions and vindictive feelings, while the gods of Babylon jealously
guarded their privileges and treated Man as a slave rather than as a friend.
St. Basil picks up a different picture of the creator-god in Plato, who is
implicitly critical of the established gods of the Greek pantheon. Plato’s
“Artisan” has no selfishness but is completely benign and gave to Man the
very best qualities when he made him. St. Basil, then, can show that there
was even a partial understanding of the basis of deification in Greek
philosophy—that is, Man “made in the image and likeness of God.”
This classic work, St. Basil’s Hexaemeron, makes it clear that Orthodoxy
is a religion based upon divine revelation, in which the revelation of the created
order prepares us for the more specific revelations found in the Bible.
However, what is equally clear is that the best of Greek philosophers were
also able to discern to some extent the revelations of natural religion. Using
the philosophers who were closest to the Christian view, the Fathers could
present philosophy as a preparation for the Law and for the Gospel.
By contrast, Orthodoxy has great reservations about natural theology
if we understand it as a set of logical proofs for the existence of God that
will convince anyone anywhere, what I referred to above as “doing sums in
words.” The fact is that the proofs on their own do not convince people; if
18 In the Hexaemeron, St. Basil does not describe the making of Man; but his
younger brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa, completed the account with his book On the
Making of Man. St. Basil also wrote two homilies on the same subject at a later date.
19 Timaeus, 29, E.
20 Ibid., 30, B
there is anyone convinced of the proofs today, it is some of the

philosophers who understand them and work with them, a small and
rarified group of people! However, once the link with divine revelation is
lost, human reason cannot stand in for it. To replace revelation with reason
alone and try to do without the strengthening that comes from divine
revelation is “rationalism.” This was the religion of the eighteenth-century
gentleman, who, setting aside the revelation of the Bible as primitive,
believed in a Benevolent Single Being, supporting that belief with proofs
drawn from logic. 21 It is dry; it is not a living experience of the Living God.
This kind of rationalism, which if often a feature of college courses on the
“Philosophy of Religion,” is a long way from the creation theology of the
Eastern Fathers or from the systems of thought of the great scholastics of
the West, such as St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Bonaventura. The latter
especially read together the two great “books” by which God has made
himself known: the book of divine revelation, especially the Bible, and the
Book of Nature.
The idea that creation shows forth the goodness of the creator can
only be used as the preparation for a further revelation. If it helps us with
regard to deification, it only does so when we join it with the divine
revelation and confess, awe and thanksgiving, the holiness and love of the
Father, the creative activity of the Logos or Word or Son of God before his
incarnation, and the operations of the Holy Spirit, one God, in making the
beautiful world in which we live. In the Saints and poets of the Bible and
the Church, there is a theology of creation which comes from minds raised
above the feeble condition of our intellects. The Fathers had a special word
for the restored and illuminated intellect: they refer to the “noetic” state of
the intellect.
2) God’s revelation in the Old Testament

God provided a specific revelation about how to walk with him in his
revelation to Moses. This revelation made much clearer that God was the
creator of the world, and that he was a being perfectly good and completely
different from any other being in his absolute perfection; this sets apart
God and puts him in a different category from anything or anyone else: in
21 The proofs for the existence of God were used by medieval Catholic
theologians in a setting in which God’s creation was taken for granted by people of
faith. But in the eighteenth century they were used to replace divine revelation as
stand-alone universally convincing proofs by the “Deists” and by theologians such
as William Paley (early 19th century).
Hebrew, this “set-apartness” is expressed by the word “holy” (qadosh). The

revelation to Moses teaches us that God wills us to participate in his
holiness, by setting ourselves apart in obeying a code, the “Torah” or Law,
by which we live a life in accord with God’s nature to some extent, through
being both good and holy ourselves. The Law was revealed to a nation,
Israel, whom God set apart to be the place where his Law could be obeyed.
The Prophets point to the universal significance of this, in that Israel was
chosen, not out of caprice, but in order to give all peoples an example:
Israel was to be the “light for the nations” (Isa 42:6; 49:6).
The Law of Moses was a kind of deification, in the sense that it
provided a means by which human beings might become imitators of God:
Be therefore holy even as I am holy. (Lev 19:2) 22
The nature of this revelation is very distinctive. It is expressed in words
but not in images. Human language, then, has some affinity with the God,
because Man, made in the image and likeness of God, has an intellectual
nature which resembles God. The sign of this intellectual nature is language.
The language of revelation is the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy
Spirit gave Moses and the Prophets a true experience of God and the
means, through grace, of finding the right words. 23
3) God’s final revelation in Christ

The revelation of the Old Testament is, in the Orthodox Christian view, a
partial revelation. Christ’s coming was needed to complete the revelation
and to give us the knowledge which we need to be deified. Nevertheless,
the Old Testament is not rejected because it is incomplete. Orthodoxy sees
it as pointing forward toward the New Testament. However, the moral laws
and the teaching about holiness remain true, since the Jewish Scriptures are
still “the oracles of God,” as St. Paul calls them (Rom 3:2). However, since,
in the Incarnation, the Logos or Son of God united himself to a human
nature, repairing and raising that nature, we are invited, through faith, to
enter into a relationship with God of special closeness and freedom, with
the result that the detailed Jewish regulations about every aspect of life and
its ritual are not necessary any more. They nevertheless bear witness to an
important truth: our commitment to God should be total, involving every
22My literal translation.

23The character of this revelation to Moses will be dealt with in more detail in
Chapter 5, esp. 97, 117–123.
detail of our lives; yet we should not be legalistic—that is, seek rules which
apply in all circumstances.
This is because Christ sent the Holy Spirit to be our guide and to lead
us into the fullness of truth, which is, as Christ taught, to go beyond the
Law to the spirit of the Law. It does not let us off the hook of having to
live good lives. In fact, life in Christ demands a higher moral perfection
than that of the Law. As Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount,
whereas the Law taught us not to murder, now we are not even to hate and
must love our enemies (Matt 5:44). While the Law rightly called adultery a
sin, Christ tells us not even to have wrong desires (Matt 5:28). Christ’s
Sermon on the Mount demands a greater degree of perfection than the Law
requires, but it also refers back to the Law:
Be perfect, just as your Heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt 5:48)
The union of the human nature with the divine nature in Christ
brought something completely new into existence, a new creation. Through
this union, Man’s very nature can be healed and in addition made holy in a
way that goes beyond what might be described as ethical to a
transformation. It is this new life, “eternal life,” or more exactly “the life of
the Age to Come” (zoe aionios) that the New Testament teaches.
THE THREEFOLD STRUCTURE OF DIVINE REVELATION

AS MANIFESTED IN ORTHODOX LIFE AND THOUGHT
The structure of the Church services

The three forms of divine revelation, (1) through Creation, (2) through
Moses and the Prophets, and (3) in the Christ are reflected in the structure
of the Church services.
Vespers, or Evening Prayer, refers to the earliest point in time when
God gave grace by creating the world and placing Man in Paradise. Psalm
104 (LXX 103), “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is in me, bless his
Holy name,” with its majestic account of the order of creation, is chanted
near the beginning of the service; “the words of it induce the worshippers
into the blissful condition of the first man, when he, innocent as yet,
praised his Creator together with the holy angels.” 24 The Royal Doors of
the Iconostasis are open to remind us that Man had not as yet been
separated by sin from God and lost his original clarity of vision. Shortly
This beautiful expression is from Archbishop Anthony Bashir, Studies in the

24
Greek Orthodox Church, 76.

after the introductory psalm, Psalm 104 [103], the Royal Doors are closed
to show that the state of intuition of God through Creation was brief and
to suggest that knowledge of God through Creation was no longer, on its
own, enough to bring Man to God.
Later in Vespers, on feast days, there are readings from the Old
Testament. These readings are called Paraemoi, a word meaning literally
“parables” or metaphors. This name for the Old Testament readings
teaches that the Old Testament points forward to Christ in an indirect
manner and not openly but by way of prophecy and shadow or “type”: a
typos is an impression of the reality, the reality itself being the prototype. 25
With Morning Prayer or Matins comes the morning of our salvation.
Thus in Matins there is a Gospel reading about the Resurrection of Christ.
At last, the Holy Liturgy or Eucharist has only New Testament readings,
first an Epistle and then a Gospel reading, to show that the Kingdom has
arrived.
The spiritual structure of human history

The order of the services follows the order of God’s work in human
history: first Creation, then the Law and the Prophets. These belong to a
relative period of darkness for Mankind, in that Man had become alienated
from God by sin and because the Revelation to Moses was to a single
chosen people and not to the whole world. The prophecies about Christ in
the Old Testament give encouraging news; there is a great light coming for
the nations in darkness. The fullness of the Good News about Jesus Christ
and his Kingdom comes in the morning of his Resurrection and in the birth
of the Church.
The structure of catechesis

“Catechesis” is a word which refers to the instruction given to people who
wanted to be initiated by baptism into the Church. There were stages of
instruction, as the potential convert became more committed and prepared
as he moved toward the illumination promised by baptism, when he would
finally move from the night of ignorance and idolatry into the light of new
life in Christ.
The structure by which catechumens, or converts, were instructed in
the Christian Faith follows this movement from darkness to light. First, the
arguments from Creation to the existence of a God who made the world
25 I shall also refer to this distinction in the next chapter, on the meaning of
Scripture, even at the risk of some repetition, Chapter 4, 86.
can be used to move the minds of pagans, since they have in their best
philosophies some idea of an orderly creator, because of the light of reason
in them. This “apologetic” or rational defense of Christianity may be
strengthened by an appeal to human conscience and to the saintly figures of
Greek culture: Socrates, who died for the truth and who criticized idolatry;
Plato, who taught about the spiritual basis of reality; and Aristotle, who
taught about ethics and the perfect life lived with reason as its end.
Secondly, when the potential convert had become more committed, then he
or she had to learn the basics of a true morality—that is, freedom from
idolatry and from passion and passionate behavior, such as sexual
immorality. Here the Ten Commandments were central. Thirdly and lastly,
the convert was taught about Christ and, before baptism, had to understand
and believe the summary in the Creed of Creation, of Christ’s life and work,
and of the coming of the Holy Spirit; and to know the Our Father, the
prayer Christ gave to his disciples. Then the convert was ready to
participate in the mysteria, the Holy Mysteries of the Faith, especially the
Holy Gifts of Christ’s Body and Blood. This last phase was the beginning
of true knowledge, the Christian gnosis.
Again and again in the early Church, one may find this threefold
catechetical structure, in more and more elaborate forms: (1) reasoning to
bring out the logos in the pagan—that is, the sense of God the Creator and
the promptings of conscience which bring the pagan nearer to the Logos,
who is the basis of all reason (logos) 26 and morality; (2) specific moral
instruction based upon the Ten Commandments; (3) initiation and progress
in the life in Christ—progressive deification. Perhaps Alexandrian
Christianity elaborated the catechetical side of Christianity most. St.
Clement of Alexandria’s works, for example, move from philosophical
reasoning to knowledge of the Logos or Word of God and then on into a
deeper knowledge or Gnosis. This gnosis is not Gnosticism 27 but what we
would call development in the spiritual life through living out the theology
of the Church, becoming perfect in Christ through the Holy Spirit.
The Greek word logos means not only “word” but also “reason.”
26
27Gnosticism was a 2nd century heresy whose teachers claimed to have secret
revelations and whose picture of Christ lacked a human nature. This movement
produced many ‘gospels,’ some of which are even today being rediscovered,
especially in Egypt—all of which the Church rejected at the time in favor of only
four Gospels.
This threefold structure is integral to Orthodox theology and life

I shall be returning again and again to this threefold structure of revelation,
both in terms of the way God acts toward us, that is his energies, and in the
way we experience and understand him: (1) Creation, (2) Law & Prophets,
(3) perfect fulfillment in Christ. You will therefore find this structure in the
next chapter, when I explain how the Bible is to be interpreted and used.
You will find it as the structure by which the chapter on the Old Testament
is organized and explained in relation to the New. In the chapter on the
New Testament, the fulfillment of the Law and of Creation has come in
Christ; therefore, much more will be said about the third stage than about
the first two.
DIVINE REVELATION AND HUMAN LANGUAGE

The Bible and the dogmas of the Church are expressed in human words.
How, one might ask, can mere human words contain such sublime and holy
things?
This question involves a huge subject, because to answer it fully would
be to argue a whole theory about language and knowledge in relation to
theology.
However, some kind of answer is needed here, in order to explain how
words can be holy and make us holy.
Rather than giving you my own ideas on this subject or reviewing the
complex subject in modern thought, I have turned to one of the Saints and
Fathers of the Church for an answer. That Father is the great fourth-
century Father and churchman, St. Basil “the Great,” bishop of Caesarea.
St. Basil’s teaching on this subject shows that the early Church was aware of
the problem about language. St. Basil knew philosophy well, but his main
concern was practical. He wanted to show how the language of the Bible
and of the teachings of the Church could bring us to God and make us
resemble him.
St. Basil turns to our ordinary experience of using language 28 to solve
the problem of how divine truths may be expressed in human words. This
is because he thought that human beings are rational and still in the image
of God. Consequently, their language has an affinity with God the Creator
and is capable of expressing true ideas not only about the Creation but,
strengthened by revelation, also about uncreated realities. Language behaves
as we might expect in a world created by God.
28 te koine chresei (“the common usage”).

St. Basil starts by showing that even our experience of material things
only seems straightforward if we do not think too hard. When we observe
how an idea of an object develops in the mind through the workings of
reason (logos), we may observe in ourselves a complicated process of getting
to know even the simplest things. Everything that we perceive has to be
divided up into concepts. We use every day a process of conceptualizing
experience by breaking it down into the elements of which it is composed.
For example, at first the “body” appears simple but, in order to understand
“body,” we have to apply to it concepts in order to analyze it: “body” is
actually a complex idea and involves ideas of color, shape, solidity, and size.
Moreover, we can use concepts about something as simple as a grain of
wheat to describe different aspects of it from different points of view: one
may see it as something to eat or as a seed to be planted.
For St. Basil, a properly intellectual view of knowledge and of our
concepts involves “vision” (theoria) of a kind that understands the
complexity of what at first appears to be a simple essence. If ordinary
knowledge is a lot more complex than we think, the concepts of the Bible
are at least not different in kind from natural knowledge—this is St. Basil’s
argument. They function in the same way—that is, by separating the
experience of God into different kinds of concepts.
However, the raw material for the language of revelation is different
from that of ordinary experience. In ordinary experience, the mind
organizes natural energies to form an idea about a thing. In the
extraordinary experiences upon which divine revelation is based, the raw
material of experience is the energies or activities of God. 29 For example,
Christ called himself the vine because he nourishes those who are rooted in
faith in him, so that they will bring forth the fruit of good works. He called
himself “bread” because he keeps and preserves the soul in its right state.
On the other hand, other concepts which say what God is not express the
incomprehensibility of the divine essence. These are words such as
“immutability” or “incorruptibility.”
However, there is not one God of the energies and yet another,
different God of the essence:
[Christ] called Himself the light of the world, meaning by this name the
inaccessible Light of Glory in the Godhead, but also that He illuminates
as with the lamp of His knowledge those who have been purified as to
the eye of the soul. 30
29 Contra Eunomius, I, SC no. 299, 190.

30 Ibid. My translation from Greek.
The Uncreated Light belongs to the inaccessible light of the divine nature (1
Tim 6:16) but also shines upon us. From one point of view, the light
belongs to the unknowable essence of God; from another point of view,
one may say that the light is an energy which can be experienced by us.
“Understanding” or conceptualizing is the process by which we gain a
fuller picture of what we have experienced. Experience happens
immediately to the mind or to the senses or to both at once—this is
“having an experience.” Understanding it so as to express it involves
dividing it up into units of language and then contemplating these units. In
contemplating the experience of God, the Saints were able to theologize.
However, they did not reach the “substance” or “essence” underlying their
experience, the reality-in-itself, that is, the very essence of God. Human
beings can form only conceptions of the qualities of this reality; in this case
the reality is personal, God who is making himself known to us.
The language of divine revelation, then, has nothing to do with
“automatic writing.” The words of the Bible are concepts or pictures
expressing the energies of God as they formed the experience of the
Prophets, Saints, and Apostles.
They have the capacity still to lead us back to the very experience
which these holy people had.
4 HOW TO INTERPRET HOLY SCRIPTURE,
OUR GUIDE TO DEIFICATION
THE IMPORTANCE OF SCRIPTURE

So many Orthodox books concentrate upon the teaching of the Fathers of
the Church but neglect the very thing that the Fathers were most interested
in, that is, Holy Scripture. The Fathers wrote many biblical commentaries
ands sets of homilies or sermons centered upon a book of the Bible. Their
aim was to build up the faithful as part of the living Body of Christ.
The Fathers were also aware of the fact that the Scriptures were
ancient documents written in a variety of grammars, styles, and vocabularies
and that these documents presented problems of interpretation. Although
the Fathers were competent scholars of language because of their training
in rhetoric, or the art of using language, pure or disinterested historical
scholarship in the modern sense was not their aim. Their aim was always
concerned with deification in one way or another: the Bible was their guide
in coming to know God.
The Orthodox Church teaches that all revealed truth was received first
by the Church in an unwritten form. Eventually, within the first sixty years
or so of Christ’s Ascension into Heaven, the New Testament Scriptures
were written. The Orthodox Church understands them in the light of its
tradition. However, it also uses the Scripture as a guide for teaching. The
Scriptures were written with the purpose of building the faithful into a fuller
participation in the deification that was offered to them after baptism into
the Church.
Orthodox books lay great stress upon tradition. Tradition is seen,
firstly, in a very conservative way, as preserving, cherishing, and handing
down the unwritten teachings, which were kept in secret from the prying
eyes of a hostile world. St. Basil the Great set great store by the time-
honored practices of the Church (which were also kept secret from
outsiders in the early centuries of persecution): he gives as examples of
unwritten tradition manifested in Church practices the making of the sign
69
of the cross and praying in an easterly direction. 1 For this reason, the first
destination of an Orthodox book tends to be the Liturgy of the Church and
then the early Church Fathers, because they are a good indication of what
the unwritten tradition of the Church is.
Tradition, however, has an important relationship to Scripture. First,
the outline taught by the unwritten tradition provides a hermeneutic, or a
way into the Scriptures which is practical in that it has to do with our
salvation and deification. Secondly, tradition has always been seen as a
creative force: tradition is the Holy Spirit at work. Tradition provided what
Origen called “the standard (canon) of the Heavenly Church,” and by
“Heavenly Church” he did not mean the Church in Heaven but the
supernaturally endowed Church on earth. In the Latin of this passage by
Origen, canon or “standard” is rendered, “the Rule of Faith” (regula fidei ).
This standard or canon was used by the Fathers in interpreting the
Scriptures. 2
No one can make sense of any text unless one has a method of
interpreting it, an approach and a direction. Tradition, then, provides a
creative perspective relevant to our knowledge of God as saving us and as
deifying us. This creative perspective of tradition can help us to penetrate
deeply into the Scriptures in the Orthodox way.
This book will concentrate more upon the Scriptures in the light of
tradition than upon the later Fathers in themselves, because my purpose is
to show how the teaching about deification emerges from the Bible. Study
of the Scriptures in modern times has been rather neglected by Orthodoxy,
perhaps because the academic discipline of biblical studies is so often
exclusively historical and presents many examples of skeptical
interpretations, which are good conversation points in a secular age but
useless for our development toward holiness.
However, Scripture is essential to our progress in the spiritual life:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God
may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16–17)
In On the Holy Spirit, NPNF, PNF (2), VIII, 40–42, SVSP, 98–101
1
Origen, Traité des Principes, Book IV, SC no. 268, 301. The Greek here is canon,
2
which Origen’s Latin translator (Rufinus) renders regula, see notes 12–13 in SC no.
269, 175–176. Book IV of Origen’s On First Principles was included in the Philokalia.
In English translation the most accessible is still NPNF, ANF, IV, 357.
HOLY SCRIPTURE 71
This idea is so important that, exceptionally, I shall depart from the more
strict translations of the Bible that I shall usually be giving to give the same
verses in a popular paraphrase: 3
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true
and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out
and teaches us to do what is right. It is God’s way of preparing us in
every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do. (2
Tim 3:16–17)
We are all in a mess; we do need straightening out and equipping for a new
kind of life.
THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT

The distinction between the “letter” (gramma) and “the Spirit” (pneuma) is
the first distinction which we must learn if we are to be able to use the
Scriptures to help us to be deified. By “letter” was meant the grammatical
meaning, the vocabulary and characteristic human style as the Scripture
appears to the reader first of all on the page of the written text and the
sounds as they are read out to those listening. This dimension of Scripture
is not what makes the text being read into Scripture. At this stage it is just a
text, not something life-giving.
You may have had the experience of reading the Bible and finding that
it is just words and does not mean anything to you. Or you may have been
sitting in Church hearing the Scripture chanted: you hear words and
syllables but it did not help you.
There is good reason for this initial inability to get anything out of the
Bible. In the previous chapter, I spoke of the threefold structure of divine
revelation: (1) Creation; (2) The Law of Moses and the Prophets; (3) the
fulfillment in Christ. The Fathers of the early Church knew that a human
being may begin to read Bible texts without any of these revelations: he or
she is actually in a fallen and confused state, without even the knowledge of
Creation fixed in their minds. Consequently, the Fathers all speak of a
transition from “the letter” to “the Spirit.” Without this change of state, the
Bible, at best even for a very learned person, is a record of the various
religious ideas of some of the peoples of Antiquity; at worst, the Bible
simply means nothing.
How, then, does the progress in understanding from a reading of a
variety of texts to a life-giving understanding of God’s Book, “The Book” or
3 The Life Application Study Bible, New Living Translation.

Bible, actually take place? The Orthodox Church teaches that this
understanding can only come from a combination of the grace of the Holy
Spirit and human effort.
First, the texts have to be read with the same Spirit that inspired them.
The Scripture is theo-pneustos (2 Tim 3:16), “God-breathed,” or “divinely
inspirited.” The human beings who wrote the Scriptures were moved in a
marked way by the energies of the Holy Spirit. They expressed themselves
in human language, as their understanding was enlarged by the effect of the
divine energies. However, it was the providential action of the Holy Spirit
that wove all these expressions together into one united whole, so that we
can rightly say that the Bible is not only a collection of books but, more
important, “One Book.”
Second, we have to work. The benefit of Scripture is not to be gained
from a superficial reading. Origen argued that the true meaning was hidden
in the texts in order to get us to do some work. 4 Therefore, we are not told
just to read the Scriptures but to work with them, to dig into them in order to
find the treasure in them (Matt 13:44). The point about work is not that
God wants to set human beings a difficult examination, but that our
knowledge of divine things comes to us by means of our human
understandings though our embodied minds. The knowledge of divine
things is at the furthest reach of our minds and so needs more effort than
most activities.
Application, attention, and concentration begin with the human
words, their grammar, and their historical background insofar as we can
discover it. Christ encouraged his disciples by telling them that effort would
be rewarded: “Seek and you shall find” (Matt 7:7). It is the same with Bible-
reading: one must first toil in the field and turn over the ground before
nature will yield a harvest of crops and good fruits of the earth. In toiling
over the Bible, we are harvesting spiritual fruits for ourselves.
Application to the Scriptures with a sincere desire to profit spiritually
and to act upon what is taught there and with an attitude that seeks grace
will be rewarded by the gift of insight into the Scriptures, so that the “veil”
which always separated the Jews from the glory of God will be taken away.
Origen comments, drawing upon 2 Cor 3:15:
The splendor of Christ’s coming, illuminating the Law of Moses by the
brightness of truth has revealed to all who believe in him what had been
4 NPNF, ANF, IV, 357.

HOLY SCRIPTURE 73
added to the letter, separating it from its veil revealing all those good
things which were concealed there. 5
It is clear from this that searching the Scriptures brings us into the presence
of God. We know the meaning of the Scripture because it is opened to us
by an encounter with God’s glorifying grace. Reading the Scripture in this
way is integrally connected to our progress in deification.
THE SCRIPTURES AS TREASURIES OF SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE

When the Orthodox Fathers wrote about Scripture, we become aware of
their depth. The sacred writers themselves belong to a tradition which
characterizes our knowledge of God as calling forth an experience of depth:
O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How
unsearchable are his judgments and how untraceable 6 are his ways! “For
who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?”
(Rom 11:33–34, quoting Isa 40:13–14)
The Scriptures reveal what we could never discover through our unassisted
reason about God’s actions toward us. St. Paul follows the Jewish tradition
in Scripture about the wonderful incomprehensibility and wisdom of God’s
ways toward Man. In the above quotation, he cites the Prophet Isaiah to
convey this sense of depth. St. Paul follows the Prophet’s teaching about
God. With a true knowledge of God, our understanding both recognizes
God’s wisdom, yet is at the same time confounded by its extent, subtlety,
and finesse. 7 And even in the moment of receiving a revelation, the person
privileged to receive it is so overwhelmed by its depth that the appropriate
attitude is awe and wonder. Revelation calls forth from St. Paul here a
poetic manner of expression rather than a theological system.
The “depth” (bathos) conveys the incomprehensibility of the divine
nature, which is expressed only in part by the interaction of God with his
created world, since the divine nature can never be exhausted by God’s
actions. The “riches” convey the generosity of God’s outpouring of his
energies, whilst “wisdom” and “knowledge” refer to his perfect plan 8 for
5 Origen On First Principles, , ANF, IV, 354, SC no. 268, 282–3. (My translation.)
6 “Untraceable” is my translation of the Greek anexichniastoi, which means that
God’s path cannot be tracked: RSV has “inscrutable.”
7 Job 38 is in the same tradition.
8 The “plan” of God, thought out before the Ages and brought to completion
in Christ, is called his plan or economy. St. John Chrysostom remarks that St. Paul’s
wonder is called forth after considering the previous economy of God and how his
our restoration from sin to grace. 9 As St. Paul exclaims in Ephesians, it is

his aim
[that you] may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the
breadth and length and height and depth. (Eph 3:18)
Scripture cannot give us a complete intellectual knowledge of God’s nature;
rather, it gives us a record of the impact of God’s operations or energies
upon human beings, shaped by the guidance of the Holy Spirit so as to
express this experience truly in words. The inspired words show enough of
the beauty and goodness of God’s nature to draw us toward him. They help
us to realize that, despite our apparent unlikeness to God, such is his
generosity and the effectiveness of his grace, we can be his friends (John
15:13–15) really—or, ontologically.
Nevertheless, not even the inspired words of Scripture are adequate to
the actual experience of God’s energies. Every inspired writer and Saint has
admitted that the words they use are only approximations; they point to
something greater than words and sentences. This is why the Orthodox
Church can never be literalist about the Scriptures.
Although God is in himself unfathomable, his generosity toward us
causes his revelation to be exact. Here I return to the theme of the akriveia
or “accuracy” of Orthodoxy. The words are exact enough to be our guide for
life. Consequently, every word of Scripture and its position in the structure
of the Bible as a whole gives a variety of applications to our situations in
life. It teaches us in poetry, story, and in chronicles of events that actually
happened.
To read the Bible, then, is not only to gain guidance about how to be
deified: it is actually part of the process of our deification, as we are led up into the
presence of God through human signs.
plan comes together in the present time of St. Paul’s life: “Having considered what
special provision [God] had made for all occurrences, he is awestruck and cries
aloud, so making his hearers feel confident that certainly that will happen which he
declares” (in modern English); for the context see Homily on Romans 19, NPNF,
PNF (1), 494.
9 Douglas Moo (Romans, 741) remarks that the attributes of God here which
belong to God’s “depth, that is riches, wisdom and knowledge, are not intrinsic
qualities of God but what some theologians have called ‘communicable’ attributes
of God: aspects of God’s character that involve interaction with the world God has
created.” Thus a very recent and exhaustive scholar of Romans recognizes what the
Orthodox Church would call God’s energies.
HOLY SCRIPTURE 75
THE BIG PICTURE: THE MEANING OF THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE
The importance of the “Big Picture”

The spirit-filled writers had different cultures and languages, 10 but the Holy
Spirit guided them to point to the main idea of Scripture—that is, the
economy 11 or plan by which at last God revealed himself as fully as was
possible in Christ.
The Old Testament first gives a theology of creation which explains
why our understanding of God through nature is so feeble: we have lost a
blessed state and are spiritually, and so physically, sick. This is the teaching
of the first three chapters of the Bible (Gen 1–3).
Then, secondly, the Old Testament gives the specific teaching which
God intended in order to lead us back to health and to fellowship with him.
The Old Testament contains the Law of Moses and the prophecies about
Christ, which show how persons and events were influenced by God to
prepare for Christ’s coming.
Thirdly, the New Testament describes the fulfillment in Christ. Christ
is the key to human history in that he gathers into himself everything that
has gone before, perfecting it and completing it. St. Irenaeus borrows from
a phrase in St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, “Christ summed up all things
in himself as their head” (Eph 1:10). 12 This idea St. Irenaeus adapts to make
the striking statement of his own that Christ “summed up the long history
of mankind.” 13 The journey away from God, which begins in Genesis,
10 In the Bible, three languages are used: Hebrew, Greek, and a smaller amount
of Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Middle East and the administrative language of
the Persian Empire.
11 “Economy” means, literally, the law of administrating a household, and so
“plan, arrangement.”
13 Irenénée de Lyon, Contre les heresies, SC no. 211, 342–343; the Latin for
“summed up” is recapitulavit—literally “recapitulated.” The SC Greek translation is a

reconstruction of what St. Irenaeus’s original Greek might have been, since, for the
most part, we only have his work surviving in a Latin translation. Based upon
Armenian and Syriac fragments, the editors have come up with an educated guess
about the Greek, and this is what I have quoted. In any case, it does not much stray
from the Latin translation which we do have: [Christ] “longam expositionem hominum
in seipso recapitulavit”—“Christ recapitulated in himself the long narrative of men”;
expositio will bear the meaning “narrative.” For an argued justification of the editors’
reconstruction see SC no. 210, 331–333.
became a journey toward God. Corruption and decay, both moral and
physical, are reversed in the journey back to God.
With Christ as the key, every part of Scripture is about deification,
because it describes some aspect of the way in which we are invited to share
in the uncreated life of God. We can only read the Scriptures in this way if
we are prompted by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, reading Scripture in an
Orthodox way is to make acquaintance with the Holy Spirit, who takes us
to the eternally begotten Son of God, who in turn unites us with the Father.
To read the Bible, then, is to gain guidance about how to be deified.
It is very important in approaching the Scripture to have a clear idea of
the overall theology of the Bible. This overall theology is the history of
God’s energies toward mankind, or the history of divine grace. It is
salvation history.
The Eucharistic Prayer of the “Anaphora” of the Liturgy of St. Basil

the Great
The most beautiful, concise, and accurate account of the salvation history
of the Old Testament of the Bible has already been written. It is the
Eucharistic Prayer in the “Anaphora” or “offering,” where the bread and
wine are offered to God and changed by divine power into the body and
blood of Christ. 14 This Prayer over the Holy Gifts of bread and wine is said
on special occasions in the Church’s year, replacing the “Anaphora” of St.
John Chrysostom. St. Basil integrates the important references to Scripture
about deification in history with great skill, giving an overall picture grandly
constructed. Yet his account consists of just over 1000 words in the original
Greek! 15 These pages are an epitome of the most important ways by which
the workings of God’s grace may be understood.
The kind of salvation history upon which St. Basil concentrates is the
history of the human experience of God’s uncreated energies or grace.
Grace is “historical” in the sense that God’s energies were experienced and
recognized by receptive people at certain times; but it does not mean that
God’s energies or grace came into existence at these times. The
14 Divine Liturgy, (Oxford, 1982), 119–135. This translation will be the one
which is referred to in the following discussion, and is recommended to the reader
for the beauty of its language, the profundity of its rendering into English of ideas
expressed in Byzantine Greek and its references to Scripture-allusions.
15 It depends upon how the Prayer is set out in the book; that part of the
Anaphora which summarizes our salvation-history is nine pages in the translation
to which I refer but the words are generously laid-out on the page.
HOLY SCRIPTURE 77
consequence of this is that the uncreated energies in the Old Testament are
the same as in the New Testament; they are the energies, that is, of the Holy
Trinity, not only of God the Father, but also of God the Son and Word,
and of the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament knowledge of God which the
Prophets had was knowledge of the Trinity. This is why they could predict
the Incarnation, because it was given to them to know God’s energies as
they always are. Although, then, St. Basil has a strong sense of the narrative
order and historical dimension of God’s dealings with Man, he chooses the
most sublime form of God’s expression of his energies, that of mystical
experience given by grace.
In the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, the Anaphora begins with
a prayer usually said quietly by the Priest. It describes the Trinitarian nature
of God and begins with two words almost untranslatable into English,—ho
ôn. It is a quotation from the Book of Revelation, where God thus reveals
himself:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, who is [ho ôn] and who was and who is
to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8)
The Greek philosophical term for ultimate truth was similar, using the
participle of the verb “to be” but in the neuter to ontôs on, “that which really
is.” However, the biblical Greek refers to the Ultimate Reality using the
masculine participle ho ôn, “the one, the person who really is.” But this
personal being 16 is also the object of an address by the priest; God is a
being with whom one may have an I–Thou relationship. The Anaphora of
St. Basil, then, starts with this striking affirmation of the hypostatic or
personal nature of the Trinitarian God in relation to us,
“O Thou who art.” 17
It is this relational Being who enters of his own initiative into a creative
relationship with what he makes. After the Thrice-Holy Hymn, 18 the priest
addresses God as “a master who is a lover of Man,”—philanthrope, 19 a word
that does not quite mean “philanthropic” in the ordinary English sense but
16 It is more accurate to describe the Trinity as a unique community of personal

beings, so perfectly united that they can be addressed by the singular pronoun
“Thou.”
17 Divine Liturgy, 119.
18 That is, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Sabaoth: heaven and earth are full of
thy glory. Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord, Hosanna in the
highest.” (Isa 6:2–3; Matt 21:9, Mark 11:9–10), Divine Liturgy, 121.
19 Ibid., 122.
something more along the lines of “friend of humankind,” “one who loves
the human race.” 20 St. Basil balances God’s incommunicable holiness and
infinite majesty, which have no measure, in other words, God’s
incomprehensible essence, on the one hand, with, on the other hand, his
energies. St. Basil describes God as hosios or “righteous in his works”
(erga). 21 He distinguishes subtly between two words, both of which can
mean “holy” in some sense. God is hagios: sacred, set apart. He is also hosios
again “holy” 22 in his works. St. Basil drew upon the contrasting senses of
these two words in religious cults, where hagios is what is set apart for sacred
use and hosios refers to what is permitted to every person’s use. 23
St. Basil describes first how Man was formed from the earth but
honored with God’s image, how he was placed in Paradise and promised
immortality “and the joy of everlasting good in the keeping of the
commandments.” 24 Man lost this joyful state through disobedience and by
being tricked by the serpent. The result was that God had to separate Man
from Paradise, bringing him “into this world, from the ground from which
he was taken.” 25 Here we are reminded that it is not completely natural to
Man to live in a sphere of immortality and incorruption, once he is
separated from God. God had placed Man in Paradise so that through
grace he might obtain deification. When this went wrong, at that very
moment God established the means and the process of regeneration. 26 The
means of God’s regeneration of Man is “thy Christ himself.” So we can see
here the Orthodox teaching that the process that begins in the Old
Testament is throughout regeneration “in Christ.”
20Divine Liturgy, 122.

21Ibid., 122.
22 Hosios is the usual Greek word for a Saint. In the translation to which I refer,
the word hosios is translated “just,” Divine Liturgy, 122, and reference is made to Acts
7:52, where Christ is described as “the just one.” The translator is suggesting that
Saints are sanctified by sharing Christ’s justice or righteousness. It is a reference to
the intervention of God in human history through Christ, that is, through the
economy of his saving works.
23 See Liddel & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 1082–1083: hosios was used in
Classical Greek to refer to sacrifices and other religious rites. St. Basil the Great,
writing 800 years after the classical period of Greek culture, was nevertheless
trained in its literature.
26 Divine Liturgy, 123. “Regeneration” is paliggenesia, a word that means
“baptism” in Titus 3:5.

HOLY SCRIPTURE 79
The Old Testament history is described as a series of initiatives by

God. God sent Saints “to every generation,” who in living a life pleasing to
God, kept alive in the minds of human beings the godly life. God also sent
Prophets who predicted the salvation to come. The Law God gave in order
to help Man. Angels were appointed to guard us.
At last, though in few words, St. Basil comes to “the fullness of time”
(Heb 1:1–2), 27 when the Son was sent becoming incarnated of the Virgin
Mary. Christ’s humanity is described following St. Paul in Philippians 2:5–
11 as “the form of a servant” (Phil 2:7). St. Basil expresses deification in the
early Church manner of an exchange of natures: God took our nature in
order that he might make it like his own. This idea that “God became
incarnate that Man might be divinized” 28 is expressed by St. Basil in
Scriptural terms:
He emptied himself and took upon him the form of a servant, being
made in the likeness of our vile body that he might fashion us like unto
the image of his glory. (Phil 2:8; Rom 8:29) 29
This passage combines two passages of St. Paul, both of which refer to the
Old Testament. The first part of the sentence takes the Christ-Hymn of St.
Paul in Philippians 2, in which Christ who had by nature the “form of
God” took upon himself our degraded human “form” or condition—
“servant” (doulos) means, literally, “slave.” There is an echo of Isaiah 53 in
which the Prophet points forward to the suffering vocation of the Messiah:
the “man of sorrows” who
was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes
are we healed. (Isa 53:5)
The second part of St. Basil’s sentence takes the language of restoration
from another passage—Romans 8:29—where St. Paul uses the idea of
Christ in God’s form: we are to be restored to “the form of the image of his
Son.” Christ is the divine being to whose form we are to be restored, so
that we become deified.”
Restoration is described in terms that go back to the Old Testament.
St. Basil uses St. Paul’s comparison between Adam and Christ: just as we
fell in Adam, so are we restored through Christ; just as Adam’s decision had
consequences for him which we have inherited, death and alienation from

28 St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word; see chap. 1, p. 31.
God, so Christ’s actions reestablished obedience and unity between God

and Man (Rom 5:12–15). Sin and death are closely connected, so that, as sin
is overcome in Christ, so is the death which rules over us, so that we are
“quickened” or “made alive” (Eph 2:4–5). 30
The Church is also described in Old Testament terms: it is the New
Israel: a peculiar people (Deut 14:2, 26:18), a royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9), a
holy nation (Exod 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9). 31 Christ is the holy offering of this newly
sanctified nation. He is the “first- fruits.” 32 The first-fruits were the offering
to God of the first part of the harvest. St. Paul was the first to describe
Christ in this way, “the first-fruits of those that have fallen asleep” (1 Cor
15:20). These offerings were “holy” by being set apart for God. They were
given to the Priests and Levites (Num 18:21–24). St. Basil has already
referred to the faithful as priests. Christ, then, is offered for us.
Secondly, Christ is described as the “firstborn from the dead” (Col
1:18). 33 Every firstborn child was “holy,” that is, set apart as belonging to
God. Each firstborn child had to be dedicated by the priests and then given
back after an offering (Exod 13:2–15). This was to remind the people of the
“passing over” of the firstborn of the Hebrew when the angel of the Lord
killed the Egyptian firstborn. Christ, then, is the first of the children born
into the New Exodus. This “exodus” is Christ’s ascent into Heaven and
sitting down on the right hand of the divine majesty, where all the faithful
are to follow, death and corruption having been defeated.
Without using technical or dogmatic terms (such as physis, theosis,
theopoiesis), St. Basil has expressed deification in Scriptural terms. He uses
the language of God’s grace to Israel found in the Old Testament and
reinterprets it as the preparation for Christ. The “ransom” 34 is the release of
slaves previously under the power of their master, sin, by Christ’s conquest
of death and his harrowing or opening up of Hades, the place of the dead.
The language of “ransom” is derived from the Old Testament and refers
especially to God’s deliverance of the Israelites from the slavery to the
Egyptians. Purely in terms of the Jewish Scriptures, there was no event
more momentous than the deliverance from Egypt; it is the pivot around
which all the Old Testament traditions are organized. However, for St.

31 Ibid., 124.
32 Ibid., 124.
33 Ibid., 125.
34 Divine Liturgy, 125. (See Rom 7: 6)
HOLY SCRIPTURE 81
Basil, this great event was pointing forward to an even greater ransom, our
restoration from death to life.
St. Basil the Great’s Anaphora works on an epic scale, yet in a few
pages uses the Old Testament history and prophecy to present a
reinterpretation of the whole of human history.
THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE

Every part of the Scripture is “spiritual” in that its key is Christ and its
inspiration is the Holy Spirit who brings us to Christ. Thus, in this sense no
part of Scripture is properly Scripture when it is being understood
literally—that is, according to “the letter.” However, much interpretation
both in the Fathers and in modern scholarship seems to be just that: the
“literal interpretation.” The Fathers go to a great deal of trouble to establish
the grammatical and primary literal meaning of the texts as the basis for any
understanding that follows. Modern scholarly commentaries take the same
pains with considerably more historical background material.
In reading the Fathers, you will become acquainted with the idea that
even when reading the Bible according to the Spirit, there are several senses
of Scripture. In textbooks about the Fathers you will come across various
ways of describing these different senses: for example, the moral sense, and
then the spiritual sense. You may also find a distinction between “history”
(historia) and “theory” (theoria), which seems to mean the literal meaning of
the text and then the spiritual meaning. 35
Different Fathers, moreover, seem to have different emphases in their
methods of interpretation, and so do different authors of the New
Testament when they interpret the Old Testament.
You may also be wondering how you can use, with profit, a modern
commentary. Most of the best modern scholarship is by Catholics and
Protestants. They have a strong interest in the meaning as the text was
meant at the time by the author. On the other hand, many very scholarly
and historically informed commentaries do try to give the reader something
for his edification in the Christian life. They do, then, go beyond “the
letter.”
All this is very confusing indeed until one realizes that, although there are
some broad agreements about interpretation of the Scripture derived from
the age of the Church Fathers, there was, and is, no rule book. The Holy
35 St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses is constructed on the basis of the

difference between historia and theoria.
Spirit cannot be put in a straight-jacket, and the application of the Bible is

to a variety of human situations.
The purpose of this section is not to burden you with the whole,
immense subject of Scripture-interpretation and to sort out all these
differences of method, but rather to show how the Bible can be read
practically as a means of gaining a better knowledge of God and of
understanding our own various situations in relation to God.
In order to achieve this end, I propose that we look at the various
meanings of Scripture according to the threefold structure of divine
revelation, which will already be familiar to you from the last chapter: first,
Creation; second, the specific revelation to Israel through Moses and the
Prophets; third, fulfillment in Christ.
I have also chosen one book from the age of the Church Fathers
specifically about the interpretation of Scripture: the Philokalia of Origen. 36
The Orthodox Church does not agree with everything that Origen taught
and does not call him a Father or a Saint. However, the Church recognizes
that Origen was one of the greatest minds when it came to interpreting
Scripture. The word philokalia meant in Greek Antiquity an anthology or
collection of extracts. Origen’s Philokalia was an anthology made over a
century after his death by St. Gregory Theologian, bishop of Nazianzen,
with the collaboration of St. Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea. It was a
collection of Origen’s best passages with his errors expurgated, to be used
as a handbook for exegesis or Scripture-interpretation. It is arguable to what
extent even St. Gregory and St. Basil actually followed its rules. However,
St. Gregory did send it to a bishop as a guidebook about preaching the
Scriptures. It therefore has some authority. It is, in any case, the only
systematic account of Scripture interpretation to be found in Antiquity and
so will help as a start, just as it was intended to help Bishop Theodore of
Tyana in the fourth century, to whom St. Gregory Nazianzen sent it as a
pyktion, or a little book of folded pages, which was intended to provide
some examples of how to interpret the Scriptures and answer some
common problems.
36For this work the most accessible source is the work of Origen from which
St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil of Caesarea made the selections, that is, On
First Principles (De Principiis in Latin Peri Archôn in Greek), Book IV, NPNF, ANF,
IV, 365. The work may be found in the original Greek and in an early Latin
translation in SC nos. 268 & 269 (On First Principles and SC no. 302, (Philokalia of
Origen). The critical edition of the Greek text (no translation) by Armitage
Robinson (1893) has recently appeared (2004). The English translation (Lewis,
1911) has long been unavailable.
HOLY SCRIPTURE 83
Origen belonged originally to Alexandria, where the threefold

structure of revelation was reflected in the preparation of catechumens for
baptism and which we discussed in the last chapter.16
1) The literal sense of Scripture

This sense of the texts has to do with natural knowledge, such as we have
by virtue of our creation.
The Philokalia of Origen sees the literal sense of a particular passage of
the Bible as belonging to the stage of divine revelation when Man, having
lost Paradise, was living in the world. Man still had his God-given reason
partly intact. He had to begin from bodily things in order to be led up to
spiritual things. However, the letter was a starting point, not, as is the case
with some technical commentaries today, an end in itself. The wisdom of
the Philokalia is that it urges us on to make some interpretations helpful to
us, in terms of grace, by seeking the help of the Holy Spirit.
We have already seen how the “letter” was not, strictly speaking,
Scripture. Origen argued that the meaning of the Holy Spirit “hid” beneath
the letter. The letters were, as he put it, the “body” of Scripture; they had
no soul until they were interpreted by the Spirit. Since the body when
divided from the soul is dead, one might conclude that Origen had little
interest in the primary literal meaning of the text as it can be established
from the letters, the vocabulary, and the grammar. However, Origen was,
on the contrary, very interested in the literal meaning and at times went to a
lot of trouble to try to establish it. 37 Origen’s point is that we should not
stay with the literal meaning but use it as a basis for making an application
of some kind to the Christian life.
St. Basil and St. Gregory Theologian had both been educated in
humane learning at Athens and were very interested in what we would now
call the lexical side of the Scripture texts, and they liked the “philological”
approach of Origen, which combined the best understanding of language to
be had at the time with an insistence that we should go on from that to
teach something helpful and useful to the faithful. Many people in the
fourth century, in a society that had only recently become officially
Christian, were puzzled by the Scriptures. Were they tales, like those found
in the poets read at school, such as in Homer? In Greek, the various styles
37 Origen compiled a massive research tool, the Hexapla, a six-column version
of the Bible with the original text, transliterations, and various translations for
critical comparison. This immense work, now only existing in fragments, suggests
that Origen was interested in the literal and grammatical meanings.
of the different biblical writers were much more obvious than in a

translation such as the English Authorized Version, which translates all the
texts in one grand style. The Old Testament was read in the Greek
Septuagint version, the style of which was at times much rougher than Attic
Greek and tinged with Hebrew manner of expression. The Old Testament
especially presented problems in that it was the product of a “barbarous” or
non-Greek culture. This was not only a problem of language. The
characters of the Old Testament behaved at times in ways which had
become, culturally, difficult to understand. Then there was the question of
literary form. Some parts of the Bible seemed to be historical narratives,
whilst others were written in poetry. Then there were narratives that should
not be taken literally but as parables. Origen addressed all these issues, and
St. Gregory and St. Basil could see the benefit of facing these questions.
Today, we are as puzzled by some passages of the Bible as were the
early Christians, and Origen’s ideas have value as a corrective to the reduction
of the meaning of the Bible to historical scholarship about the religious
ideas and feelings of ancient peoples a long time ago.
One way of better understanding the literal meaning of a passage was
to see how it fitted into the meaning of the Bible taken as a whole,
considering the author of the whole Bible to be the Holy Spirit.
However, the Philokalia of Origen is also wise in teaching that we should
read in order to progress in the spiritual life, moving from a rather simple-
minded Christianity to a deeper encounter with God. The idea of various
senses above and beyond the letter also means that the Scripture can help
people at different stages in their lives.
2) The “soul” or “mind” of Scripture

If we seek the Holy Spirit in prayer, then we can move to the “soul” (psyche)
of Scripture, which has something to say to our psyche. The Greek word
psyche, usually translated “soul,” means the human mind and our feelings. It
describes what we can understand with our uncreated reason, but “spirit” is
used to describe the highest level of understanding.
This sense of Scripture corresponds roughly with the revelation in the
Old Testament.
The first level of spiritual understanding was the “soul of Scripture.”
The Philokalia means by this level of meaning what can be learnt from the
examples of characters described in the Bible, especially the Old Testament.
For this reason it is sometimes called “the moral sense” because it is
concerned with concrete behavior. We can read the Bible, then, in order to
find some moral instruction and improve our behavior.
HOLY SCRIPTURE 85
The “soul of Scripture” belongs to the second phase of Revelation, the

Law of Moses and the moral teaching of the Prophets. When one starts out
sincerely to be a Christian, then a reordering of one’s life is often needed.
Definite guidelines are very helpful and need not be seen as legalism or self-
righteousness. The Old Testament is full of moral instruction: in the Book
of Proverbs, in the examples of good and bad kings in the Books of the
Kings, and in the warnings of the Prophets. There are good examples for us
to follow of people who were faithful to God and merciful to their fellow
human beings. There are bad examples to avoid and some explanation of
why people can become wicked: that is, through greed or covetousness
through sensuality, through power and love of money. There are also
examples of people who were imperfect and a mixture of good and bad and
an account of how and why they failed and how and why succeeded in
being good. Most important are the Ten Commandments (Exod 13; Deut
5)
This level may seem rather boring, but we cannot get to know God
without trying to be good people.
3) The “spirit” of Scripture

This is a much deeper level of understanding. The “spirit” of Man is that
part of him which is made to be in the likeness of God and which is made
for close union with God.
This sense corresponds with the third stage of revelation, with the
final revelation of Christ’s Incarnation.
The “spiritual sense” of a passage of Scripture is always Christological,
because the Holy Spirit always bears witness to Christ, one divine person
and nature who has united to himself for all eternity to a human nature.
The spiritual sense of the Old Testament is in the prophecies
concerning Christ. The hard parts of the prophetic writings are those which
are not narratives about the Prophet’s life and teaching, but oracles having a
many-layered meaning, pointing forward in a dark but powerful manner to
events that took place thousands of years later, toward the Messiah and his
death for the life of the world. Prophecy lends itself to this “spiritual” or
“mystical” sense and needs the interpretation of the Church, for example in
the liturgy, to bring it out fully. However, it is surprising how exact the
predictions are and how they all fit together through the guiding inspiration
of the Holy Spirit. 38 If we meditate upon the words of the Prophets, asking
38For example Psalm 22 (LXX 21) refers to Christ’s Passion with great
exactness, if Christ is our key to interpret the Bible. The Psalm has a literal sense which is
the Holy Spirit for help in our reading, we will be encouraged by realizing
how far in the past God planned our salvation, so that we marvel over the
care that he has always had for us. We can see how God began the process
of our restoration at the very instant Man had fallen from Paradise. 39
The spiritual sense also refers to the Holy Trinity. Once we can begin
to perceive the divine energies working through people’s lives in the Bible,
one starts to seek a deifying encounter with God’s energies. While at the
previous level, the “soul” or “mind” of Scripture, people’s biographies in
the Bible were moral examples, if we have the spiritual sense, then we
discern how the lives of particular persons were changed by God’s grace,
the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, working together with one
will, activity, and energy to bring us ever closer to the new life by which we
can be like God. As we read about Abraham, Noah, Moses, the Prophets,
and then the response of the disciples to Christ—this personal dimension
draws us in to be like the ones whom the Father has already drawn to him.
The spiritual sense of the Bible, I would add, makes clear that
Christology should never be separated from Trinitarian theology. If we read
Christologically, with Christ as the key, and pneumatically, with the Holy Spirit’s
energies in our hearts and minds, the Bible acts upon us ‘anagogically’: it
leads us up to God the Father.
The spiritual sense also enables one to discern analogies and
connections between passages of the Bible that are not obvious, by means
of typology. 40 The Apostles in their Epistles use typology extensively, and the
Fathers continued this way of understanding Scripture spiritually. A typos
was a stamp, seal, or impression representing something else. For example,
when kings were really kings and queens were really queens in England and
ruled the land, the Great Seal stamped upon wax on a document
represented the royal power. Many passages of the Old Testament can be
understood as types, that is, impressions of a greater reality to come: the
latter was the prototype. Thus events in the Old Testament such as the
crossing of the Red Sea can be understood typologically to refer to salvation
in Christ and specifically to baptism. The Burning Bush can be understood
related to the contemporary context of the writer, the just man who calls to God
for vindication under persecution by wicked people.
39 Divine Liturgy, 123. In the long priestly prayer of consecration in the Liturgy
of St. Basil the Great, no sooner is Man’s expulsion from Paradise mentioned than
St. Basil refers to the establishment by God of “salvation by regeneration which is
in Christ Himself. For Thou, O Good Master, didst not wholly forsake Thy
creature which Thou hadst made.”
40 See Chapter 3, 63, for a very brief definition.
HOLY SCRIPTURE 87
both as a type of the Incarnation and of the conception in the immaculate

womb of the Virgin of the uncreated Word of God, since the flesh was not
burnt by the holiness of the Divinity. The Services of the Feasts of the
Church contain a wealth of typology, especially in the Vigil Services of
Vespers and Matins. This typological language invites the worshiper to go
deeper into the spiritual interconnections between all the parts of the Bible.
Lastly, the spiritual understanding can enable an allegorical
interpretation. Allegories explore the figurative meaning of the smallest
details of the Scripture, the subtlest nuances of the Holy Spirit’s
composition of Scripture. They are the least palatable to a modern mind.
However, it should be borne in mind that they were not the inventions of
the Fathers. St. Paul uses allegory to reinterpret the Old Testament (Gal
4:24, where the word “allegory” is used).
The spiritual sense is all about the third stage of God’s Revelation to
Man, the fulfillment of all things in Christ.
CONCLUSION
In reading the Bible for yourself and in reading the comments of the
Fathers, you will come to see that the Philokalia of Origen is a useful
handbook. 41 Like all useful handbooks, it gives one a place to start but it
should not be taken as a rigid scheme. While the distinction between letter
and spirit always holds, the various Fathers differed in the importance in
practice that they gave the literal sense. Origen acknowledged it in his
writings; but in practice when he was himself interpreting the Bible for the
faithful, he preferred the spiritual sense to the virtual exclusion of the literal.
On the other hand, St. John Chrysostom, who is the standard for
Orthodox Scripture interpretation, stays close to the literal sense and draws
his lessons out from the literal sense without ever loosing sight of it. But
this does not mean that his interpretations were not Christological; he was
in many ways the most Christological of all the Fathers in his interpretation
of Scripture, because, for him, everything comes round to Christ.
Consequently, St. John Chrysostom did interpret according to the spiritual
sense.
There are writers of Christian Antiquity who were definitely exotic: for
example Didymus the Blind 42 in his commentary on the Old Testament
Prophet Zechariah. There has in fact been something of a reaction in
41 Because of a lack of a good modern translation, the essential part of this

work may be read as On First Principles 4, NPNF, ANF, IV, 349–382.
42 Didyme L’Aveugle sur Zacharie, SC nos. 83, 84, and 85.
modern times against allegorizing of the Scriptures in favor of the salvation

history narrative sense. Fr. George Florovsky is an example:
The Bible is intrinsically historical: it is a record of the divine acts, not
so much a presentation of God’s eternal mysteries, and these mysteries
themselves are available only by historical mediation. 43
The practice of this book will be, on the whole, closer to St. John
Chrysostom than to Origen’s practice, although you may assess my
interpretation of Scripture according to the threefold scheme of revelation:
1) I shall be quite “philological.” I shall be using the best of recent
scholarship on the literal sense. Here I am appealing to natural human
knowledge. I shall be giving an account of the main biblical passages
according to the best resources for establishing the primary literal meaning
of the author.
2) I shall emphasize the place of a particular passage of the Bible in
relation to the whole Bible. Here I become much more theological in my
assumptions and be concerned with how the Old Testament can be
interpreted for our moral edification.
3) I shall refer to the Christological and Trinitarian senses of Scripture
and use the typological interpretations that are found in the Church’s
liturgies but avoid allegorizing, in the sense of interpretations that actually go
against the literal and grammatical meaning. Very important is the idea that
the Scripture teaches and explains a definite dogmatic teaching without
which deification cannot be achieved. The Christological and Trinitarian
meaning of Scripture is often omitted from modern commentaries because
the Christology and Trinity belong to a different theological specialism—
that is, dogmatic theology or systematic theology or patristic theology.
However, I argue that the Scriptures cannot be read this narrowly. We must
look for the spiritual meaning if we truly desire to attain deification.
43 Bible, Church, Tradition, 20

5 THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE HISTORY
OF THE ENERGIES OF GOD IN THE BIBLE
WHY READ THE OLD TESTAMENT?

Since all Scripture is inspired by God’s Spirit and is to help us to be “fully
equipped” (2 Tim 3:16–17), then it follows that all Scripture is about
deification, since deification includes everything that a human being needs
to know to be restored and to have fellowship with God. There is, then, not
a word of Scripture that is irrelevant to our subject.
When the devout Christian who desires grace comes to what is called
“The Old Testament,” he finds in fact the Jewish Scriptures. Why the
sacred writings of the Jews, who do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, should
have a bearing upon deification may not be clear. The Jewish Scriptures are
called “The Old Testament” as the answer to a problem which the Church
met very early. However, before giving the answer, the problem needs to be
explained, since it is still a problem for many people today.
Perhaps many of the present readers of this book have had the
experience of trying, and failing, to read the Bible right through from the
Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation and have got stuck somewhere
in the “Old Testament,” for example in the Book of Leviticus or Numbers,
wondering what laws about cleanness and uncleanness and rules about
different kinds of animal sacrifices have to do with salvation in Christ. Are
not the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles enough? Did not Jesus
conflict with the rabbis who taught the Law? Did not St. Paul teach that the
Law was an obstacle to faith in Jesus Christ?
This impression, of the irrelevance of the Old Testament, might well
be reinforced for those Orthodox Christians in non-Orthodox lands where
services are difficult to find and who manage only at best to attend the Holy
Liturgy of the Eucharist on Sundays. In the Eucharistic Liturgy, the
Scripture readings are exclusively from the writings called “The New
Testament”: first there is a reading from one of the letters of the Apostles
or from the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, followed by the Gospel
reading. The importance of the Gospel has been emphasized liturgically by
a procession. The icon-screen or iconostasis might remind one of the
89
Temple as described in the Old Testament. However, Orthodox Christians

in the West are often guests celebrating in churches of other denominations
and may not have the benefit of an iconostasis.
This impression that the Orthodox Church is liturgically an exclusively
New Testament Church is false. The Eucharistic Liturgy is in fact full of
Old Testament ideas, words, and phrases in its many long and beautiful
prayers. However, the Old Testament finds its proper liturgical place in the
service of Vespers or Evening Prayer. There is, in addition, a period in the
Church’s yearly cycle when the Old Testament is much more prominent:
that time is Lent, the Great Fast in preparation for Pascha, for the “Feast of
Feasts” of the Resurrection of Christ. These facts give us a clue to the
meaning of the Old Testament in Orthodoxy: it describes the preparation
for the coming of Christ. In Lent, every year, the people prepare for the
Resurrection of Christ by putting themselves in the place of the people who
were looking for the coming of the Messiah. In Vespers, every week, or
more often than that if possible, the people are preparing for the coming of
Christ as the light of their lives in the darkness of the evening—that is,
thinking about and repenting the darkness of their sins, but looking forward
with hope to the Eucharist when they may receive Christ.
There are other reasons why many Christians do not like the Old
Testament. It is full of bloodshed and cruel deeds done in the name of God
by Prophets and fanatical people. This fierce spirit seems to contradict the
humble acceptance of suffering which Jesus taught and lived.
Marcion (2nd century) taught that the Jewish Scriptures were not
Christian Scripture and that they described the actions of a different God
from the God of the Gospels and the letters of St. Paul: while the Jewish
Scriptures teach legalism and a God of wrath, the Gospels and Pauline
writings teach about a God of love, a different God from that of the Jews.
However, the Church rejected this view, despite its convenience in
explaining away some of the difficult passages of the Old Testament. The
Marcionite heresy made the Church decide on whether or not the Jewish
Scriptures were part of the “canon” of Scriptures—that is, if they were part
of Scripture in the way I have described it at the beginning of this chapter:
helpful for salvation by giving a standard to which we should aim, and
guidance about how to arrive there. The Church gave a clear “Yes” to this
question. The Jewish Scriptures were indeed Scripture, and the Orthodox
Church today regards these writings as Scripture.
There are some obvious reasons why the Church took this view. The
Gospels and the letters of the Apostles are full of references to the Jewish
Scriptures and describe Jesus in a Jewish category, as “Christ,” a word that
THE OLD TESTAMENT 91
translates “Messiah,” the Hebrew word for “One Anointed by God” to

bring in his Kingdom. Therefore, in order to understand the Gospels and
the apostolic letters, converts needed to understand the Jewish Scriptures
and Jewish history.
However, the Old Testament did not become canonical just as a
reference book to help the Christian to understand the early Christian
writings, although that is, of course, important. The Church gave a deeper
reason. This reason is the theme of this chapter. It is the idea that God
worked through and in human history from the very beginning, so that the
Incarnation is the climax of the history of God’s actions to bring human
beings into his own wonderful life. The “Canon” or list of the books of
Scripture describes the whole of this history, not just its dramatic climax in
the life of Jesus Christ.
THE OLD TESTAMENT AS AN INTEGRAL PART

OF THE HISTORY OF GOD’S GRACE
Although God is always the same in perfect goodness and in his constant
love for his creation, his acts or energies were put forth in time and place.
In this latter sense, one may speak of the history of God’s energies. God’s
grace has a historical quality because it operates upon beings who exist in
time and space and who live by their choices and draw conclusions from
the succession of cause and effect. This history encompasses everything
about God’s grace. It stretches from the creation of the world from
nothing, through his special revelation in the Law to provide a help for
human beings who had strayed from his way, to the climax of the coming
of Christ, God Incarnate, and predicts the future perfection of all things at
the End of the Age.
St. Irenaeus, drawing upon the Bible, was the first of the Fathers to
summarize salvation in this historical way. St. Irenaeus referred to “Adam”
as having sinned and described the sin of Adam as affecting the whole
human race, because the sin of the first man encapsulated the whole of
humanity. However, Christ acted as a second and greater Adam,
“recapitulating” or containing within himself the whole of humanity and by
his obedience to the Father reversing the ancient sin.
St. Irenaeus was drawing upon St. Paul for his idea of “recapitulation”
(Eph 1:10). 1 A very important passage worth meditating upon is Romans
5:12–21, where St. Paul begins:
1 “Recapitulate” is often translated “gather together in one”; the Greek verb is

anakephalaiein, “to bring together into the head.”
Just as through one man sin came into the world and through sin death,
so also death penetrated into all human beings, in that all have sinned
…. But the grace is not as the offence, for, if by the offence of one
many died, by so much the more has the grace of God, and the gift
freely given from the one man Jesus Christ, come upon many.
There is no reason to suppose that St. Paul did not think of one man,
Adam, as being a historical individual, and the same is true of the Fathers.
They had not thought of the problems connected with modern science and
“evolution,” so that there was no particular problem for them in speaking
in this way about Adam. However the historical existence of Adam is not
St. Paul’s main point. Rather, his point is that the actions for good or ill of
one person affect the welfare of all human beings. The idea is that by our
“nature,” as the Fathers would express it, human beings are interconnected,
because we share a nature with other human beings. God created Man
good, but there was a point when individual persons turned away from
God; these individual choices affected other human beings; in fact, they
affected the whole human race, because the bad choices damaged human
nature. Christ, in taking up human nature, reversed this evil. St. Ireneaeus
can say with the same intention that Eve’s sin affected the whole human
race and that Mary, in accepting, despite the reproaches of men, to be the
bearer of God in her womb, became a second Eve, reversing the sin of the
first Eve. 2
The question of the historicity of the first man and woman is a
genuine intellectual problem to be faced, and this will be discussed in an
Excursus at the end of this chapter, as it bears upon deification. However, it
is important to see now that the main point of the teaching of St. Paul and
the Fathers is that the acts of any person affect humanity as a whole. The
consequence is that the harm done to our nature as a result of one trespass
can be healed in a similar way—that is, by the actions of persons, the
person of Jesus Christ in union with the will of the Father and the Holy
Spirit, and the persons of the Mother of God, Mary. Indeed, by our
interconnectedness in the Body of Christ, the Church, we participate in the
salvation of one another and of the world through our actions and prayers
“in Christ”—that is, in union with Christ through faith. Part, then, of
human deification is the sharing in the work by which God saves us, just as
we all have a share in the evil by which humanity as a whole is harmed.
2 St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, NPNF, ANF, I, 547; SC no. 153, 248–251.
There is therefore a true and a false way of speaking about one’s

“individual salvation.” It is correct to say that each one of us has a choice
concerning one’s soul; God cannot save us without our will. On the other
hand, no one is saved alone, in a way that is separate from his fellow human
beings. Whether we know it explicitly or not, other persons are helping us
or hindering us.
How then do the Jewish Scriptures belong to this history? The answer
is that the human condition which Christ came to heal had a long history.
Moreover, God prepared in various ways throughout human history for the
coming of Christ. God chose a small nation, the Jews, to whom he would
reveal himself more fully and specially, in order that this nation might be a
light to other nations (Isa 2:2–3; 42:6; 49:6; 60:3).
What then is the meaning of the expression “Old Testament”? The
term testamentum was the Latin equivalent of the Greek diatheke, meaning
“covenant.” A covenant (Hebrew, berith) was an agreement with a king that
described the benefits he had achieved for the people, in return for which
he demanded loyalty. The Hebrew writers used “covenant” to describe the
grace of God which he manifested to those whom he had chosen. God had
done most of the work, in his mighty acts and in his successive covenants
with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the People of Israel; he only asked for
faith and loyalty. As the people turned away from God and broke the
covenant, God initiated another one. The covenants of God with his
people thus make up a history of his gracious acts toward them. This
“history of the energies of God” starts in what Christians call “The Old
Covenant” (Palaiao Diatheke) because they saw that the Old Covenant
pointed forward to an even greater grace in the future and was fulfilled in
God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, which was the New Covenant (Koine
Diatheke).
The idea of “covenant” or “Testament,” then, is about God’s actions
in establishing a living relationship with us, in which he shares his divine life
with us. We come to know God truly as part of this story. Salvation is not
something static which can be tuned into at any time and place by realizing
some general ideas about human nature. Rather, we need to know the story
to which we belong. Thus the history which makes up the Old Testament
contains vital information.
Orthodoxy teaches that God wanted something even more than
obedience to Law—that is, fellowship and friendship with the human race.
The Prophets were the friends of God, and they obeyed him because they
loved him. Their teaching pointed forward to the possibility of intimacy
with God. They prophesied deification in Christ.
The Old Testament, then, consists of two important stages in the

threefold structure of divine revelation, which has been described earlier:
first there was Creation and the natural knowledge of God; then, secondly,
the special Revelation in the Law; and finally, thirdly, the New Testament
describes the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus Christ.
The Old Testament teaches about the creation of the world from
nothing and the making of Man, by divine inspiration. This creation
theology can be appreciated by the human reason.
The Old Testament speaks more exactly about the character of God
and his will for humankind in the first five books of the Old Testament, the
Law or Torah, which describe how Man can live a holy life and be holy just
as God is holy. For the Jews, this is the highest revelation; but for the
Christian, the end of the Law is Christ, both in the sense that the purpose
of the Law was to point to Christ and also because, with the knowledge of
God that came with Jesus Christ, there could be greater freedom with
regard to some of the commandments of the Law, while others were no
longer necessary: for example, sacrifice of animals, many of the laws about
ritual uncleanness, and, for pagan converts, circumcision.
The perspective of the New Testament is needed to see that the Old
Testament teaches about Jesus Christ. The Old Testament has an obscure
and poetic way of speaking about Christ. In the Law, there is, as it were, a
submerged level of meaning which the Apostles and Christian Fathers
brought out. On the other hand, the Prophets did know Christ before his
Incarnation. Their experience was profound and difficult, but it explains in
poetry the history of salvation and points forward toward a hopeful future
which seemed at the time to be at odds with the way things were going.
Thus the Old Testament speaks of the knowledge of God by creation,
Law, and prophecy.
THE CREATION OF MAN TO SHARE THE KINGSHIP OF GOD:

GENESIS 1:1–2:3
The Septuagintal and Greek patristic account: A summary

I have explained how the Greek Fathers interpreted the opening of the
Book of Genesis in the Greek Septuagint translation made by Greek-
speaking rabbis in the second and third centuries B.C. 3 The Fathers saw it as
a majestic poem by which the persons of the Trinity cooperated to create
the cosmos as an expression of the divine goodness, with Man as the climax
3 See Chapter 3, 57–59.

of that creation. While the Father initiated the creation, the Holy Spirit
shaped the primal matter which had been brought into existence where
there was nothing before. However, the Son or Word (the Logos) of God
played the part of the divine artist in endowing creation with its reasonable
quality. Man was created possessing within himself the image of God as a
mirror-image. This image had the potential to be realized by the exercise of
human freedom cooperating with divine grace, so that one could become
like God. The Fathers saw the rational qualities displayed by humankind as
originating in the Creation.
Deification was the restoration of perfect reason in Man, not a dry
rationalism but a participation in the mind of God, so that the Book of
Genesis was the beginning of an education by which we might move
toward perfection by understanding our true nature.
Deification in the Hebrew text:

Every man as sacred king and representative of God
The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, the earliest Jewish
translation (c. 300 BC) was used by the Greek Fathers to support their
teaching. The Hebrew, in which the original revelation was expressed,
contains some different ideas on the subject of deification, especially as
interpreted by Jewish tradition. In fact certain Fathers, Origen in the East
and St. Jerome in the West, did consult the Hebrew and Jewish tradition. It
is important to consider the Hebrew and to show how different
interpretations arising from the Greek translation and those coming from
the Hebrew may coexist peacefully, not being contradictions.
Only on the sixth day does God use the first person plural, “we.” God
says “Let us make Man.” The meaning kept in Jewish tradition is that God
here turned to the holy angels and bodiless powers to invite their agreement
and cooperation in the making of Man. 4 The Orthodox Christian tradition
sees the expression “Let us” as an early revelation of the Trinitarian nature
of God. One may see the latter meaning as the spiritual sense. However, the
spiritual sense does not exclude the reference to the angels in Jewish
tradition, which is closer to the literal meaning of the text. It is not
necessary to chose between these meanings; one can accept both. The
reference to the angels shows God as characteristically inviting beings
4 Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary, 12. For celestial court see 1 Kgs 22:19–22; Isa
6:8; Psalms 29:1–2; 82; 89:6–7; Job 1:6. In Job 38:7 divine beings “the sons of
God” are present at creation, ibid., 353. Sarna follows the teaching of the medieval
rabbi Rashi, ibid., 353.
whom he has created to share in his creative work. (It may be that this was
the point when some angels experienced the envy of hurt pride which
resulted in their rebellion against God; the making of Man in God’s image
and likeness was the cause of the revolt. 5 However, though many angels
fell, more remained steadfast). In the coming of the Archangel Gabriel to
the Mother of God, Mary, we see an angel sharing in the making of the
most perfect man, Jesus Christ, and acting as a ministering spirit to God’s
purposes [Luke 1:26–38].) 6
Man is made at the furthest reach from the chaos of the undivided
waters. The Hebrew text shares the Near Eastern idea of creation as mainly
an ordering of dangerous and unruly forces. However, it is not necessary to
exclude from the text the idea of God’s creation of everything from
absolutely nothing. The Orthodox Church does not accept one early
medieval rabbinic way of translating Genesis 1:1:
At the beginning of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, the
earth was formless and empty and darkness was upon the face of the
deep.
This way of interpreting the Hebrew grammar 7 suggests that there was a
formless matter for which God was not creatively responsible. 8 However,
the Jewish medieval interpretation may well have been influenced by
Aristotle’s idea of the eternity of matter. 9 In any case, there are some
grammatical objections to this translation. 10 Orthodox Christian tradition
sees God’s creation as both origination of everything and as a process by
which it was gradually ordered and perfected. The latter process, of
perfecting Creation and ordering it, is shared by God with his rational
creatures. Part of Man’s role was to be king and ruler over Creation,
5 Rev 9:1 refers to “a star fallen from heaven to earth.” See also Isa 14:12,
which also describes the fall of an astral being called “Day Star, son of dawn.”
6 In Matt 2:2, the wise men are following the “star” of the Messiah. There may
here be an association between angels and stars, so that “star” is a way of referring
to a heavenly being. Alternatively, the star may have been a manifestation of the
Uncreated Light, which guided the wise men, just as once the fiery cloud had
guided Moses and his people.
7 It makes the first two words be-reshith into the construct case.
8 One may add that God’s creation of the universe from absolutely nothing is
the doctrine of all the mainstream Christian traditions: Catholic, Reformed, and
Orthodox.
9 Medieval Jewish rabbis were learned in the philosophy of Aristotle.
10 That is, the awkward presence of the connecting particle w.
subjecting it: just as God subjected the mighty elements of firmament,

water, light, and darkness, Man was to be God’s co-ruler on earth, ruling
Creation for its good (Gen 1:26, 28). St. John Chrysostom interpreted the
idea that we are made in the image and likeness of God as referring to this
godly rule over the rest of creation. 11 The rabbinic reading blurs the beauty
of an important distinction: that is, while God is the ultimate author of all
things, he shares his providential work with man.
Between primeval chaos and the making of Man, the world is ordered
by God with increasing precision and variety. What God sees as not only
“good” but “very good” is his making of Man. The basic meaning of the
word tsellem (image) is somewhat uncertain, while demuth (likeness) was a
well-known word for resemblance. However, we do know that the words
belong to the language of sacred kingship and were applied to monarchs. In
the ancient Near East, kings were seen as divine beings or divinized
representatives of the gods.
There is a crucial difference between the Hebrew use of the language
of sacred kingship and similar language used in Egyptian, Babylonian, and
Assyrian theology. In these totalitarian societies, it was the king only who
was seen as deified; the people were the slaves of the gods, and only the
king was the regent of the gods. However, in Hebrew thought every person
was made in the image and likeness of God; every person had this divine
aspect and this kingly status. This revolutionary idea is dramatized in the
confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh. The pharaoh thinks that he is a
god and behaves with a godlike sense of his power. However, the Lord tells
Moses that Pharaoh must learn, through signs and wonders, that he is not
God but that only the Lord is God. The theology of the Book of Genesis is
to some extent a prelude to the redemption of the enslaved Israelites and
the restoration to them of their freedom and dignity, through God’s action.
Thus the divine right of kings is, for the sacred writer, the right of all
human beings. Our greatest dignity consists in our resemblance to the One
True God, so that our very nature fights against efforts to enslave and
subjugate us to the will of a ruling elite. 12
The meaning of the Hebrew emphasizes some important practical
implications for our deification. First, we are made into co-rulers of the
creation with God. Since God’s rule is benevolent and kind, how can we
justify misuse and exploitation of our environment and the animals, if we
11St. John Chrysostom, Genesis, (Trans. Hill), 47, 53: SC no. 433, 192–193.
12 I am indebted to Mihail Neamts for these insights about the political
dimension of the Exodus account.
are really serious about pursuing deification? Second, deification is at odds

with the enslavement of our fellow human beings in whatever form it takes:
military or, as so often today, economic.
God’s work and Sabbath rest

Genesis 1:26–27 is certainly the main text about deification. However, if the
first creation narrative (Gen 1:1–2:3) is seen in its Hebrew context, the whole
account may be understood as about deification, which is the main idea
governing its structure.
The first creation narrative of Genesis 1:1–2:3 explains what deity truly
is, as opposed to the false notions of deity among polytheistic and
idolatrous nations. The issue then is: If we are made in the image and
likeness of God, what sort of a god are we created to resemble, and what
kind of resemblance are we graciously offered? The theologies of Egypt and
Mesopotamia taught many gods and had creation myths which explain how
certain gods gained power over the others and Man by controlling the
forces of nature and ordering them. By contrast, the sacred writer makes
clear the complete separation between Creation and the Creator-God, who
not only ordered but also brought what exists into being by his good will
and for no other reason. This Creation is reasonably-constructed and can be
rationally studied as a reflection of the goodness and reasonableness of the
Creator. It is resemblance to such a deity that we are given.
The true God appears first as an acting agent or person. He makes the
various phenomena of nature. There is no confusion, as in so much pagan
polytheism, between natural powers and Godhood. Thus the sun, moon,
stars and planets, the trees and animals are not gods but created things or
beings brought into being by God’s deliberate action. This picture of the
one true God is important, in terms of our resemblance to him. It means
that we are gods in that we are capable of good actions through our free
will, not for the pleasing of our passions but for the good of others and in
the pursuit of things good in themselves.
By a reversal of what we might expect, God is first described as
behaving as an enlightened human being might behave, a human being
enlightened, that is, by the Torah or Law. The Law laid down that Man
should work for six days but on the seventh day should rest from all work
of any kind. When the sacred writer makes God seem to obey the Sabbath,
this is not primitive “anthropomorphism”—that is, making the form of
God to be like us. Some of the older biblical critics used to present Genesis
1:1–2:3 in this way, as if the sacred writer thought of God as a man in the
heavens, the “old man in the sky” that believers are thought to believe in by
many. However, the biblical account is much more subtle and interesting
once we see it as an entire text about deification. To describe God himself
as being like an enlightened man is a very forceful way of saying that Man
can be like God. The account suggests a relationship in God between his
energies, by which he works, and his unknowable essence, in which he
“rests.” This is not a rest through fatigue but an expression of the divine
life, lived over and above divine activity. The “days” by which God works
are not periods of clock time but are to be understood in relation to the
idea of the Sabbath as a sacred day: the “days” express a relationship
between activity in time—that is, God’s energies put forth in creation—and
God’s eternal nature.
A similar relationship between energy and essence is to be found in
man, the biblical account suggests, because in a human being living a life
influenced by grace—that is, the enlightenment of the Law—there is a
balance between human energy and essence. Just as God, Man acts as an
acting person, working in an orderly and rational way. However, human
activity is not all there is to Man. Man is, like God, more than what he or
she does. Man has a hidden eternal nature, in which he can rest. In ceasing
to work on the seventh day of the week and keeping that day “holy,” or set
apart, Man has learned to live also in communion with his mysterious
essence, his Godward nature.
Consequently, by the point in the text (1:26–27) at which we reach the
explicit statement that Man is made to resemble God, the divinity of Man
has already been strongly implied and the main lines of a theology of the
person, both human and divine, has been established. To rest in the prayer
of inner stillness 13 is like the resting of God: the Bible, from the very first
page, takes us to a picture of Man which makes Man more than what he
does. It introduces us to the mystery of the person.
The force of the language comes from a powerful rhetorical or poetic
reversal of expectations. In Genesis 1 we do not have primitive
“anthropomorphism,” imposing in savage ignorance Sabbath-observance
even upon God. Rather, what we find is “theomorphism”—that is, a
philosophy or theology by which the divine form of Man is startlingly
expressed.
In practicing the Torah, then, the devout Jew was not conforming to a
merely outward regulation but expressing with his whole being the balance
13 In the Orthodox tradition, the prayer of stillness is sometimes called

hesychasm, from the Greek word for stillness, hesychia. Consequently,
contemplatives, and especially monastics, are described as hesychasts.
in his nature between action and contemplation. On the Sabbath, the Jew
was living out his highest nature. When the peoples surrounding the Jews
found their strict Sabbath observance to be impractical, irrational, and
incomprehensible and mocked it, such people were—and still are today—
showing that they have completely missed the point of the Genesis
Creation account, which teaches that Man, like God, has a hidden nature
and is not the sum of his actions.
It is hardly surprising that Christians very early saw the relationship
between the seven-day Sabbath pattern of life and the perfection of the
Christian life toward which we are working all the time. Thus the author of
the Letter to the Hebrews wrote:
So, then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for
whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from
his. (Heb 4:9–10)
The author of Hebrews teaches that the possession of the Promised Land
of Canaan by Joshua’s conquest was not the “rest” promised by God. The
reason the sacred writer gives is that the Psalms, which refer to a later
period than the wilderness time and which were regarded as the work of
King David, still refer to a “rest” or Sabbath that has not yet been attained
(Ps 95:7–8). Thus the “rest” was not only political stability in a new land
after the slavery of Egypt, but something much deeper. The “rest” which
God promised is that we may enter into the “rest” which exists in God
“from the foundation of the world” (Heb 4:3). This “rest” is a sharing in
the very hidden life of God, a participation in the essence of God.
A long commentary could be written about the relationship between
work and rest in the spiritual life in Christ and how we may, by asceticism
or the disciplining of our passions by struggle and prayer, reach the stillness
where we may commune with God. However, this commentary has already
been written by St. Gregory Palamas in the fourteenth century, in his
spiritual commentary upon the Ten Commandments in its application to
the ascetical life 14 and also in his sublime remarks about the practice of
hesychasm or inward stillness. Referring to the hesychasts of his time, St.
Gregory Palamas said:
Such people keep the Sabbath in a spiritual fashion and, so far as
possible they rest from all personal activities; they strip their soul’s
powers free from every transient, fleeting and compound form of
knowledge, from every kind of sense-perception and in general, from
14 Philokalia (Ware), IV, 227.

every bodily act that is under our control and, so far as they can, even
from those not entirely under our control, such as breathing. 15
Hesychasm, then, is not something exotic and strange to Christianity or to
the Bible. It has a firmly biblical basis in the very first chapter of the Old
Testament, once our popular misconceptions about the Book of Genesis
have been set aside.
PARADISE LOST: GENESIS 2:4–3:24
The differences between the two accounts of creation in Genesis

The account of the creation at the very opening of the Book of Genesis is
followed by a second account, commencing at Genesis 2:4.
This second account reaffirms the teaching of the first account in an
abbreviated manner [Gen 2:4–7, 19–20]: thus God created everything and,
as the climax of Creation, made Man, giving him the divine spirit and a
royal position as lord over creation.
However, this second account differs from the first in describing how
Man lost his royal position in an ideal environment, in the “Paradise of
Eden.” This loss was caused by Man’s failure to trust God but was
mitigated by the fact that Man was undone by the deceptive words of a
tempting power, the power represented by the serpent, whose words were
deceiving and who even used the truth in the service of deceit.
Man lost Paradise because attracted to acquisition of wisdom without
understanding the dangers and delusions involved and the need for
guidance when one is inexperienced. The sad story has been repeated in
various forms down the ages. Knowledge is good and brings with it great
benefits. However, very sophisticated and advanced developments in
philosophy and the natural sciences have not enabled Man the better to find
salvation. Moreover, spiritual knowledge is still an area of delusion and
danger.
The story also explores the fallacy of the idea that we can only learn
good at the price of learning evil because we can only learn from
experience. This is the very worldly notion that knowledge can only come at
the price of our innocence. Experienced people, people who have lived life
and had experience of it, are generally less naive than the young and more
aware of the dangers. However, such people are not always wise in the
Christian sense. They may have gained a worldly-wise or even cynical
attitude but lack the conviction that God’s guidance in life can be our only
15 “In Defence of Those Who Devoutly Practise a Life of Stillness,” ibid., 337.
salvation. This latter is the highest wisdom, but it is not often found among
the wise of this world.
Because the second account is explaining why Man lost his innocence
and original blessedness, it is less optimistic and more disturbing than the
beautiful account of Genesis 1, where God sees that everything is “good”
or, in Man’s case, “very good.” The second account shows that the idea of
deification, the desire to be like God, also may result in evil.
There is another important difference. The first account describes
Man as humanity in general: Man is made in the image and likeness of God
whether male or female. However, the second account is more concerned
with relationships between people, and especially the relationship between
the man and the woman and between the human beings and God. At the
heart of the story is the idea that decisions can have fatal consequences. The
result of this is that the human beings and for that matter God himself have
characters and interact with one another in the narration. This drama is the
special mode of storytelling adopted in the second account.
Finally, the second account describes in a way that we may recognize
the sad aspects of life as we now have to live it, with death ever-present,
with hard and discouraging work to do in order to make a living, and with
the battle of the sexes. However, it makes clear, on a hopeful note, that
these burdens were not originally intended by God. This is the reason why
God’s starts, immediately after the loss of Paradise, the laborious process of
restoration—laborious, it has to be said, mainly on God’s side.
The symbolic nature of many of the details

The account beginning in Genesis 2 expresses many important points in a
compressed manner using symbolic language readily understandable in the
ancient Near East as a kind of shorthand. In other words, just as philo-
sophical expressions such as “personal,” “individual,” “essential,” and so on
are used in books today, although given a precise turn by the writer, so in
the ancient Near East ideas such as that of the tree as a source of something
good and desirable, the garden as an ideal environment, the serpent as the thief
of immortality, and old stories about men trying to become gods and failing all
had a kind of general currency for discussing the mysteries of human
existence. The sacred writer gives these elements his own theological turn
and uses them in the service of true theology, so that Genesis 2 may still act
as a guide for life.
What especially marks out the story is the shrewd commentary that it
makes upon human gullibility and on the double-faced nature of wisdom
and the wise, so called. On the other hand, God is consistently benevolent,
lacking in self-interest, and very straightforward and clear in his dealings

with Man—especially in the Eastern Fathers’ interpretation of the account.
You may have come across another interpretation that makes God out
to be a stern taskmaster who sets Man rather a silly and arbitrary test about
not touching or eating the fruit of a particular tree in the garden. Why, after
all, place a tree whose fruit is fatal to Man in a Paradise designed to make
him happy, unless God wants to catch Man out? Once Man did fail the test,
God seems to have acted in a punitive, vengeful, and angry manner, driving
Man out of Paradise with fire and sword (Gen 3:24).
The difficulty of this picture of an angry God depends upon a literalist
view of every detail of the text and fails to grasp the symbolic nature of the
method of teaching in the use of the expression “tree.” In the “wisdom
literature” of the Bible (for example Psalms and Proverbs), the tree is a
metaphorical expression for a source of something good. Thus in the Book
of Proverbs, the Torah or Law is called a tree:
She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast
are called happy. (Prov 3:18)
Here the Book of Proverbs teaches that the Law is the highest wisdom,
bringing life in the broadest possible meaning of the word “life” for those
who take the Law seriously, who cherish it, and who follow in practice what
it teaches.
The Eastern Fathers were aware of the symbolic nature of many of the
details of the Genesis account. Consequently, they were not imprisoned by
a literal view which appears to commit one to a view of God which makes
him unkind and so less than perfectly good. Origen observed that to take
this narrative literally is foolishness:
Will any man of sense suppose that there was a first day and a second
day? And a third, evening & morning, without sun and stars? And the
first, as it were, without a heaven? And who is so silly as to imagine that
God, like a husbandman, planted a garden in Eden eastward and put in
it a tree of life, which could be seen and felt so that whoever tasted of
the fruit with his bodily teeth, as he masticated the fruit of this tree,
partook of good and evil? And if God is said also to walk in the garden
in the evening and Adam to hide himself under the tree, I do not
suppose that anyone will doubt that these passages are written in a way
that only seems to be history, since the story never took place, in the
body; rather the story discloses certain mysteries? 16
16 Philokalia of Origen (trans. Lewis), 18.

This passage was selected by St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory Theologian
for their handbook about how to interpret the Bible, selected from the
works of Origen, to which we have already referred. Origen is clearly in
accord with the Eastern Church tradition in calling attention to the
symbolic nature of the details, although his view that the whole story is a
parable or metaphor without any real events that happened is not the view
that St. Paul or the Fathers take.
It would not be correct to say that the account of Man’s loss of
Paradise is only a parable, that is, that it is entirely metaphorical or symbolic.
The account with the symbolic elements combines other elements, such as
historical genealogies and a claim about the ultimate origin of everything in
God’s creative act. These “historical” elements have also to be given their
due weight in interpreting the story as a whole. However, it is clear that
many of the details of the narrative have a symbolic character.
The interpretation that follows may be surprising to some of you,
because the kind of literary method employed by the Genesis-writer at this
point involves at least some use of metaphor.
The serpent
The serpent is a symbolic character. We are not committed to the view that
our present state of sickness and need for salvation and the many evils of
life are to be literally blamed on snakes.
The serpent is a creature made by God—the “most subtle” or “wise”
(Gen :1). He represents, then, a certain intelligence and natural wisdom,
which, however, both falls short of and contradicts divine wisdom. In the
latter sense, contradiction, the serpent is already “Satan”—ha-shatan was
“the opposer,” the angel of the heavenly court who opposed God’s view of
things, for example at the opening of the Book of Job (1:6), where he is
called one of “the sons of God.” Christian tradition has made the serpent
into a form of the Devil, the fallen angel Lucifer who had already rebelled
against God and envied the creation of Man to have fellowship with God
instead of him. This interpretation does not do violence to the text: Lucifer
was created as was the serpent; the serpent opposed God’s view as did
Lucifer; the serpent used words in a crafty and deceitful way, playing upon
their ambiguities so as to tempt and seduce the human beings as does the
Devil. One may, alternatively, see the Devil as using certain natural powers
to deceive Man, so that the serpent symbolizes that part of creation which
the Devil drew into his sphere of influence. St. Isaac of Nineveh (7th
century) said:
‘Satan’ is a name denoting the deviation of the human will from truth; it
is not the designation of a natural being. 17
This interpretation goes further towards the symbolic than most
Orthodox fathers. St. Isaac, writing in Syriac, or Aramaic, knew that the
Hebrew and Aramaic word shatana meant “opposition.” Although this
interpretation may surprise the reader who knows the view that “Satan” is a
personal being, a fallen angel, this alternative may be considered because St.
Isaac is revered as a Saint of the Orthodox Church.
The result was that nature began to have a seductive, sensuous aspect
which took Man away from God. By the end of the story, the serpent
represents what is in perpetual enmity with humanity and especially the
woman, who has the power to destroy this evil power, or “crush its head”
at the cost of danger to herself.
There was a long and rich history of literature in which the serpent
figured, which would enable a Hebrew audience to appreciate its
significance as associated with loss of immortality, with trickery, with
danger, and with apparently good but actually poisonous cleverness. The
serpent appeared in the Epic of Gilgamesh (an ancient Mesopotamian
poem) as the creature who stole from the hero the plant which gave
immortality and used it for itself. The ancients found an idea of immortality
in the way the snake changed its skin for a new one. In the time of Moses,
the serpent was associated with magic. When Moses threw down his rod
and it turned into a serpent, the Pharaoh’s magicians could do the same
(Exod 7:10–12). In the wilderness, serpents bit the Israelites: God told
Moses to nail a serpent to a brass rod to make the people immune from the
serpents’ poison (Num 21:7–9). The typological connection with this event
and the Crucifixion was made by the Apostle John (John 3:14). Then both
Jesus and St. John the Baptist called the Pharisees snakes—“vipers,”
referring not only to their poison but also to the learning and cleverness in
which they wrapped up their poison (Matt 3:7; 12:34; 23:33; Luke 3:7).
However, the wisdom of the serpent is not entirely bad—as Jesus makes
clear when he tells his disciples to be “as wise as serpents” but without their
poison, “harmless as doves,” (Matt 10:16). It is thus clear that even the
cleverness of the serpent is redeemable: one may need subtlety and
cleverness in refuting heresy, in confounding persecutors, and in exercising
prudence and discretion in life. If one reviews the various associations to
the Hebrew reader of “serpent,” it involves quite a complicated and in itself
“subtle” set of ideas.
17 Brock, The Wisdom of St. Isaac of Nineveh, 10–11.

In support of his narrative and to make it shorter in number of words

but extensive by association, the sacred writer could call upon many of
these ideas. In doing this, the writer is using his skill. The author uses in the
right way the wisdom of the serpent—to teach a dove-like message of
reconciliation with God, which is medicine for our healing from the poison
of sin.
The account of Man’s loss of Paradise is, like the serpent, “subtle,” or
crafty, because for the first time the sacred writer is giving an account of a
deceptive and beguiling situation. The crystalline clarity of the first account
of the creation (Gen 1:1–2:3) is therefore followed by an account which has
strange and puzzling elements. For the first time, we are in the presence of
the mystery of evil. However, the Fathers valued the account of Man’s ‘fall’
in Genesis just because of its subtlety and many-sidedness. For this reason,
the ramifications of this story cannot be pursued in a book of this length.
The Fathers found in this story endless material for edification and
numerous problems of interpretation.
“As gods knowing good and evil”: deification and knowledge

In ancient Near Eastern stories, the gods are depicted as selfishly jealous of
their divine powers—their knowledge, immortality, power over the natural
world—and unwilling to share it with human beings, who were in the
nature of slaves. Thus for human beings to try to become “as gods” was to
invite the vengeance of the gods.
The Genesis story in 2:4–3:24 is not like this, from God’s side. This is
especially true of the Orthodox tradition’s interpretation.
To take “becoming as gods” first—it is not wrong in the biblical
account to desire deification. The first creation account, Genesis 1:26–27,
has made clear that Man is made to be “as God”—in the divine image and
likeness. We have already seen how, in both accounts, God gives Adam
godlike dominion over Creation, as it were continuing the work of creation
by sharing God’s providence (Gen 1:28). Man is undone by desiring the
wrong kind of deification—that is, one which is not a sharing in God’s life
but an independent godhood.
God does not, in the Eastern Fathers’ interpretation of this account,
place a perpetual ban upon “the knowledge of good and evil” in some
sense. The “tree” which is its source is the subject of a command and a
warning: that Man must not partake of it or Man will certainly die.
However, the death that would certainly come was the result of
involvement with a kind of knowledge before Man was ready for it. Since
God created both the “trees” of “knowledge of good and evil” and of
“life,” they are both in themselves good, because God cannot create
anything evil. However, the premature use of something good can result in
evil.
We can see that God did give to human beings the knowledge of good
and evil, and that there is a true sense in which he intends Man to know
“good and evil”—that is, to know the difference between them. The Law
or Torah is instruction in what is good and what is evil, providing a way of
distinguishing the two. While the Law about holiness explains how to live a
good life, the Ten Commandments absolutely prohibit evil.
Man fell because he reached out for knowledge against God’s warning
when he was as yet immature. To give a simple human comparison: A good
parent will not give a very young child the knowledge of how to open a
sharp pen-knife (or clasp-knife) because he is too young to learn also how
to avoid hurting himself with it. However, this does not mean that the knife
is evil or that it will be banned from the child’s use forever. The knife is a
useful tool in the hands of an experienced person, and eventually, when a
young adult, the child will have to learn how to use it and other tools
dangerous to little children. Now, knowledge is very much the same: it is a
useful tool but dangerous to the immature. But just as little boys love to
play with penknives and the sharp tools in their father’s toolbox (if he
unwisely lets them), and are attracted to all sharp, bright things, so also
human beings are naturally drawn to knowledge of all kinds. The question
of when is the right time for one to be given some particular knowledge
rarely occurs even to adults. In fact, if certain knowledge is banned and so
becomes a secret known to a few for a very good reason, every one wants
to know it. Spiritual knowledge, the highest form of knowledge, is
something that people usually believe that they are ready for. They feel
insulted to be told they are not ready and brush aside the idea that even
good knowledge might be harmful to them. In behaving like this, we are all
little boys and girls, reaching for what is forbidden on the highest shelf. The
parent has to protect the child. To do this, parents must instill obedience
and discipline. It may be a matter of life or death if a child responds
correctly and quickly to the words, “Put that down!” or “Don’t touch that!”
As is so often the case, reasonable explanations about why certain
things are harmful cannot be received by young or inexperienced minds.
The adult has no other choice than to rely upon warnings which the child
needs to take on trust. However, part of intelligent learning involves
satisfying curiosity and trying things out for oneself. Obedience and
intelligence exists in an uneasy relationship with one another. Bitter
personal experience of the resulting evil is a hard teacher. To lose a hand in
an accident is a terrible way for a little boy to learn that chainsaws are
dangerous. Obedience to his father is, in this case, a far more merciful way
for a little boy to learn. Obedience is also necessary because not everything
can be kept away from us until we are ready to use it. Since it is the
property of human beings to develop gradually toward perfection, there are
many points in adult life when we are, in some sense, still children and need
to obey God our Father and to trust him.
In Genesis chapter 3, the serpent exploits the natural human desire for
two good things, deification and the knowledge of good and evil, in order
to break down the still young relationship between Man and God.
In addition, the serpent exploits the ambiguity of words and sows
confusion. The phrase “knowledge of good and evil” can mean at least
three things in Hebrew. It can mean, firstly, knowledge about what is right
and wrong. This is not knowledge that could possibly have been banned by
God. It can also mean knowledge of everything, the words good and evil
encompassing every kind of knowledge that is possible. Properly speaking,
such knowledge—that is omniscience—belongs only to God. However,
human beings can even participate to some extent in God’s omniscience,
acquiring through grace knowledge which is above natural knowledge, as
did the Prophets, who correctly predicted the future. Absolute omniscience
is, however, something that human beings cannot attain. Thirdly, the phrase
“knowledge of good and evil” can mean experience of both good and evil,
by participating in both. The Hebrew verb for know, yadah, has this sense of
knowledge by participation and intimacy; thus for example, when it says
that Adam “knew” his wife, it refers to intimacy, including sexual intimacy,
and for this reason the consequence of this knowledge is Eve’s conception
of a child. To participate in both good and evil can mean, then, that one can
come to have an intimacy or sharing in both good and evil. God does not
“know” evil in this sense of participating in it. Human beings, however,
have come to participate in evil, with the result that they are corrupted. If
one has a knowledge both of good and evil, one is both good and bad.
When the serpent tempts Eve with the promise of the knowledge of
good and evil, the sense of his words is left open. He could mean any one
of the three senses above. However, the knowledge that Adam and Eve
acquire is the third kind, a share in both good and evil and so a degree of
corruption and loss of innocence, as may be seen from the shame that they
feel.
It is a widespread fallacy today that one can only learn by experience,
especially in the moral and spiritual sphere, so that one knows what is bad
only by sharing in it and finding out for oneself how bad evil is. For
example, it is often suggested today that one can only learn about what is
good and bad about sex by experiencing good and bad in sex, by becoming
“sexually experienced.” The Church’s view that it is not necessary to lose
one’s sexual innocence to know what is right and wrong has been widely
questioned. However, the logical fallacy of this idea may be seen if one
applies it to other more extreme forms of evil. For example, no one
suggests that it is necessary to learn by experience what a bad thing it is to
murder by actually having the experience of being a murderer.
This idea of the effects of what one participates in is very important
for deification. Just as deification is participation in God’s perfect goodness,
so participation in evil is the very opposite. Participation in what is bad
makes one bad, not good, and is not a good experience with good results.
Adam and Eve feel shame and fear as a result of their participation in good
and evil mixed up together, and their unity is damaged so that they blame
one another, lose their trust in God’s kindness and the capacity to take
responsibility for their actions. The evil is the distance between God and
the human beings that the serpent establishes through fraud. Without
remembering God’s warning and turning to him for guidance, they become
involved in knowledge which is too much for them. The tree which is the
source of potentially good knowledge, if used well with God’s guidance in
due time, becomes a source of death.
Adam and Eve’s dismay shows that they have much good left in them.
The knowledge of being mixed up with good and evil together as an
experience does not bring them joy. However, there is a worse
consequence, which Adam and Eve do not fall into; that is, that one
believes that one’s corrupt knowledge is actually omniscience and the
highest form of knowledge. When we separate ourselves from God as our
best friend in the search for wisdom, we could end up in even worse a
plight than Adam and Eve. They at least felt shame. However, if one
becomes deluded, one can fall even further, confusing experience of good
and evil as a higher wisdom. This is the state of delusion of which the
Apostles and Fathers speak.
If “knowledge of good and evil” can mean different things, it can be
used differently by a deceiver as contrasted with someone who wishes one
well. The serpent leaves the promise open and undefined. The serpent is
double-tongued and surrounds Man with coils of ambiguity. He suggests
that perhaps God possesses omniscience and is jealously keeping this from
Man by the empty threat of death. This idea appeals to the human natural
desire to know and our constant dissatisfaction with our state of
knowledge. By contrast, God is exact: he gives Man a commandment,
which is clear and practical. This commandment is already knowledge, the

right kind of “knowledge of good and evil” which helps one to see the
difference between the two at a particular point of time without having to
be corrupted by bad experiences. However, to benefit from it, one has to
accept the limitations upon human knowledge, and this is humanly speaking
very hard to accept.
In the Eastern Fathers, Adam and Eve are seen as victims of a trick
and they explain this mitigating circumstance as part of the reason for
God’s continuing mercy and love. It is not true to say that God “curses”
Man. On the contrary, he continues to act as Man’s friend; and, finding
Man cruelly tricked and corrupted by clever words, in a state of shame and
fear, God makes provision for the restoration of the human race. God only
without qualification “curses” the serpent—that is, the evil power that has
seduced Man (Gen 3:14–15). The cursing of the ground “for man’s sake”
(Gen 3:17–19) is not so much a curse as a measure to help Man recover; it
is part of the way God encourages Man to repent through humility.
God’s merciful “economy” for lapsed humanity

I have already suggested that, with regard to Man, even God’s “curses” are
blessings. It is true that Man is punished by God. The woman is to
experience considerably more pain in childbearing and through “desire” to
be subordinate to her husband (Gen 3:16). The man is to find the earth
resistant to his toil, so that life becomes hard work (Gen 3:18–19). The
couple is expelled from Paradise by the Cherubim with their fiery swords
(Gen 3:24). However, punishment can be seen in two ways. It can be seen
as vengeance, or it can be seen as a measure to correct someone who has
gone wrong. The Eastern Fathers universally took the view that God only
punishes in order to amend and restore Man to his former glory.
This idea of God’s merciful arrangement for Man needs some more
comment.
God is, after Man’s disobedience, working with a difficult situation in
which Man’s nature has been damaged through participation in evil. Man
now belongs to the world of “corruption” that comes into being: the Greek
word, phtharsia, means both moral corruption and physical corruption, so
that sin and death and disease go together, as human nature is damaged
both intellectually and materially. God has to make special arrangements
that realistically deal with the situation. This provision or arrangement is
called by the Fathers the “economy” of our salvation. The word “economy”
is used because God is regarded as still being able to bring some good order
and healing even in a bad situation. God’s willingness to work with the bad
situation that has come into existence shows his love: he does not act as a
disappointed creator when his plans have gone wrong, and, because things
are now not only less than perfect but actually bad, destroy his creation and
start again.
To take first God’s economy for the woman: the Eastern tradition sees
the adversity imposed upon her as deriving from the damage to her nature;
sin has brought “desire” or passion and the difficulties of a life ruled by
passion. God allows this adversity to continue and even rules that she
should be subordinate; this subordination is part of the “economy”—it is
clear that from the first, God did not intend woman to be anything other
than Man’s equal and companion (Gen 1:27). The pain in childbearing
suggests that some ill has come upon our bodily natures as a result of the
arrival of corruption in the world. God permits and limits these ills for a
definite purpose. Adversity has a tendency to chasten us or make us less full
of ourselves and more humble. The woman’s difficult state is intended by
God to make her less proud and more open to divine grace. It is balanced
with a hopeful promise: Eve will be the source of life. In fact the Hebrew
word translated “Eve” means ‘Life,” and the name she is given in the Greek
Septuagint is Zoë. From Eve’s womb there shall come offspring who will
not give in to evil but will fight against it, in a constant battle against the
serpent (Gen 3:15). The Fathers regarded the words about the crushing of
the serpent’s head by Eve’s “seed” as referring to Christ. 18 Consequently,
Eve, the one through whom the fruit of the forbidden tree came too soon
into the world, will also be the one whose fruit shall be the redemption of
the whole world in the fullness of time.
The man is told that the ground will be “cursed for his sake” and will
only give up to him its benefits after a hard struggle. At the end of his life,
he will go back to the earth (Gen 3:19), which was an element which God
used in his creation of Man. God is acting mercifully and also enabling Man
to remember death in a positive way, that is, to realize that he is not self-
sufficient and that he needs to depend upon God. When God made Man
from the earth (in Hebrew the word for Man, adam, sounds like the word
for soil or earth, adamah), he breathed divine life into him so that Man
became a living soul (nephesh haya). God is not denying his Spirit to Man
after his fall but arranging a situation in which Man will realize his need for
God’s Spirit and be receptive to the Spirit, by understanding that he is not
18 The Latin Catholic Church tradition is the same and Eve’s crushing of the
serpent’s head was called the ‘protoevangelium,’ the proto-Gospel, prefiguring the
Virgin Mary.
all-powerful and independent of God. Without God’s Spirit we are not fully
human. It is important that the highest expression for “Man” in these early
chapters of Genesis is not adam—merely “Man” or “humankind”—but
“living soul” (nephesh haya, in Greek psychen zosan). In remembering death, we
are turning to God and asking for his Spirit to come to us, in order that we
may be “living souls.”
Both Adam and Eve are not left to suffer the pain of their sense of
nakedness. God “made for Adam and his wife garments of skin” (3:21). 19
In doing this, God was protecting Man from the worst consequences of his
sin and making life bearable again for him.
God does not withdraw from Man the sharing in creation which
humanity has by virtue of its power to conceive life. Adam becomes the
father of the human race and Eve its source of live. The fallen couple has
something to look forward to. In fact, when Eve gives birth to her first
child she is thankful to God and says, “I have gotten a man with the help of
the Lord” (Gen 4:1).
The expulsion from the Paradise of Eden resembles the expulsions of
human beings from paradise by jealous gods, that is, gods jealous of their
privileges:
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us
knowing good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and take also
the tree of life and eat and live for ever”—therefore the Lord God sent
him forth from the Garden of Eden. (Gen 3:22–23)
The Fathers do not see God here as pronouncing a death sentence upon
Man forever, but as setting a limit to his life now that he has been
corrupted. Eternal life in Adam’s corrupted state would be hell. Man has
become like God, but the phrase “knowing good and evil” does not mean
the knowledge of good and evil that is consistent with divinity—that is,
knowledge of the difference between good and evil—but rather a
corrupting experience of a mixture of both, which would be a torment if it
were prolonged forever. The trickery of the serpent’s word becomes clear in
the irony of God’s sentence here. By fixing a term to human life, God
makes it bearable and allows time for Man, like the Prodigal Son, to “come
to himself” (Luke 15:17) and to go back to God his Father, saying
19 Patristic theology has a whole theology associated with the idea of the
garments of skin; for a good summary, see Nellas, Deification in Christ, chap. 2, “The
Garments of Skin.”
Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer

worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of you hired servants.
(Luke 15:19–20)
Seeing his lost son coming back on the road the father ran out and
embraced his son and kissed him. For us the “embrace” and the “kiss” of
God the Father is the Divine Only Begotten Son, whom he has sent to save
us and to restore us to the sonship 20 for which we were created in the
beginning. Only when Man has been purified in Christ can eternal life again
be offered to him, when Man is in a state to receive it without unending
unhappiness.
The Paradise of Eden was a world of beauty and light in which God
“walked” with Man (Gen 3:8). The nakedness that Man feels after having
sinned turns the experience of Paradise into a place from which he must be
driven, by fire, the fire of the “Cherubim.” The reference to fire suggests
that something like the situation of the unrepentant sinner after death has
taken place: the sinner finds the next life a hell of burning, not because God
has invented a created fire to torment man, but because the Uncreated
Light of God, which a repentant person experiences as light, is felt as fire
by the sinner.
On the other hand, the “Cherubim” are not entirely merciless figures
in the Eastern tradition’s interpretation of them. Scholars have found a
parallelism between the “Cherubim” and the winged guardians at the
entrances to ancient temples and palaces, which had the function of
warding off enemies and the irreverent. However, “Cherubim” is a
mysterious word and remains untranslated by the Septuagint and most
translations of the Bible, being left as a plural word transliterated into other
languages: we have not yet discovered the root meaning of the word. The
appearance of the “Cherubim” in other parts of the Bible shows that they
are not only beings who drive Man away from God but are also the focus
of God’s manifestation of his glory to Man. God appears “on the wings of
the Cherubim,” (2 Kgs 19:15) and when God appears in the Tent of the
Meeting, he is surrounded by these creatures. The Ark or Chest of the
Covenant, which contained the tablets of the Law, was a focus of worship
for the Israelites. They built a throne in the appearance of Cherubim upon
the Ark, which was kept in the Holy of Holies, as the place where God
came down to make his presence known to Man.
20 Sonship does not exclude females; it means the condition of being an

inheritor of God’s substance, rather than a “hired servant.”
It is therefore not correct to see God as a God of anger. Such

punishment as he imposes has a restorative purpose and is balanced with
hopeful and kind measures to enable Man to look ahead with hope to his
life in the future.
We can still profit from the death which God pronounces to be our
destiny. It is not absolute death and total extinction. We can still bring forth
children and participate in the miracle by which God brings life from
nothing. The mortality which is announced is, “You are dust and to dust
you shall return” (Gen 3:19). It points Man down toward the earth and
teaches humility, the latter a word that derives from earth or soil (humus).
The mortality which we need to think about is not existence moving toward
nothingness—the “Being towards death” of modern existentialism—but
memory of death by which we may purify ourselves so as to pass through
death to life.
THE “NATURAL MAN” FROM ADAM TO NOAH

In practice, the natural knowledge of God, without a special revelation to
strengthen it, is very weak. Genesis 4–6 reviews the period when Man had
the external evidence of creation and the inner voice of conscience to bring
him to God. These chapters conclude that, for most human beings, their
natural knowledge, if any, had been so overwhelmed with human passions
as to be out of mind.
Man’s perverse tendency toward evil took over. First Cain murdered
Abel from envy (Gen 4:3–16). Lamech was a vicious and vengeful figure
(Gen 4:24). Wickedness grew upon the earth and all human beings had
become corrupt and full of violence (Gen 6:5–6, 11–12).
Moreover, Man was the victim of death. The words “and he died” are
repeated like a drumbeat after the lives of each and every patriarch. The
world belongs to death.
Of the patriarchs, we know of Noah, who, before any divine covenant
with Man, found it possible to live a life in fellowship with God:
Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked
with God. (Gen 6:9)
There was the remarkable case of Enoch, whose life in harmony with
God resulted in a mysterious resurrection. The biblical writer does not say
“he died” but
Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. (Gen 5:24)
Enoch 21 belongs to a special category. The only Old Testament person of

whom something similar is said is the Prophet Elijah, who did not die but
was taken by chariots of fire into Heaven (2 Kgs 2:11–12). However, Elijah
knew the revealed Law of Moses, whereas Enoch only had the knowledge
of God in Creation. Enoch’s sanctity is altogether exceptional.
What the story of Enoch shows is both the possibilities and limitations
in practice of natural revelation. No one else was able to attain to such
unqualified perfection on the basis of natural revelation alone. God had to
keep alive knowledge of himself by making special revelations, that is, by
choosing particular individuals and making “covenants” or specific
agreements with them, in which he revealed his goodness and his will as he
did first with Noah. However, Noah did not live a perfect life (Gen 9:21–
22), nor did any of those whom God chose from Abraham onward. When
God chose a nation, Israel, his people did not remain faithful even though
he had revealed to them a very full and specific code of life through Moses.
Nevertheless, the Old Testament makes clear that people who did not
belong to the covenant could be pleasing to God. Job was a wealthy man
“of the sons of the East” (Job 1:3). 22 He is not an Israelite, because this
phrase meaning Easterner is used in the Bible to refer to foreigners, even
Israel’s enemies to the east of Israel’s borders (Gen 29:1; Isa 11:14; Judg
6:3, 33, 7:12, 8:10). They were respected for their wisdom, which was equal
to that of the Egyptians. Nevertheless, his religion is pleasing to God. There
is no Hebrew expression for “religion,” the “fear of God” being a rough
equivalent. However, he is also called by God “my servant” (Job 1:8). Job’s
religion is that of a righteous man: he “feared God and shunned evil” (Job
1:1); he made sacrifices showing that he believed in God, and he was
concerned about his own and his sons’ good state before God (Job 1:5).
Job’s demand that God give him an answer about all his sufferings
provokes a revelation by God to him. This revelation, expressed in the
language about the awesomeness and unpredictability of nature, suggests
that, although God can be experienced, he cannot be fully known. God
speaks to Job in a theophany, or manifestation of God, which is as
wonderful as any of the theophanies to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob (Job 38–41). God then rebukes Job’s false comforters for their wrong
21 The proper name “Enoch” means “Man.” Perhaps the sacred writer is
suggesting that, of all the human beings before Noah, Enoch was properly
speaking, “Man” in fulfilling human nature as it was originally created to be, in the
image and likeness of God.
22 The RSV “People of the East” is literally translated “sons of the East.”
advice (Job 42:7). The example of Job is that of a very high order of the
knowledge of God. In fact Job is a Saint of the Orthodox Church. 23
In connection with those of different religion from the Israelites, who
were nevertheless pleasing to God, Job is the best example; and the reason
that he pleases God is not so much that he belonged to a religion that
might be acceptable as an equivalent to the Israelite religion, but that he was
a man of conscience with a stronger sense of God than most people have.
His knowledge came from Creation and conscience and so is a natural
knowledge of God and might be described as “natural religion,” but the
important thing is that Job comes to know God by acting upon his
conscience. It is through his works that Job pleases God because his works
show his sincerity, which God rewards by a personal encounter.
There are other examples, such as the widow of Sarepta, who
befriended Elijah and Naaman the Syrian, examples of God’s mercy and
love for non-Israelites with which Jesus scandalizes those who do not
accept him in his own town of Nazareth:
“Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. But in
truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah
when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there
came a great famine over all the land; and Elijah was sent to none of
them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was
a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the
prophet Elisha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the
Syrian.” (Luke 4:24–27)
Jesus clearly means that these good people were not Israelites in religion.
Indeed, Jesus says that the Prophet Elijah ‘was sent’ to the widow of
Sarepta—and this does suggest that she received a revelation from God,
which she accepted in faith (see 1 Kgs 17:24).
These examples are to warn us not to say that peoples of other
religions are unable to receive God’s grace and not to be complacent
because we have the fullness of truth as knowledge, existing in our minds as
ideas; if we have perfect knowledge, why are we not also perfect in works
and in thoughts, free from passion, and full of love for all people?
23 “St. Job the Righteous” is commemorated on 4th May in the Synaxarion or

Calendar of Saints.
MOSES AND THE LAW:

THE HEBREW THEOLOGY OF REVELATION
Before revealing himself finally in Christ, God made a revelation to the
people whom he had chosen, the seed of Abraham, who were to become
the nation of Israel. In this section, I shall show how important the
theology of this revelation is and that there is a teaching about the essence
and energies of God and even a theology of deification, deification, that is,
through the Torah or Law of Moses. There are many miles along the same
road which Jews and Christians can walk. However, the differences are also
important and have a direct bearing upon deification. It is not only that
Jews and Christians disagree that Jesus was the Messiah: the kind of savior
that Christians find in Jesus is strange to Judaism. These differences
concern not the value of the Law but the differing assessment of Man’s
capability to obey it. Christians and Jews have a different “anthropology” or
view of the human state.
The Old Testament has some very striking expressions to convey the
unknowability of God. The second of the Commandments bans the visual
representation of God in sculpted images using likenesses drawn from
what is in the heavens above or on the earth beneath or in the waters
under the earth. (Exod 20:4)
This commandment placed the Hebrew people in a completely different
category from the Canaanites, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians or from
the people of Egypt or Greece. All these peoples represent their gods in
their visual art and statues. The ban on visual representations is related to
the reason that God gives to Moses why he cannot be seen:
[God] said “You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.”
(Exod 33:20)
It is totally inconsistent with the human state and dangerous for a human
being to “see” God. Not only can Man not represent God truly by images,
because such images would be untrue. God mercifully preserves Man from
a direct confrontation with his nature, because such direct knowledge
would be fatal.
There are already some important points about the Jewish experience
of God. Seeing God is excluded, with one mighty exception, that of Moses,
who had a partial vision of God, denied to the people of Israel. However,
God does speak to human beings. His voice can be heard. The word was
capable of describing the experience of God. Although the Jews were
forbidden to make statues and pictures of God, they could draw pictures of
him in words and works and record his word. The knowledge of God for
Judaism is in the word of God, and Israel’s theological statements are in
words; the Jews produced a great religious literature but no visual art.
The idea that “one cannot see God and live” does not, then, prevent
definite knowledge of God for the Jew. What we have seen so far is close to
the Orthodox idea of the unknowabilty of God’s essence. While the Jew
says “one cannot see God,” the Orthodox Christian says “one cannot know
God’s essence.” Orthodoxy has much more to say about the vision of God
than Judaism. However, it is close to Jewish theology, too, in its negative
theology about God. Negative theology, or apophaticism, is something that
we share with Judaism. In other words, both Orthodox theology and Jewish
theology describe God by saying what he is not (“negative theology”) or by
describing a range of ways in which God cannot be described
(apophaticism). 24
Hebrew theology has its own vocabulary which both corresponds with
and differs from the Orthodox language of essence and energy. The
Hebrew term closest to “incomprehensible essence” is “face,” in Hebrew,
panim. Moses spoke with God “face to face.” However, there is a clear
distinction between conversing “face to face” and seeing God’s face.
Emboldened by his love for the Lord, Moses dared to “know your ways”
(Exod 33:13). Moses goes further! He says:
“Oh, let me behold your glory.” (Exod 33:18) 25
“Glory,” in Greek doxa, is the usual English translation for the divine
kabod. 26 This word is used in Jewish biblical theology to describe the
presence of God and is associated with the pillar of fire and cloud
manifested to the people of Israel. It is only approachable by the few. The
kabod cannot tolerate sin or impurity. In the manifestation on Mount Sinai,
there are varying grades of ascent of the mountain, nearer to the kabod.
These grades of ascent were later incorporated into the architecture of the
Temple, with the Most Holy Place or Holy of Holies as the place of the
throne of the kabod, glory or presence. God lets Moses see the kabod or as
much of it as is safe for him, placing him in the cleft of a rock, so that he
may see God’s “back parts (Exod 33:23).” Even Moses, the friend of God
(Exod 33:11), cannot get too close to the kabod. Still less is it safe for the
24 “Apophaticism” derives from two Greek words, apo meaning “away from”
and phemi meaning “to speak.”
26 Kabod is a Hebrew word which has the sense of “weight.”
people. When Moses “goes in” to the Tent where God’s glory descended,
he acquired temporarily the light of God’s glory, with his face shining. This
glory was lethal to the rest of the people, so that, for their sakes, Moses
wears a veil (Exod 34:35). Moses has, as it were, become like God. For
Jews, this knowledge of God given to Moses is unique in the history of the
world.
We do therefore have in Jewish theology something which
corresponds to the essence-energies distinction of Orthodox Christianity.
While on the one hand “face” panim is like the incomprehensible essence,
on the other hand the Goodness of God which passes Moses by in the cleft
of the rock has affinities with the Orthodox idea of the uncreated energies.
The glory or kabod is partly knowable and partly unknowable. One might
describe it as an uncreated energy, in that it is the manifestation of God to
his people in the world, rather than God as he is in himself. Its menacing,
or transfiguring, quality, depending upon the state of the recipient, reminds
one of the Uncreated Light of God, which becomes a fire to sinners.
There is also, however, a big difference between the Jewish theology
of God’s presence and that of the Orthodox uncreated energies. Judaism
stresses the uniqueness of Moses. Only Elijah had a comparable experience,
repeating the sight of God’s glory from the cleft in the rock and finding
God, not in the thunder and fire nor by seeing God’s glory, but by hearing a
gentle voice, in which the Lord was found (1 Kgs 19:12). The New
Testament perspective is that all human beings may experience the divine
glory, through faith in Jesus Christ and the operation of the Holy Spirit. In
the Old Testament, Moses acts as an intermediary between God and his
people, standing between them and God. Christ’s mediation is different. In
the Incarnation, the human nature has been brought into union with the
divine nature. If we are “in Christ,” then we come into union ourselves with
the divinity through our union with the Union 27 of God and Man in Christ.
Biblical Judaism had a different idea of deification, that is, the imitation
of God by following his commandments, commandments that reveal
something of God’s nature.
The Hebrew root for “holy,” q-d-sh, has the sense of being set apart.
The Hebrews shared this idea with other people. The word is cultic and
expresses the setting aside of a person or animal or object for sacred use; in
sacrifice, for example, the animal is set apart for the god. The highest cultic
27 In Orthodox theology the expression for Union is either henosis, oneness,
(following St. Cyril of Alexandria a 4th century Father), or “Hypostatic Union,” that
is, a union brought about with a human nature by the Divine Person of the Word
or Son of God (following the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon, 451).
act in Israel was the holocaust, or whole-burnt-offering, in which the animal

was totally consumed by fire. When the priest set his hands upon the head
of the beast, he was indicating its setting apart. This action involves the idea
of substitution. Man cannot offer himself to God totally, even to death, but
he can express his wish, by substitution, to be totally dedicated to God.
In the remarkable chapter 19 of the Book of Leviticus, called by
scholars the Holiness Code, something higher than animal sacrifice is
taught. This remarkable group of chapters has its own style and formulae.
In English, the most obvious is the frequent repetition, after a group of
commandments, of the clause,
“For I, the Lord your God, am holy.” (Lev 19:2)
The Holiness Code taught the people of Israel to be dedicated or “holy” to
God in every detail of their lives, individually, in relation to one another and
in their relation to the nation as a whole:
“You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation [goy kadosh].”
(Exod 19:6)
Leviticus 19, entitled Kedashim, presents the Law in terms of holiness:
“You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy.” (Lev 19:2)
The rabbis saw this chapter as a summary of the Law and comment as
follows:
“Speak to the entire Israelite people and say to them …” (Lev 19:2)
These words show that this section is to be read before the whole
people of Israel in an assembly. And why is it to be read before the
people in an assembly? Because most of the essential laws of the Torah
can be derived from it. 28
While referring to the Ten Commandments, this chapter commands care
for the poor and the stranger, respect for the disabled, social justice,
honesty in commerce, and love of neighbor. The people are told not to bear
grudges and not to deal with an enemy spitefully:
“You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kinsman
so as not to incur guilt on his account. You shall not take vengeance or
bear a grudge against your kinsman. Love your neighbor as yourself.”
(Lev 19:17–18)
28 Rabbi Hujya, cited in Baruch Levine, Leviticus, 124.

There exists, then, a theology of deification in the Hebrew Scriptures,

based on the idea of the “imitation of God” though obedience to the
Torah. The Torah demanded not only outward obedience but an attitude of
love that comes from the heart. Love of Torah developed into the
reverential study of Torah, which is an aspect of contemporary Judaism’s
idea of worship. In the Torah, God has become the light that enlightens
every man and holds the place that the Incarnate Word has for Christians.
The Jewish theology of revelation is very similar to that of Eastern
Orthodoxy. In both, the nature is unknown but God is known by his
energies. Moses Maimonides (1135–1204) summarizes the knowledge that
can be had of God:
That first and greatest of all thinkers, out teacher Moses, of blessed
memory, made two requests and both his requests were granted. His
first request was when he asked God to let him know His essence and
nature; the second, which was the first in point of time, was when he
asked Him to let him know His attributes. God’s reply was to promise
that He would let him know all His attributes, telling him at the same
time that they were His actions. Thereby He told him that His essence
could not be apprehended in itself. But also pointed out to him a
starting point from which he could set out to apprehend as much of
Him as man can apprehend. And indeed Moses apprehended more than
anyone ever did before him or after him. 29
In imitating God, the Jew imitates the divine energies and so becomes like
God in behaving as God does. As Moses Maimonides epitomizes his
tradition:
The highest virtue to which man can aspire is to become similar to God
as far as this is possible; that means that we must imitate His actions by
our own. 30
God’s holiness is itself an energy, since it describes God’s priestly
activity of setting apart a people and giving them the means of becoming
holy themselves:
“You shall be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated
you from the peoples that you should be mine.” (Lev 20:26)
The difference between Christianity and Judaism is often described as
Jewish legalism versus Christian freedom. However, this is a distorted
perspective. Legalism is possible in all religions, including Eastern
29 The Guide of the Perplexed, 71–72 §56.

30 Ibid., 76–77.
Orthodox Christianity, and may be defined as the human desire to justify

oneself by reference to rules of outward conduct. We have seen that the
Torah demands inner conversion and that its purpose was to consecrate its
people to God. Since the Torah is a revelation of God, Christianity cannot
dismiss it. Christ did not dismiss it but said that the Law must be fulfilled.
Christ opposed legalism and some of the later interpretations which rabbis
placed upon the Torah. St. Paul is famous for seeming to be anti-Torah.
However, just like his master, Jesus Christ, (Matt 5:17–18), he upheld it as a
divine revelation (Rom 3:2; 11:1–2, 12).
What, then, is the difference, in terms of deification, if both Judaism
and Christianity saw the Law as a true revelation from God and a “lamp for
the feet” (Ps 119 [LXX 118]:105)? One answer—a false one—is that
Christians, and especially Orthodox Christians, because of their liking for
“mysticism” have sought and found spiritual or inward experience, so that
they can dispense with the Law. This “antinomianism” 31 is un-Christian in
my view. St. Paul saw the experience of God’s glory as leading to conduct
worthy of it. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:1–7:28), Christ does not
get rid of the Law but demands a more wholehearted fulfillment of it. If
adultery is wrong, so is its root, lust and covetousness; 32 if murder is wrong,
so is its root, hatred. Christ repeats the Old Testament demand for holiness:
“Be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” (Matt 5:48)33
The real difference between Christianity and Judaism lay in
anthropology. In other words, Judaism and Christianity had differing ideas
of what it means to be anthropos or a human person. Judaism was and is
optimistic about the normal human state. Since God has given the Torah,
there is always a practical way to approach life religiously. If one has
wronged anyone or committed an offence against God, there was usually
something practical that one can do. A bad life can become a good life by
doing good things instead of bad things. The Jew saw the Torah as “do-
able.” Surely God would not have revealed the impossible to Man!
At the heart of the disagreement between Christian and Jew, as it
became clear during the period when the Christian Scriptures were being
31 That is, an attitude dismissive of law (Greek nomos) or regulation of human
conduct by law-codes, because of the conviction that a certain kind of relationship

to God makes obedience to law unnecessary.
32 Covetousness is first a thought in the mind or a desire for what belongs to
another. In the Ten Commandments, God already, in the Old Testament, teaches
that we should cut at the root of bad desires (Exod 20:17).
33 My translation.
written, was an argument about the human state. St. Paul’s teaching that the
Law cannot save needs careful examination. St. Paul’s point is that the fallen
human condition makes obedience to the Law impossible. In St. Paul’s view,
Christ has taken us to a different level, into a different realm, so that we
accept that becoming righteous before God is impossible without
incorporation into Christ by grace; this is the first stage of a total
transformation. St. Paul turned to Adam’s fatal choice as the explanation
for our human condition, and St. Paul’s influence has made Genesis 2–3
more important in Christian thinking than it is in Jewish thinking. In
Judaism, Genesis is the prelude to the giving of the Law. In Christianity, the
Law is the prelude to Christ. The revelatory truth of the Law enables us to
see ourselves truly, and this means to see our need for grace. For St. Paul,
the inadequacy of the Law to make us right before God makes it even
clearer that God has in Christ made provision for a complete renewal of
our situation through faith in Jesus Christ. St. Paul not only pointed to the
disease; he showed that its healing takes us to deification or knowledge of
God’s glory and a sharing in the energies of the Holy Spirit.
Judaism set forth an ethical deification by the imitation of God. Moses
is the teacher and lawgiver. Christianity sets forth a deification which is
none other than a sharing in the divine life, through grace. We are glorified
in Christ. For Orthodox Christians, Moses’ shining face and his friendship
with God is the significant thing about him. This is a different kind of
deification: it is our sharing in the light of God’s glory and our
transformation by transfiguration.
THE PROPHECIES OF FULFILLMENT IN CHRIST:

HOW THE OLD TESTAMENT SPEAKS OF CHRIST
AND THE MYSTERIES OF THE CHURCH
Christ is the end of the Law, the Prophets, and the other Writings of the
Old Testament, especially the Psalms. The sacred writers of the Old
Testament knew the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, but they knew what
was necessary for perfection—Christ—only in part. The overall purpose of
the Old Testament is found in Christ. Thus Christ on the road to Emmaus
opened to the grieving disciples all the teachings in the Old Testament
about him. (Luke 24:25–27)If one asks why some particular texts are not
mentioned, it is because all of the Old Testament speaks of Christ. Just as
with the wonderful events of Christ’s life, so with the prophecies of him in
the Old Testament. There would not be enough books to convey them. In
the New Testament writers, the Fathers, and the hymns of the Church’s
liturgy, the Old Testament opens out into Christ. Since the Holy Spirit
works in the Church, the types or impressions and prophecies of Christ in

the Old Testament have not been completed, and there is still room for the
Church’s teachers, hymnographers, and iconographers to fill up the number
of the prophecies until all prophecy—that is, all teaching through the Holy
Spirit in the Church on earth—comes to an end on the Day of Judgment.
Our participation in the Old Testament is part of our deification, in that we
come to see God’s fulfillment of his purposes more and more clearly and
because we are being taught by the energies of the Holy Spirit.
Typology and prophecy have much in common and can sometimes not
be clearly distinguished from one another. Both involve the vision or theoria,
which comes from the grace of the Holy Spirit. In this sense they belong to
the deification of the interpreter as well as to that of the person who
receives the teaching. Consequently, “types” are often called “prophecies.”
In the Orthodox liturgies and in the Fathers, a single passage of
Scripture may represent typologically several realities. For example, the
encounter of Moses with the Lord in the Burning Bush represents
prophetically a number of things. First, it represents the Word or Logos of
God who spoke to Moses before his Incarnation in Christ. Secondly, it
represents the Incarnation, in that the fire of the Divinity did not destroy
the human nature but deified it just as the bush burned but was not
consumed (Exod 3:2). Thirdly, it prophesies the Virgin Birth, because the
womb of the Virgin Mary was not burnt by the fire of the divine nature but
was able to give birth to God. This multilayered understanding of the Bible
is not forced: it reflects a single general principle—that is, that human life
can receive the divine uncreated energy without being destroyed by its fire.
Just as the bush burned but was not consumed, so can we be deified by the
uncreated energy.
Prophecy, 34 strictly speaking, is the inspiration of a person to predict the
coming of Christ and the events of his life. It involves foresight; it looks
forward from a distant past to the Age of the Church. Thus Isaiah predicted
the Virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14:
Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name
Immanuel;
Psalm 22 (LXX 21) predicts the Passion of Christ:
They have pierced my hands and my feet… They stare and gloat over
me; they divide my garments among them; for my raiment they cast lots
(Ps 22:16–18, LXX Ps 21, see Matt 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34).
34 The word is derived from phemi, to speak, and pro, in advance: thus “predict.”
This does not mean that these passages did not have an application to
Israelites at the time when the prophetic oracles were uttered. The former
(Isa 7:14) refers to the menace of the Assyrians and the time when this
threat will recede. The latter (Ps 22) describes the condition of the
persecuted tsaddiq: it is the righteous man’s prayer as he is pursued by his
enemies. However, the historical application does not exhaust the meaning,
and there is a surplus of meaning which was realized in the fulfillment of
the prophecies.
This view of the Old Testament is not restricted, confessionally, to the
Orthodox Church. For example, an honest and skilled contemporary
Protestant scholar, Craig Blomberg, can say that, although Isaiah 7:14 does
have reference to the political dilemma of ancient Israel, it must be seen as
part of a larger passage about the coming of “Immanuel” (“God with us”),
who is the “Mighty God” (Isa 9:6):
By the time one reaches Is 9:6 … in no sense can this prophecy be
taken as less than messianic or as fulfilled in a merely human figure. So
it is best to see a partial, proleptic fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in his
time, with the complete and more glorious fulfillment in Jesus own
birth. 35
Typology is slightly different: it is the inspiration to be able to see
backwards how certain events have a more than literal meaning and point in
some way to Christ. An example of this is the liturgical imagery of baptism
expressed in terms of the crossing of the Red Sea by Moses and his people.
The typological sense is the most common form of theoria in the
Church. It takes an event and sees its significance as an impression or image
of a greater reality fulfilled in Christ.
THE SAINTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

I have said a great deal that is positive about the Old Testament Prophets’
knowledge of God during their earthly lives and how the Church uses the
Old Testament to express its faith in Christ, because there is in the Old
Testament knowledge of the mysteries of the New Testament. However, I
doubt if I have dispelled a certain nagging unease about the Old Testament.
These Old Testament “Saints” were warriors as well as men of God. They
showed ruthlessness in destroying their enemies by war. Even the Prophets
were capable of great slaughter. Elijah killed all the Prophets of Baal (1 Kgs
18:40). Samuel opposed Saul’s clemency to a defeated king and, having
35 Craig C. Blomberg, Matthew, 60. “Proleptic means “in advance.”

rebuked Saul, killed the prisoner with his own hand (1 Sam 15:33). As a
result of examples such as these, the solution of Marcion in the second
century might seem to have some advantages!
The Orthodox Church, however, takes the Prophets’ knowledge of the
uncreated energies seriously and consistently by commemorating Old
Testament characters in the Synaxarion or calendar of the Saints. Thus,
Moses the God-Seer is celebrated on September 4, Elijah the Prophet and
Isaiah the Prophet on July 20, Hosea on October 17, and “Righteous
Joshua, son of Nun” on September 1. If they are in the Synaxarion they have
been deified; we can make icons of them, revere them, and pray to them to
intercede for us to Christ. However, it is not correct to say that these
“friends of God” from the Old Testament were perfected by the knowledge
of God which they had during their earthly existence. Deification is only in
Christ—that is, in the Word and Son of God Incarnate. They died and their
souls went to the place of the dead (Hebrew Sheol, Greek Hades). There they
awaited the coming of the Messiah Jesus Christ to that place. After his
death on the cross but before he appeared on earth to his disciples as the
Risen Lord, Christ visited the place of the dead, bound Satan and destroyed
the power of death. He brought out from that place the souls of Adam and
Eve and all the Patriarchs and Prophets and took them to Heaven to be
with God the Father and the holy angels. This was a decisive stage in the
deification of the Old Testament friends of God, the perfection of which
will take place when their souls are united to their glorified bodies, along
with all the Saints, at the end of the Age, on the Last Day.
Joshua the Righteous, son of Nun, is a good example of the problem
with seeing the Old Testament friends of God as Saints in the full Christian
sense on the basis of the knowledge they had of God in their time. Is not
the biography of Joshua that of a military leader? He massacred all the
inhabitants of the cities of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6:21; 8:21, 24–25, 29) and
understood the killing of the old, women, and children in these cases as an
act of obedience to the divine word. The total destruction was a kind of
sacrifice to God, the herem (Josh 6:17). It was practised by the peoples
contemporary with the Israelites in the Near East in Joshua’s time. These
events are a real challenge to Christian sensibilities.
In a book found among the later Jewish writings in Greek, the
Wisdom of Solomon (1st century B.C.), shows awareness of the problem of
Joshua’s massacres. This book explains that the Canaanites were a cruel and
wicked people. Nevertheless, the Lord offered them a chance to repent.
The fall of their citadels, Ai and Jericho, were warnings. The Canaanites
were destroyed slowly or brought under subjection to the Israelites:
Judging them little by little, thou gavest them a chance to repent. (Wis
12:10)
Joshua was not just a fierce general. He was the worthy successor to
Moses, who also had a meeting with the Lord, when the “captain of the
hosts of the Lord” (Josh 5:13–15) appeared to him. In some sense this was
an experience of the Lord himself, as we are reminded when Joshua is told,
like Moses before the Burning Bush: “Put off shoes from your foot; for the
place where you stand is holy” (Josh 5:15). Also in comparison with Moses,
Joshua leads his people across the Jordan which parts so that the Israelites
cross “on dry ground.” Joshua was also a theologian, able in his last speech
to put together the history of God’s gracious energies from Terah,
Abraham’s father, through the history of the patriarchs to the redemption
of Abraham’s offspring from Egypt, concluding with the recent victories
over the inhabitants of Canaan (Josh 24:2–15, 19–28). Joshua forms an
accurate conception of God as “jealous” (Josh 24:19)—that is, as having a
burning personal desire to possess Israel exclusively. Joshua prophesies
Israel’s future failure to meet God’s demands and falls into idolatry (Josh
24:19–20). Although this mitigates the picture of the ferocious warrior, it
also reminds us that the Prophets were capable of killing on these very
grounds of the Lord’s jealousy, just as Elijah killed the Prophets of Baal and
Samuel opposed Saul’s clemency.
The Bible and the Fathers do have answers to these difficulties. First,
the Letter to the Hebrews provides the basis for a general answer. The
sacred writer uses the picture of a race in an athletic competition. The
spectators are the righteous ones of the Old Testament, the “so great cloud
of witnesses.” They are proven in their faith but “did not receive what was
promised.” They remain imperfect until they are perfected along with those
who have faith in Christ, under the New Covenant (Heb 11:39–12:2). The
Prophets and righteous ones only became Saints fully when they were able
to share in the Church. Hebrews in turn develops the idea of St. Paul that
“Christ is the end”—that is, the purpose and perfection—“of the Law.” St.
John Chrysostom comments:
For if Christ be the “end of the Law,” he that has not Christ, even if he
seem to have righteousness, has it not. 36
The “righteous” of the Old Testament did not become Saints—that is,
perfected and deified in their earthly lives—since then they had insufficient
knowledge. They did not have Christ, the Word Incarnate. The unincarnate
36 Homilies on Romans, Homily 17, NPNF, PNF(1), XI, 472.

Word then, was not enough for complete deification, since deification is
only in Christ, the Incarnate God. Joshua, then, after he had died went to
Hades or Sheol, the place of the dead, where his spirit waited hopefully for
the coming of the Risen Christ to release him, along with Adam and the
Patriarchs, and to take them to Heaven, where they are now Saints. 37
Here is the answer to the violence of God’s friends in the Old
Testament. One Orthodox Father St. Nikodemus of the Holy Mountain
(18th century) went so far as to say that, had Adam not fallen, his deification
would still have been in Christ—that is, in the incarnate Word. 38 Already in
Adam’s walk with God there is the beginning of an Incarnation: that is, the
Word manifests himself in human and bodily form in order to meet Adam
in the body. However, this Incarnation would have been without the cross.
As it is, living in a violent world, ourselves violent, we have to be saved
through the cross. It is only in the cross and the grace which comes from
Christ’s suffering that we can, in Christ, love our enemies and “resist not
evil” (Matt 5:39) in this violent world. It is through Christian discipleship
even to the cross that the righteous of the Old Testament are perfected.
The limitations of Joshua in terms of his life and the deification in his
person does not, however, mean that his story did not in a mysterious way
point forward to Christ. Tertullian in his third book against Marcion has
already shown that his opponent cannot be consistent in rejecting the Old
Testament while calling the Savior “Christ” or “Messiah.” Tertullian goes
further. Marcion shows that the name “Jesus,” which Marcion would like to
keep, is prophesied in the Old Testament and belongs to the Jewish
revelation. Without the Old Testament, the very name of Jesus would not
have a meaning.
We are the “second people” born in the desert of this age whom Jesus
Christ was to bring into the land of promise full of milk and honey—
that is the possession of eternal life than which there is nothing sweeter.
37 One might say “not all the righteous” of the Old Testament were sanctified
in their earthly lives. However, there were some prophets who were closer to Christ
than others even in their day; for example, the Prophet Isaiah’s book is often called
The Fifth Gospel. Moses had the character of an Orthodox Saint: he was humble and
a friend of God, who desired God’s presence.
38 The arguments are summarized by Metropolitan Nafpaktos Hierotheos, The
Feasts of the Lord, 357–367, “The divine incarnation as independent of the fall.”
Metropolitan Hierotheos presents this as a contemporary issue, since the early
Fathers were concerned with Man as he was, in his fallen state. It is an example of
the life and boldness of Orthodox theology and shows that it is not static and
intellectually dead.
This did not arrive through Moses, that is, the discipline of the Law but
through Jesus, through the grace of good news, by our circumcision on
the edge of a rock—the rock being Christ. 39
God gave Joshua a new name, Yehoshua, or Joshua “The Lord saves” (Num
3:16), to replace his former similar-sounding name Hoshea, which mean
“Salvation.” In the Greek-Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which
the early Greek Fathers used, the name Joshua (later pronounced in
Aramaic Yeshu or Yeshua) was written Iēsous, that is “Jesus.” Tertullian’s
point is clearer if we know this information. When he circumcised the
people again, after all the circumcised who had wandered in the wilderness
had died because they lacked faith in the promise, Joshua was a type or
impression of the greater reality to come. This “Jesus son of Nun”
superseded Moses, and in this renewal of circumcision unconsciously
pointed forward to the one greater than Moses, Christ, who brings a new
circumcision. In the interpretation of the deeper significance of Joshua’s
life, the rule is that “Christ is the end of the Law.”
As a teacher, Tertullian did not recommend Christians of his own time
to imitate the ferocity of Joshua the war-leader, but to discern a Christian
sense appropriate for their souls: Joshua was a type of the Christian Church
to come in the future. This deeper sense than the literal, which needs
spiritual vision to discern, is something that we need to take on board as we
progress in the spiritual life. It is not the way for beginners and should not
be used as part of Orthodoxy’s reasoned defense of the Faith to an
unbelieving world—that is, for apologetics. However, the spiritual sense is
taught by the Orthodox Church to be a true dimension of Scripture and not
something we should remove in the name of modernization. It is part of
the discipline of the secret, 40 the mystical truths which the Church holds to be
part of the life of those becoming perfect in Christ.
39 Against Marcion, NPNF, ANF, III, 399; but in this version the translation is
garbled as a result of being slavishly literal. The English version above from the
original Latin is mine from Contre Marcion, Livre III, SC no. 399, 142–145. Figura is
the equivalent of the Greek typos. Tertullian was already following a previously-
established method of interpreting the Bible, that of St. Justin Martyr, see ibid.,
290–291.
40 The discipline of the secret (disciplina arcani) was a Catholic theory about why the
earliest Fathers did not explain the Church doctrines as fully as the later Fathers: it
was because they were unwilling to reveal in public debate mysteries which were
reserved for the faithful—until the challenge of heresy made it absolutely
unavoidable, see Selby, The Principle of Reserve in the Writings of John Henry Newman, for
a detailed account.
EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER 5: ADAM OUR ANCESTOR?

I have been frequently referring to a “before” and an “after” situation,
using the language in a kind of narrative. There was for Man a “before,”
when humankind was in a primordial state of bliss. Then there was an
“after,” a point in our past after which things seem to have gone wrong, so
that we lost our original happiness with God. This “after” shows
humankind as sick and in need of healing; deification is that healing.
I have argued that the Bible has coherence as a whole, that it is an
orderly account which explains things in terms of what previously
happened and in terms of what are the real moving forces behind life. Thus
the Bible is, in some sense, a “history.” It is a unique kind of history with
God as the main character or agent, the subject of which is our salvation.
The present reader may find nagging at the back of his mind some
questions which did not occur so urgently to the Fathers. In the last two
centuries, there has been such a great upsurge in natural science and in
critical history that it is hard to repress such questions as: “Did Adam and
Eve really exist as historical individuals?” and, “Don’t we all believe in evolution
now, so that, although it might be possible to speak about the human race
evolving from lower forms of life, we can’t believe that God made one
individual man and one woman who were the ancestors of the whole
human race, can we?”
What is surprising is that recent Orthodox writers do not give straight
answers to these questions. Vladimir Lossky wrote a whole book about the
theology of our being made in the image and likeness of God without
touching upon these issues. 41 The same is true about a variety of
distinguished Orthodox writers: Staniloae has a discussion about the
“Primordial State”—that is, Man before the Fall. He explains the theology
of the human person and speaks in general about “Man” but does not say
anything about whether we are to interpret the narrative of Genesis 1–3 as a
true story about the individuals, Adam and Eve, who actually existed. 42 Is
the answer so obvious as not to need a discussion? Or are there no answers
to these questions? Is it sinful and wrong even to ask these questions?
I argue that these questions cannot be repressed because they are part
of what it means to be modern human beings, interested in historical
questions about human origins. At the same time, it is important to be
careful about the definition of “a human being.” Scientists have to use a
41 Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God.

42 D Staniloae, The Experience of God. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, II, ‘Creation and
Deification,’ 103–12.
definition appropriate to the analysis of human remains, such as brain-size

or the nature of the posture indicated by the spinal cord. In medical science,
the conflict between Orthodoxy and science is at its most acute with regard
to the definition of a human being. Ideas of fetal development are used to
define the point at which a child in the womb is not human for the
purposes of legal definitions to enable abortions to be described in another
way than as murder.
The text of Genesis 1–3 has been crucial in providing the basis for a
theological definition of the human person. From these early texts in
Genesis are derived important revealed ideas which define humanity in a
particular way: that Man was made in the image and likeness of God; that
humanity was good in both soul and body; that Man was created good; and
that human wickedness and godlessness is not natural to humanity; that
humanity has a capacity for good. These theological ideas have practical
consequences. They therefore cannot be kept in a religious world
completely separate from other kinds of knowledge that we now have.
However, the literary form of Genesis 1–3 is not history in the
modern or even the ancient sense. Although not a history, there is a real
question about whether or not Genesis 1–3 contains some historical facts.
“History” is a tricky word, because it can mean two important and different
things. It can mean a way of investigating and writing about the past—that
is, what historians did or now do. Secondly, “history” and “historical” can
mean “about something that actually happened.” I do not have to be a
historian to say that my father actually existed and that I knew him: my
father had an historical existence, but his story is not to be found in any
history book, because he was not a famous person. It is in this second sense
that Genesis 1–3 might be “historical” in possibly being about people who
really did exist once in a state of blessedness. Does, then, Genesis 1–3
preserve an authentic memory about the lives of actual individual human
beings, about the first human beings? If the answer is “Yes,” then the
beginning of our salvation history still really is “history,” in the sense that it
started with some real people and can form part of that history which the
Bible narrates and which the Church’s liturgical cycle expresses, along with
the tradition about Abraham, Moses, the Prophets, and the coming of the
Word and Son of God in the flesh.
The Orthodox Church has made no dogmatic definitions about human
origins. We have dogmas of the “Theology”—that is, what is strictly about
God, about persons of the Trinity, and the two natures of Christ. We do
not have a dogma about human anthropology, that is, about the process by
which human beings originated. A situation has arisen in which “Adam” is
used by Orthodox theologians as a rather general term to mean “Man in his

fallen aspect,” and there has so far been an unwillingness on the part of
theologians to give a defined teaching, precisely because their Church does
not have an Ecumenical Council on the subject to which they can refer.
It follows that in my attempt to review this question, I am not giving
the teaching of the Church with the same confidence as when I speak of
the person of Christ, his divinity and human nature, and of the doctrine of
the Trinity. With Christology and the Trinity, the teaching of Ecumenical
Councils is supported by the thinking of the very Fathers who advocated
these teachings against heresy. There is a long history of upholding these
teachings, for over a millennium from the time when they were first made
dogmas of the Church in the fourth century. By contrast, the
anthropological, archeological, and biological issues raised by science are
just over a century old, and there is still a lively scientific debate about how
to solve the issue of human origins. Various scientific theories crowd the
stage. Evolution from lower forms of life is the dominant theory in the
popular consciousnesses, although this theory takes a variety of forms.
The place to start is the Bible itself and to see what are the best
possible interpretations of the text. I shall be working with the idea that the
Bible is divinely inspired but that the truths revealed by the Bible are not
always historical truths and that the Bible is not to be interpreted literally
throughout.
We may still wonder if the whole narrative of Genesis 2:4–3:22 is a
parable, containing no kernel of historical truth at all. In other words, the
narrative expresses in a metaphorical way certain truths about our human
condition. Although this solution has been fashionable in Liberal Protestant
writings, 43 Origen first suggested that, because of the many symbolic
details, the whole Adam-Eve narrative is a sort of parable: The story never
took place in the body; rather the story discloses certain mysteries. 44
However, this is not a solution to the issue in Orthodox terms. This is
because, in addition to interpreting the narrative symbolically, the Eastern
Fathers also very often refer to the narrative as a history of true events. This
is especially the case concerning the literal existence of a pair of human
beings, one male, one female, created directly by God. This is hardly
surprising, since it is probably the case that St. Paul did believe that Adam
existed historically. There was no reason not to believe this, because neither
43 For example, the work of Paul Tillich, see Systematic Theology, 2, 29–44, about
“the symbol of the fall.”
44 See Chapter 5, 100.
St. Paul nor the Eastern Fathers had thought of the theory of evolution of
humankind from earlier nonhuman humanoid species.
Today as in Origen’s time (3rd century A.D.), it is easier to say what
kind of a narrative Genesis 1–3 is not than to say what kind of writing it is.
The kind of writing, the genre of the narrative, is very important in
determining meaning. Who today would want to confuse a fable with a
statement of fact? I can tell you what I consider that Genesis 1–3 is not. It is
not historiography—that is, history-writing, or the kind of writing that
historians do. In the ancient Near East, people knew what history in this
sense was. 45 It also predates the kind of science which we now practice. It is
not science, then. Genesis 1–3 does make some important claims about
reality as a whole: for example, that God made the world in an orderly
fashion, and that it was originally good. But the literary forms of the writing
suggest some other purpose than the language of science, with its charts
and mathematical formulae.
Is, then, Genesis 1–3 myth? The most recent analyses of Genesis,
based upon the structure holding together the various literary devices, refer
to the method of interpretation known as poetics 46 or, sometimes,
rhetorical criticism. Scholars of Genesis are dissatisfied with the category of
“myth.” No one can agree on a definition of myth that applies to the Bible.
This is not surprising, since myths were stories from the Greek rather than
the Semitic world. The word “myth” is also useless now, when writing
nontechnically, since it has come to mean “what is untrue,” as, for example
in books entitled President X: the Man and the Myth.
One thing is becoming clearer in the most recent research on the
Hebrew text: far from being a primitive text or a patchwork of sources,
Genesis 1–3 is an advanced piece of writing! There is a sense in which it is
such a subtle piece of work that it is still too advanced for us! Only very
45 The following elements are found in ancient accounts: (1) the idea of a true
event as opposed to an event that did not happen; (2) extended narratives, dated
according to the reigns of monarchs; (3) use of preexisting sources; (4) the ability to
distinguish the customs of earlier cultures as different; (5) the keeping of archives;
(6) an educated class of scribes. The educated scribes of Israel were capable of
critical evaluation of national history; see Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Cultures and
the making of the Hebrew Bible, 160–162, 171, for the “History edition” of the Book of
Deuteronomy.
46 See Waltke, Genesis, 33–34; Dorsey, Literary Structure of the Old Testament, 15–
44, 48–51.
recently has work in the analysis of the literary structure of the Old
Testament begun to show us what a complex web has been woven. 47
At the very heart of Genesis 1–3 and the recapitulation of 1:26–27 in
5:1–3 is the subtlety of the Hebrew writer’s use of adam. The word can
mean, very generally, “Man” or humankind. In Genesis 2 the writer was
able to make a pun upon man–earth, since adam means Man or the man and
adamah means earth or soil. The name adam also appears in ancient Near
Eastern texts as a personal name. 48 In Hebrew, it is impossible to decide
whether the general sense of “Man” was earlier than the personal name
“Adam” or whether it was the other way around and “Adam” later came to
have a general meaning, symbolizing Man. The first occurrence of adam in
the Bible is in the general sense; it means “Man,” humanity:
Then God said, “Let us make adam in our image (tsellem), according to
our likeness (demuth) ….” So God created the adam in his own image
(tsellem). He created him in the image (tsellem) of God. He created them
male and female. 49 (Gen 1:26–27)
The Hebrew theology of this passage necessitates adam as a general concept of
humankind, shared equally by men and women. What is clear in Hebrew is
that adam is a concept about humanity in Genesis 1.
Equally clear from Genesis 2–5 is the fact that adam could also have the
currency of a proper, personal name, “Adam,” just like “Cain,” “Abel,” “Seth,”
“Enoch,” or “Kenan.” While these personal names may have originally had
some religious meaning, as Near Eastern personal names usually did, 50 they
denote individuals who pass on their seed by generation to their sons and
are recorded in the genealogical lines marked by the expression sepher
todeloth, “the book of generations.” These lists form an important structural
role in the Book of Genesis 51 and occur at regular intervals throughout the
book. The first genealogy is that of the line of adam, which implies
propagation and so personal individuality, as in 5:1, for which 4:1 has
prepared us:
47 See Dorsey, Literary Structure.

48 Hamilton, Genesis, 160.
49 My translation.
50 A good example is Elijah, which means “My god is the LORD.” Enoch means
Man.
51 The todeloth headings appear at Gen 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19,
36:1, and 37:2, and all follow with an account of the line of an ancestor, naming the
descendants specifically. There is the exception of Gen 2:4, where todeloth refers to
the line of the heavens and the earth.
And the adam knew his wife, Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain.
(Gen 4:1) 52
It is still just possible to translate this as “the man,” but it can hardly be
translated as “Humankind lay with his wife.” It is probably best translated
“Adam knew his wife Eve,” but it could be translated “The man knew his
wife Eve.” Consequently, we must take the first generation-list as having for
its ancestor the individual, “Adam”: “This is the book of the generations of
‘Adam.’” Whether we translate “the man” or “Adam,” Genesis 2 uses the
Hebrew word adam in a different sense from Genesis 1. However, unlike
the translations, the Hebrew word remains the same though the concept
changes. The result is that the Hebrew text conveys a sense that Man in
general and human beings in particular are closely related. This is part of the
subtlety of the text, which is untranslatable.
The Hebrew writer’s masterstroke occurs at the beginning of Genesis
5 with his identification of the story of the fall of adam, that is, of the
human race, with an early genealogical list about individuals:
This is the book of the generations of adam. When God created adam, he
made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them and
he blessed them and named them adam when they were created. When
adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son
in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of
adam after he became the father of Seth were 80 years and he had other
sons and daughters. Thus all the days that adam lived were 930 years;
and he died. (Gen 5:1–5) 53
The sacred writer interpolates into these verses a repetition of God’s
creation of adam in his image and likeness from the very first chapter (Gen
1:28). The result is that adam has both a general and a particular meaning.
The general and the particular are united in this passage. Adam is both
“humanity” and the patriarch who heads the list of generations. In the latter
sense, as patriarch, the proper name “Adam” occurs as the first father in
other patriarchal lists in the Bible (e.g., 1 Chr 1:1).
There is a very subtle touch: the omission of the doublet “image and
likeness” with regard to God and the substitution in Hebrew of “likeness” 54
to God alone, cleverly balanced with the addition of Adam’s human
begetting of Seth as “in the image and likeness” of Adam. It reminds the
reader how tragic the human condition has become. By the time Seth is
52 My translation.
53 My translation.
54 The LXX exceptionally translates demuth, “likeness,” here as eikon, “image.”
born, the murder of Abel and the banishment of Cain have already taken
place. Man is specifically less like God than he was before, and more like
the sons whom he begets. This perhaps suggests a shift in human
consciousness—that is, a fading of the sense of being very precisely like
God and an increase of the idea that as a human being one’s significance
consists in begetting children and living on through one’s offspring.
The word adam is consequently difficult to translate, and translations
show great variety. Contemporary Jewish commentaries allow only six
occasions when the personal name would be justified. One authoritative
Jewish translation does not translate adam as a personal name until God
announces the “curses” or prophecies about life in the world the expulsion
from Paradise. 55 All the Christian translations into English vary, starting
with “Man” and at some point breaking into “Adam” as the narrative
proceeds. 56 This lack of translation-consensus arises from something
untranslatable in the Hebrew text, to which I have referred; the author is
skillfully exploiting a double meaning of the word, producing an effect
upon the reader of the Hebrew which hovers between the general and the
specific.
The Jewish Septuagint translation of the third and second century B.C.
translates adam as the name of a person, “Adam,” in twenty of a possible
twenty-six instances. 57 This translation interprets the Hebrew as being
about an individual, someone called Adam by leaving the Hebrew word
untranslated into Greek, so that it has the effect of a proper noun. The
Septuagint is the official version of the Bible of the Greek Orthodox
Church, because it was the version used by most of the New Testament
writers and by all the early Greek Fathers. The Septuagint is part of the
tradition by which the Church is guided in interpreting Scripture. What is
remarkable in the case of Adam is that the Septuagint gives great weight to
the interpretation that Genesis 1–3 is about an individual who actually
existed, Adam, rather than a story about Man in general. The Septuagint
supports the idea that, although we do not have to take all the details of
Genesis 1–3 literally, the story does reflect the memory of what happened
to an individual as the result of his choice.
55 Stone Tanakh, the translation of the Jewish law, Prophets and Writings (that is
their Bible) by the Rabbi Irving Stone, Gen 3:17 “To Adam He said ….”
56 “Man” becomes “Adam” in the various translations as follows: AV, 2:19;
RSV, 3:20; NIV, 3:17; REB, 5:1.
57 Starting with God’s commands concerning the trees of life and knowledge,
Gen 2:16. By contrast the Stone Tanakh says, “Ha-Shem God commanded the man
….”
The idea of Adam as our ancestor in sin, who passed on his sin to the
whole of humankind, is a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament,
started by St. Paul. In Romans 5, St. Paul explains that just as “through
one,” all sinned, so also “through the one” Christ all are redeemed. St.
Paul’s teaching is based upon the idea that an individual action has serious
and far-reaching consequences. He gives Adam as an example of this:
Adam is a “type.” His example illustrates the whole history of mankind
until Christ. Adam did not sin alone. He sinned with his partner, the one
whom God had provided for him as friend and equal, “because it is not
good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2:18). He also sinned along with the
serpent, which represents in Orthodox thought the angels who had rebelled
from God and who were jealous of his creation of the man in Paradise.
Thus sin is also communal; we sin with others and as a result of what others
do.
Why, then, did not St. Paul say that we sinned “in Adam and Eve”? I
suggest that this is because St. Paul has in mind the consequences of sin for
humanity in general. Adam’s choice brought great disaster upon him—but
also upon the whole of the human race, because his sin had as its
consequence damage to our nature and the sickness of physical and spiritual
death, the consequences of sin. Adam passed on the disease by generation
through his seed. This inherited “disease” is not actual culpability from the
moment of our birth, but rather a damaged nature with a tendency to fall
away from God and to be unkind to people. The result was that, in practice,
all human beings actually do sin. St. Paul chooses Adam because he is
described as our ancestor. Since all the ancestral lists in the Old Testament
begin with him, St. Paul can show how great the consequences of an
individual’s actions can be. St. Paul is interested in the individual story of
Adam to explain the wider power of individual choice.
St. Paul teaches that we can never be “individuals” whose choices do
not affect the whole human race. There is a very hopeful idea at the end of
St. Paul’s arguments. This idea is that Jesus Christ, although an individual
person and “one man,” could by his actions repair the human nature as a
whole.
If we follow St. Paul, then the beginning of human salvation history is
the disobedience to God of one individual. This is not to say that Eve did
not sin, but to say that Man fell as the result of individual sin. A situation
that was first good was destroyed by a free act of individual people. St. Paul
could equally well have said that the terrible consequences—death,
murders, disease, alienation from God—were the result of Eve’s sin, as they
are according to the narrative. Adam has a representative function. He
becomes “typical” of us all, and so the term “Adam” means all of us. This is
how, I suggest, the personal name came to have a general sense. This
recognition of individual responsibility as having a very wide effect is
important to the state of mind necessary to receive salvation also through
the one man Christ. When we are united to Christ in faith and love—when,
that is, we are “in Christ”—we too are part of the positive process by which
the evil consequences to human nature are being reversed. Thus a holy life
lived in Christ need not necessarily involve great ascetical feats or
miraculous powers such as were given to some of the Saints by God. Life in
Christ can take a humble and apparently insignificant form and yet still be
part of the healing, not only of oneself as an individual, but also of the
whole human race.
I consider the key to the modern issues connected with this narrative
to be the idea that individual actions have very broad and lasting
consequences. Most consistent with this is the view that God made
humankind as individuals.
However, I accept that there are other ways of seeing the question.
Genesis 1–3 may be seen more generically as a narrative about human
decadence, the degeneration of a group or race by the collection of all the
bad decisions of a people put together. It is still, on this view, a story about
human choice. One may still see individual human beings as being
responsible for a collective decline by their choices, either through active
wrongdoing or passive acceptance. It can still be a story truly reflecting the
human desire for godlike power and for a morality independent of God,
“knowing good and evil” in a purely human way. No decadent or corrupt
society ever contains exclusively decadent people. However, even the
innocent are affected by the lives of the corrupt people who live around
them and by the corrupting atmosphere of a bad culture.
I have so far attempted to give the outline of an answer to the
challenge which modern historical understanding presents to anything but a
purely symbolic interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. 58 Now,
however, I turn to a more difficult problem: how to face the difficulties
posed by the popularly-held evolutionist picture of the universe, by which
life-forms are thought to have developed through “survival of the fittest.”
At the heart of this idea is cruelty through ruthless competition. Evolution
58 A purely symbolic interpretation would be that the early Genesis chapters do

not refer to any real events at all but are parables. I do not deny that the narratives
use symbols.
cannot fit a totally benevolent scheme: God would have been “doing evil
that good may come. (See Rom 3:8)
On the other hand, the evolution of life-forms according to the cruel
law of the survival of the fittest fits the damaged world after the Fall. Adam
and Eve’s choice had cosmic consequences even for the animals, who
became enemies of one another after the Fall. It was after the Fall that Man
and the animals were competitive with one another and preyed upon one
another, not before.
In conclusion, it is hard to conceive how any account of the origin of
Man in the creative will of God could be told in historical prose or in a
factual manner which would satisfy a scientist. However, this need not be in
opposition to the idea that there were actually individuals involved. The
person of Adam is placed at the beginning of the human race as we know it,
because the sacred writer understood that there was a link between the
story of Adam and Eve and ancestral history. It is for this reason that he is
our ancestor and can properly be placed at the beginning of Christian
salvation history. This is the simplest, straightest view: God created the
human person when he created the first human individuals, from matter
brought to life by a share in his Spirit. We look to the “before” to find out
how we should start to be now, “after” Paradise was first lost. The factual
element in the story prevents us from blaming the way we are on “human
nature.” We know that “human nature” does not predetermine the way we
are now. It is a damaged nature that accounts for our condition and
behavior—and the good news is that there is a way back to “human nature”
as it should be and can be. Paradise can be regained.
6 THE UNCREATED LIGHT OF MOUNT
THABOR
THE LIGHT OF GLORY

In the previous chapter, we have seen how the Orthodox tradition looks to
Moses in a different way from mainstream Judaism. In Judaism, the Law or
Torah is a light in that it shows one how to live a good life; it is a divinely
inspired set of commandments, which is a “lamp to the feet” (Ps 119 [LXX
118]:105]. While not denying the value of the Law, the Orthodox tradition
looks rather at the “face-to-face” relationship between Moses and God.
Moses did not see God’s face, but he did behold God’s glory. This glory
(Hebrew kabod, Greek doxa) was a light or fire, which was dangerous to
other Israelites but which Moses was privileged to see, because of his great
love of God. The glory of the Lord rested on the Cherubim-throne of the
Ark of the Covenant, a chest which contained the stone tablets of the Law
revealed to Moses and which was too holy even to touch. When Moses
went in to see the Lord’s glory and to converse with him, he was
transfigured by the light (Exod 34:29). When he came out, he had to wear a
veil, because his face was shining with the Light of Glory, so that for
anyone of the people of Israel, he was dangerous to look at directly (Exod
34:33–35).
When the Tent of the Meeting between Moses and God became
adapted to a fixed temple in Jerusalem, the innermost sanctuary, the Holy
of Holies, or the Most Holy Place, contained the Ark of the Covenant and
the Cherubim-throne. This part of the Temple was concealed from the rest
of the Temple by a thick curtain or veil, and only the High Priest entered
the Holy of Holies once a year.
The Light of Glory, then, in the Jewish Scriptures is an exceptional
experience. The Prophet Elijah also had a similar experience of God’s glory
(1 Kgs 19:11–12). However, for the ordinary good person, such an
experience was unthinkable.
141
With the coming of Christ, the experience of the Light of Glory was
given to three chosen Apostles on the Mountain, Mount Thabor: 1 to St.
Peter and to the sons of Zebedee, St. James and St. John (Matt 17:1–8;
Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36). 2 What was given to the Apostles here was for
all the faithful; therefore, we are promised in this life both the experience of
the light or energy of Christ’s divine nature and the fiery energies of the
Holy Spirit. This illumination is for all of us. The New Testament
expression for this experience is usually “glory,” following the Old
Testament translation of kabod, that is, doxa. We do not only give glory to
God: we also receive God’s glory.
In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, when Christ’s purpose
on earth has been accomplished by his death, an extraordinary event took
place: the veil of the Temple was rent from top to bottom (Matt 27:51;
Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). This event announced that we are now in the Age
in which God’s glory may be experienced much more widely, by all those in
the Church.
In the Orthodox tradition, this light is called the Thaboric Light or the
Uncreated Light of Mount Thabor and is a way of describing the experience
of grace. For this reason, this chapter will concentrate upon the amazing
event of the Transfiguration of Christ, which has a central place in
Orthodox thinking about grace, and what it still means for us now.
However, the Light of Glory appeared at other times in the New
Testament than at the Transfiguration of Christ upon the Mountain.
St. Luke’s Gospel describes an experience of God’s glory given to
some poor shepherds:
And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch
over their flocks by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them
and the glory of the Lord shone round about them. (Luke 2:8–9)
The vision of the heavenly host is given to poor people to show that we
have entered a period of time in which the glory of the Lord can be the
experience of humble and ordinary people as well as heroes of the faith.
The divine glory was also revealed to some very saintly people, such as
Simeon, a devout man who lived in expectation of the Kingdom of God.
When he saw the child Jesus, he did not see someone little and helpless, he
1 The NT accounts of the Transfiguration do not specify Mount Thabor. This

mountain does exist; it was a place of right worship in OT times (Deut 33:18–19)
but the naming of Thabor as the mountain of Christ’s Transfiguration belongs to
tradition (attested from 4th century onwards), see Anchor Bible Dictionary, Tabor.
2 In Greek, metamorphosis.
UNCREATED LIGHT OF MOUNT THABOR 143
saw his Messiah and declared that he could now depart this life in peace,
because he had experienced the fulfillment which he was awaiting. He
uttered prophetic words. Jesus is:
“a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to thy people Israel.”
(Luke 2:32)
St. Simeon was able to theologize exactly. The light was to be a “revelation
for the Gentiles,” an uncovering (apokalypsis) of what had been hidden from
them. St. Simeon is referring to the prophecy in Isaiah that God will give a
“light to the Gentiles” (Isa 42:6; 49:6; 60:3). For the Jews, on the other
hand, Simeon uses the well-known term for God’s manifestation in the
pillar of fire wreathed in smoke and for the Presence which settled upon the
Cherubim-throne—that is, “glory.” St. Simeon was able to teach the coming
of God’s glory to both Gentile and Jew.
As part of God’s providence, St. Paul experienced the light of God’s
glory. It was this experience that changed St. Paul from a persecutor of
Christians into an Apostle to the Gentiles. This was the providence of God
which Symeon foresaw.
The light of God’s glory also appeared at Pentecost as a fire which did
not burn the Apostles but rested upon them. This light endowed the
Apostles with the gifts of teaching which they needed to spread the Gospel.
Orthodox theology teaches that, through grace, it is possible, and even
normal, for any one of the faithful in the Church to see this light. For this
reason, the rite of baptism refers to the “illumination” of the person
baptized and initiated into the Church.
St. John the Theologian and Evangelist refers to Christ as the light
throughout his Gospel. Christ gave the blind back their sight in two senses.
First, he healed blind people. But secondly, he opened people’s eyes
spiritually. In the case of the healing of the “man born blind from birth,”
there is a double restoration of sight, because the man not only regains his
physical sight; he is also able to see the importance of Jesus and to stand up
to the synagogue authorities, who, exasperated by his boldness of speech,
cast him out (John 9:1–38). Christ is the “light of the world” (John 8:12),
not only because he brings moral enlightenment, but because he brings the
light of God’s glory into our experiences, transforming us.
The idea of the Uncreated Light of God being experienceable even in
this life is one which many Christians might find rather too much of a
claim, at least for this earthly life. The Salvation Army has a beautiful
expression for death, for falling asleep in the Lord—that is, “promoted to
glory.” It expresses the idea that glory is what we experience after death but
not in this life. The Orthodox Christian teaching about the Thaboric light as
being part of our present Christian experience might seem to introduce a
foreign mysticism into Christianity. We know that, in the Hellenistic world
of the time of Jesus and the New Testament writers, light-experiences were
associated with all kinds of Greek religions. Moreover, there is St. Paul’s
warning that “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor
11:14). A certain reserve about the experience of light, and some doubts
about it, are therefore justified. The concerns of Bible-Christians about
what Orthodox Christians are claiming do deserve some justification on the
Orthodox side.
It will, I hope, be reassuring if I review the manifestations of light to
which I have already referred, in order to draw attention to the ways in
which they differ from light-mysticism in general and from the light of the
Greek mystery religions.
Firstly, the light is personal. It is the energy of God which envelopes
those who are in glory. The world of glory is a peopled world. Thus the
manifestation to the shepherds was of the host of angels who were praising
God (Luke 2:13). To the shepherds was revealed the communion of the
Saints in Heaven.
Secondly, the Light is part of God’s providence and belongs to his
revelation in history. The manifestation of the Uncreated Light in the New
Testament is a fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.
Thirdly, there has been a better understanding of New Testament
eschatology in the last century. The “eschaton” means “the last thing” and
refers to the Age to Come which will eventually replace this world on the
Day of Judgment. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there was a
tendency to see the “eschaton” as being entirely in the future, and some
sects tried to predict the time when the world would end; which even
Christ, in his human nature, declared was not within his knowledge (Matt
24:36). Careful attention to expressions such as “eternal life,” “the
Kingdom of God,” and “the Kingdom of Heaven” has shown that they are
partly fulfilled in the present earthly life of Christians. “Eternal life” means,
literally, “the life of the New Age” or the Age to Come (zoe aionios), but
there are times when it clearly refers to the present, as in the case of Jesus’
words to the woman at Jacob’s Well (John 4:14) and in most cases in St.
John’s Gospel. The “eschaton” arrived in Jesus because Jesus was the
fulfillment of all things, and in him all things are united and recapitulated.
Therefore, as Christians we partly live in the New Age even though the old
Age of this world continues.
We realize the last things now, for example, in receiving the Holy
Spirit, because one of the prophecies of the Age to Come was that the Holy
Spirit would be poured out on all flesh—that is, that all people would have
the capacity to prophesy:
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon
all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men
shall dream dreams, and you young men shall see visions. Even upon
the menservants and the maidservants, in those days, I will pour out my
spirit. (Joel 2:28–29)
In his First Letter to the Thessalonians, St. Paul shows this balance of
future with present eschatology. There was some anxiety about “those who
have fallen asleep,” those who had died before the final coming of Christ in
glory to judge the world. St. Paul teaches that the Thessalonians should not
grieve because the people who have died will rise again on the Last Day (1
Thess 4:13–17). However, St. Paul also teaches that there is a sense in
which they should be living partly in the state of the “eschaton”:
But you are not in darkness, brethren, for that day to surprise you like a
thief. For you are all sons of light and sons of the day. (1 Thess 5:4)
St. Paul teaches that the Day of Judgment should not be something alien
and totally new to believers in Christ, because of the light that they are
experiencing. This light or grace is itself eschatological. This is how the Orthodox
tradition sees the experience of the Uncreated Light: it is the result of the
fact that we have all been made into potential Prophets and can anticipate
in our experience the future glory, just as the Old Testament Prophets
experienced by anticipation the future coming of Christ and knew Christ in
some sense.
THE TRANSFIGURATION IN THE GOSPELS

The Transfiguration contains the Orthodox teaching about our experience
of deification which is possible in our earthly lives. In the three Gospel
accounts, of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (Matt 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke
9:28–36), 3 it is linked with a previous occasion on which, after St. Peter had
3 I do not analyze the relationship between the Gospels in the manner of

biblical source-criticism but follow the view of tradition. For the thorough,
sophisticated and unique application of critical methods, see J. A. McGuckin, The
Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (1987). Not only do considerations of
space prevent it: recent research in New Testament studies signals a move back
towards accepting the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, see the very recent Richard
declared that Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus gives his teaching about the
suffering Messiah: that he must be rejected by the Elders and the people
and die at their hands in Jerusalem. St. Peter could not take this!
“May God be merciful to you! May this not happen to you!” (Matt
16:22) 4
Jesus is just as frank in reply:
“Get behind me, Satan! You are a cause of stumbling to me. You do not
think about the things of God but about the things of men.” (Matt
16:23)
This terse and angry exchange conveys, on the one hand, St. Peter’s disil-
lusionment when he hears about Jesus’ surprising and unusual conception
of Messiah-ship; and, on the other, Jesus’ grief as he finds that not even
Peter can support him on the terrible road ahead, as he sets his will to suffer
and to die.
However, Jesus did not leave the matter with a rebuke, and he tells all
the disciples:
“Amen! I tell you there are some standing here who will not taste death
before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matt 16:28) 5
It is this exchange with St. Peter and Jesus’ promise that is, in all the three
Gospels, linked with the Transfiguration: Matthew and Mark have “after six
days” (Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2) and Luke has “about eight days later” (Luke
9:28), making in addition a clear reference back to the previous events with
“after these words.” These words are addressed to all the disciples (Matt
16:24) or “the crowd along with the disciples” (Mark 8:34) or “to them all”
(Luke 9:23). This message of encouragement contrasts with the argument
between Peter and Jesus, when “Peter took him aside” (Matt 16:22; Mark
8:32). The love of Christ for his disciples is movingly illustrated. He does
not dwell upon his own human pain and horror at the prospect of his death
but responds to the weakness of St. Peter with encouragement, by giving to
all a promise.
The fulfillment of this promise that they will “not taste death until they
see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” is the Transfiguration, when
he permitted his divine nature to shine through his flesh. Therefore,
Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, (December
2006).
4 My literal translation. The Greek has an Aramaic coloring.
5 My literal translation of another Aramaism, see f.n. 4 above.
suffering, though a necessary part of our lives as Christians, is balanced by

the assurance that we can have an experience of the Uncreated Light. As
Orthodox, we do not have to wait until Paradise after death, dwelling here
by hope and faith in darkness. We can see the Light of Glory now.
Jesus took three disciples on to a high mountain, away from the rest of
the disciples and the crowd. These three people were, along with the Most
Holy Mother of God, the people closest to him, who had been his disciples
from the very first: Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, James and his
younger brother, John. Since Christ made his promise “before all” (Luke) or
at the very least as an announcement to many (Matthew and Mark), why did
he restrict the experience of the Transfiguration to these three disciples?
Jesus keeps to the letter of his promise that “there are certain individuals
standing here” (tines ode) who will “see” the Kingdom before death. It is
important to understand that Jesus was not being élitist here, telling only a
close inner circle his full teaching because he wished to exclude the many.
Jesus intended his whole teaching to be known and to be handed down and
written down. There is not one teaching for the majority and another for
the few, as the Gnostics later suggested. Jesus did on this occasion restrict
the vision of his glory. The reason is, however, nothing to do with elitism.
The reason for Jesus’ choice of only three disciples is their closeness to
him and the fact that, for all their inadequacies, they were the best prepared.
A week had passed since Peter’s disagreement with Jesus, during which time
we can only assume that he had come to accept Jesus’ rebuke and his
teaching: Peter was still with Jesus after a week from the time of their clash.
Despite the doubts expressed by Peter, in a matter of days his love made
him receptive to what he was about to see. John was the disciple whom
Jesus loved; James was the first of the Twelve to give his life. Consequently,
of all the disciples, these three were the best prepared, although there is also
a sense in which they were unequal to the experience at the time. The point
the Gospel accounts all make, then, is that the uncreated Light of Glory,
experienced by the three Apostles on Mount Thabor, can also be
experienced by us today. But we must be prepared and we must love Christ
above all things.
Jesus takes them up a mountain not only to avoid the crowd but also
to show them that something exceptional is about to happen and to make a
comparison in their minds to the revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai. Jesus
takes the disciples away into solitude; he teaches them that the mysteries of
the Kingdom can be experienced in hesychasm, in stillness and withdrawal
from the world.
St. Gregory Palamas explains the Transfiguration as an experience by

the disciples of what Jesus Christ really was all the time. 6 There is a true
sense in which Jesus was, by virtue of his divine nature, constantly shining
with the Uncreated Light of the energy of the divine nature. However, to
human sight this light was concealed by the humanity and could not be
perceived without grace. The light shone brightly and suddenly upon the
disciples because they were given the grace to see it. 7 If the vision was
through grace, it is appropriate that Jesus should take his disciples away
from the crowd—that is, away from the world and human thinking—so
that they could experience this grace.
However, the experience was not subjective in the sense of being
something that only took place in the minds of the disciples. There are two
reasons. Firstly, Jesus took up the mountain three disciples, the traditional
Jewish number for adequate witnessing of the truth of an event. Secondly,
they received the vision with their eyes. Their physical faculty of vision was
transfigured. This fits with the Orthodox ascetic teaching that those who
see a Saint or an angel in the light are themselves in the light, according to
the interpretation of the Psalm (Ps 36:9) “In Thy light shall we see light.”
Although the Uncreated Light can be experienced as a light in the mind,
Christ chose to reveal it on this occasion as a light that struck their eyes, 8 so
that the experience should be all the more memorable and so that it could
not be doubted; after all, these disciples were destined to teach the gospel:
Thus wast transfigured on the mountain and Thy disciples as much as
they were able to bear it beheld Thy glory, O Christ Our God, that
when they saw Thee crucified, they might know that Thou art in truth
the ‘Brightness’ of the Father. 9
6 This was because Christ was divine by nature. I have simplified the arguments
in St. Gregory Palamas, see Philokalia (Ware) IV, 415 (chapter 148 of “Topics of
Natural & Theological Science”).
7 Ibid., 414–415: God makes known his uncreated energy by an action which
does not in any way make him changeable in the way that creatures are changeable.
(My paraphrase of chapter 145)
8 According to St. Gregory Palamas, Philokalia (Ware), 415: “they were
privileged to see with their eyes (ophthalmois labein) a foretaste of his advent,” citing
St. Basil of Caesarea “On psalm 44.”
9 Festal Menaion, 489, the ‘Brightness’ refers to Heb 1:3: Christ is “the brightness
of [God’s] glory.” In fact even this was not enough: “They all forsook him and
fled” at his arrest, Mark 14:50!
St. Matthew, himself an Apostle, had contact with the three men,
Peter, James, and John as his source. Even if the event was to be kept secret
from the other disciples at first (Matt 17:9; Mark 9:9), it was to be revealed
in due course. We have it on direct personal testimony. Tradition attributes
the material in Mark to St. Peter. 10 St. Luke was not an eyewitness but in
composing his Gospel he used eyewitnesses as his sources: he refers to
those who were “servants of the word” (or “ministers of the word”) who
were also “eyewitnesses from the beginning” (Luke 1:2). These people
passed on to Luke what they had seen and heard for themselves about the
course of Jesus’ life on earth, his teaching, his crucifixion, resurrection, and
ascension to glory. It was eyewitnesses, then, who passed on their account
to the early Church. 11 The Transfiguration became an event in the Gospels
and, consequently, part of the teaching of the Gospel. It also follows from
this that the Transfiguration is an event in the lives of all Christians.
When Jesus was alone with his three disciples, he was, according to
Matthew and Luke, “changed in form”—the Greek uses the term
“metamorphosed”—and in the Greek Orthodox Church the Feast of the
Transfiguration is called Metamorphosis. The meaning of this expression is
precisely illustrated by St. Paul’s hymn to Christ in Philippians 2:5–11.
Christ was “in the form of God” (morphe Theou) but he “emptied himself”
and took upon himself the “form of a slave” (morphe doulou). The Son had
from all eternity the divine nature, being equal with God, 12 but he took
upon himself a human nature, that is, the “form of a slave.” Jesus had not
up to this time manifested in his own person his divine nature, but now he
10 As To Mark, Peter’s disciple at Rome, we learn that he wrote down what the
Apostle had preached, Eusebius, (Book II, ch 14–15), NPNF, PNF(2), I, 115–116,
(Loeb, 143–145). Eusebius cites early traditions: Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in the
2nd century and Clement of Rome.
11 Some readers may know the “academic orthodoxy,” presently under revision
(Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses), that Mark was written first and Matthew and
Luke followed Mark as a source. This does not conflict with the traditional view of
Luke but as to Matthew earliest tradition states that he wrote first an Aramaic
Gospel, see Eusebius Church History, (Book III, ch. 24), NPNF, PNF(2), I, 152,
(Loeb, Eusebius, 251). Orthodox tradition sees Matthew’s Greek Gospel as the
work of the Apostle. There need not be a contradiction with the priority of Mark,
because in writing his Greek Gospel at a later date, Matthew would have naturally
consulted the tradition coming from Peter and deferred to it. The lost Aramaic
Gospel was probably incorporated into Matthew’s Gospel by the Apostle himself,
being the source for Jesus’ sayings which the Apostle Matthew himself translated.
12 Phil 2:6, to einai isa theo, “to be the same as God.”
opened the eyes of the three Apostles by giving them the grace to see the
uncreated energies of the divine nature shining through the human nature
or the flesh. Luke, perhaps because he did not want to puzzle his Gentile
audience, says that the countenance of Jesus was altered (Luke 9:29). All the
Gospels 13 say that the disciples saw a dazzlingly white light. Matthew says
that his face shone like the sun (Matt 17:2), while Mark and Luke refer to
the unusual brightness of his clothes (Matt 17:2; Mark 9:3), which partook
of the brightness emanating from Jesus’ body. The disciples, then, saw with
their eyes the uncreated energy of the divine nature which Jesus Christ has
willed to manifest.
But how can the physical eyes see Uncreated Light? This question can
be raised; one need not say simply that “it was a miracle” and anaesthetize
our reason. It is a central question to theology as a discipline and one of the
profoundest questions: how can the human being experience the uncreated
energies because both the human sense and the intellect are finite? The
answer is that the human faculties are themselves changed into an uncreated
dimension of perception: both the sense and the intellect are transfigured.
The fact that the disciples saw the Uncreated Light of Christ’s glory, the
glory or energy of his divine nature, means that they were themselves in a
high state of grace. They had their first experience of grace even before
Christ’s Resurrection.
However, all the Gospels agree that the Apostles found it to some
extent unbearable, although it was at the same time the greatest experience
of their lives up to that point. Luke tells us that the disciples became sleepy
and awoke to see Christ in glory (Luke 9:32), Mark tells us that at one point
St. Peter did not know what he was saying (Mark 9:6), and Matthew tells us
that the disciples were terrified and fell to the ground (Matt 17:6)—as they
are depicted in so many icons, especially that of Theophanes the Greek.
Moses and Elijah appear and converse with Jesus (Matt 17:3; Mark 9:4;
Luke 9:30). Luke tells us that they talked about Christ’s exodus 14 —that is, his
departure from this world through suffering, death, Resurrection, and
Ascension to Heaven. Peter thought that this theophany was equivalent to
the Exodus experience of Moses, who spoke with God face to face and
whose face shone through the effect of his contact with God’s glory: Peter
wanted three tents to be set up, three tabernacles or “booths” for Jesus,
13 That is, all the Gospels that narrate the event directly. John does not refer to
the event directly, though he alludes to it, as we shall see below.
14 Only Luke refers to the “exodus”: Christ discusses with Moses and Elijah his
leaving of this life in this way (Luke 9:30).

Moses, and Elijah. This is not necessarily a foolish thing to say. At the Feast
of Tabernacles or Booths, the people of Israel lived temporarily in tents to
remind them of their time in the desert (Lev 23:39–43). Peter is referring to
the blessed experience that Moses had in the desert; he wants to prolong
the experience of the new revelation on the Mountain. The Exodus
allusions continue as a bright cloud appears and a voice comes out of the
cloud; this is a repetition of the appearance of the “Glory” or kabod of the
Lord, the pillar of smoke which concealed the fire from which God
revealed his Law to Moses. Something greater than the Law is revealed
here—that is, God the Father’s beloved Only-begotten Son.
The event ends quietly and gently with Jesus returning to his familiar
form of teacher and master (Matt 17:8; Mark 9:8; Luke 9:36). In Matthew,
he touches the disciples and comforts them with the word, “Do not be
afraid.”
This revelation to Moses is, in Judaism, almost unique in the history of
the world, unrepeatable and linked with the giving of the Law. Only the
Prophet Elijah had a comparable experience. Elijah went to Horeb, “the
Mount of God,” and there the thunderous and awesome manifestation was
repeated for his benefit, even to God’s protection of him from the full
force of his fiery glory (1 Kgs 19:8–13). There is a difference to the parallel
story about Moses. Elijah meets the Lord not in the whirlwind or thunder
or fire but in the whisper of God’s Word—the Word of God who is the
gentle One, the Son, who inspired the Prophets, and whom the Prophets
predicted. It is clear from the matching of Moses and Elijah that the Law
and the Prophets are not in conflict. Between them, they contain the whole
Old Testament revelation.
There is another way in which Moses and Elijah exist together in a
unique category: neither passed from this earthly life as did the other
Patriarchs and Prophets. 15 Elijah’s passing is the most dramatic in the Old
Testament: he was taken up to Heaven by chariots of fire (2 Kgs 2:11–12).
However, in Jewish tradition, Moses did not die as other men did. His tomb
could not be found (Deut 34:6). In the Hebrew text, Moses is buried by
God!
“He [the Lord] buried him. (Deut 34:6) 16
15With the exception of Enoch (Gen 5: 24).

16The LXX has “They buried him,” that is, he was buried by a burial-party. The
LXX either translates a different Hebrew text from the one we have today (The
Masoretic Text), or, startled by the strangeness of the Hebrew, they normalized the
account by altering the 3rd person singular to 3rd-person plural.
The Jews expected both Elijah and Moses to come again before the
Messiah (Mal 4:5; Deut 18:15). Moses was customarily referred to as “The
Prophet,” because of his closeness to God (Deut 34:10). Consequently,
with the appearance of Elijah and Moses conversing with Jesus, the
prophecies had been fulfilled. Even so, coming down from the mountain,
the disciples were dazzled and confused. When Jesus is telling them about
the resurrection of the Son of Man, they still asked about the future coming
of Elijah:
Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah Must come? (Matt 17:10;
Mark 9:11)
Jesus does have an answer, which is quite complicated. First Jesus says
Elijah is to come first and will restore all things (Matt 17:11) 17
The expression for “will restore” (apokatastēsei) suggests that Jesus was
referring to the final Restoration of all things, the Apokatastasis, at the end
of the world. But then Jesus says, “Elijah has already come!” This Elijah was
unrecognized and made to suffer at men’s hands (Matt 17:12; Mark 9:12)
According to Matthew,
Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John
the Baptist. (Matt 17:13)
Jesus contradicts St. John the Baptist’s own belief about who he was. When
St. John the Baptist was asked by the Jewish authorities if he was the
Messiah, Elijah, or “The Prophet” (Moses), he answered No to all three
questions (John 1:20–21). However, Jesus possessed a divine nature and
“himself knew what was in man” (John 2:25). 18
To sum up, first, Elijah reappeared in glory on the mountain with
Jesus and Moses. Second, Elijah is to re-appear in the future to herald the
Day of Judgment and the restoration of all things. Third, Elijah has already
come in the figure of St. John the Baptist. In regard to the latter, Elijah is a
suffering figure, but on the mountain and at the end of time, he is glorious.
These two aspects of Elijah mirror and prefigure the life of Jesus on earth,
because Jesus both suffers and is glorified. The Church adds another
interpretation about Moses and Elijah: Moses symbolized the Law whilst
17 My translation. The RSV does not make it clear that “will restore” is in the
future tense.
18 “No man knows what he is in his own eyes: he really is only as he is to God,”
Morris, John, 119

Elijah symbolized the Prophets. Therefore Christ is the fulfillment of the

Law and the Prophets.
Jesus told Peter, James, and John:
Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead.”
(Matt 17:9) 19
Why is this? It is because the Gospel, that is the proclamation of the mysteries
about Jesus Christ, comes after the Resurrection. An immediate account of
the event, even supposing that the three disciples were capable of giving
one, might scandalize those who had not actually had the vision but who
had only heard about it, and then saw Jesus crucified. 20 It was, therefore,
after the Resurrection that Peter, James, and John imparted to the other
disciples their vision. For this vision to be proclaimed in human language by
the Gospel-writers, the Holy Spirit had to have come, as it did at Pentecost
(Acts 2:1–3). Since the Transfiguration is in the Gospels, the vision of
Uncreated Light and of the glory of the Saints in Heaven is for all people
who accept the Gospel. This wonderful vision, which takes us out of
ourselves, is part of the “Good News.”
Orthodox teaching about the Transfiguration draws more and greater
conclusions from it than any other Christian tradition. The Metamorphosis is
not just an historical experience and a stage in the lives of the three
disciples: it is also a statement about what is offered to us by Christ,
through the grace of the Holy Spirit—namely, that we can experience the
uncreated energies of God as light, either through our transfigured senses
or through our transfigured intellects. Grace is an uncreated energy enabling
us truly to experience the glory of God.
The three Apostles who accompanied Jesus up the Mountain and saw
his glory were all stamped by the experience.
THE EXPERIENCE ST. PETER

St. Peter had resisted the Lord’s mission of suffering and death. He had a
worldly idea of what Christ’s “glory” meant. Later, during the trial of Jesus,
Peter denied his Master. However, in the writings of St. Peter—two letters of
19 In Matthew “vision” is oroma, a unique word in the Synoptic Gospels but one
which is used in the LXX to translate Hebrew hazon, or vision, Davies & Allison,
Matthew, II, 713. Mark has simply “what they had seen” (Mark 9:9).
20 Theophylact, Matthew, 48.
profound theology—we see a St. Peter who has grown into the full measure
of the stature of Christ (Eph 4:13). 21
The First Letter of St. Peter

In his first letter, St. Peter shows how the sufferings (pathemasi) of Christ are
essential for our salvation and deification:
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the
unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the
flesh but made alive in the spirit. (1 Pet 3:18–19)
Christ’s death had as its purpose his descent to the place of the dead, where
the “spirits” of the departed awaited him (1 Pet 3:19). There had to be no
part of human life that was not transformed by the Savior’s touch—not
even death. St. Peter describes baptism as the means of effecting triumph
over death, through Christ’s Resurrection and exaltation to the right hand
of God, all angels, powers, and spirits being subjected to him (1 Pet 3:21–
22)). Christ’s abasement and his exaltation are perfectly connected: Christ
came down in humility to bring Man up from death.
The pattern of abasement–exaltation is not only the way by which
Christ saved us. This pattern is also our way and provides us with the
paradigm of our deification by showing us the way upon which we must set
ourselves to attain deification. This way is that of humility and the voluntary
acceptance of unjust suffering, which makes us like Christ:
For this is grace: if, through mindfulness of God, one endures pain
while suffering unjustly. For what glory is it, if when you do wrong and
are beaten for it, you take it patiently? But if, when you do good and
suffer for it and take it patiently, this is grace with God. (1 Pet 2:20) 22
This way is “grace with God”—that is, what is pleasing to God. The Greek
for “glory” here is kleos, “renown,” the word used for the reputation of
heroes, who had achieved worldly fame by saving a nation in battle or
benefactors who were credited with beautifying a city with temples and
public buildings. St. Peter reinterprets this word: the greatest glory is to
21 St. Paul’s words describe a development. Not even the Apostles began their
discipleship perfect!
22 My translation. The RSV translation somewhat obscures St. Peter’s
understanding of “glory” as suffering, while the AV catches it well: “What glory is it
if, when ye be buffeted for your faults ye shall take it patiently?” The RSV is correct
in rendering kleos as “credit,” but “glory” catches better the underlying theology of
Christ’s suffering being the “glory” that we should imitate.
accept undeserved suffering, a way that can be followed by the poor and the
weak. Whenever we suffer in the same way, we are imitating Christ’s glory.
This is a long way from the man who said, “God forbid! May this not
happen to you!” when his Master told him that he must go up to Jerusalem
to suffer (Matt 16:22).
St. Peter uses some unique and striking expressions to convey the way
of humility and voluntary suffering as the imitation of Christ. Although it
would be correct to say that, for St. Peter, our part in our deification
involves moral effort, it is not the morality of a strictly just and rational life.
The whole of our behavior should be an imitation of Christ’s humility. This
goes deeper than conventional morality. In humility, we enter into the life
of the Savior who fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter and like a sheep that before its
shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. (Isa 53:7)
We enter into the kind of suffering which is on behalf of the whole of
humanity and thus become incorporated in the suffering and glorification
of Christ in our lives as a whole. When we suffer in this creative, humble,
and voluntary way, the “Glory” of God rests upon us as did the glory upon
the Ark in the Tent of Meeting. Through humility, we become tabernacles
of God’s glory:
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you
to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. But
rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may be glad
when his glory is revealed. If you are reproached for the name of Christ,
you are blessed because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. (1
Pet 4:12–14)
St. Peter teaches that in following Christ we share in his suffering for
all. St. Peter uses an unusual word for “example”—hypogrammos. It is the
only occurrence of the word in the New Testament. It can mean the
“outline” of a story (2 Macc 2:28). It could also mean the outline of letters
and words used in children’s copybooks. Hence, it came to have the sense
of a moral example in Greek literature; but in Hellenistic Judaism the
“example” could be martyrdom (2 Macc 6:28, 31). The term hypogrammos
taken together with another unique expression, “that you should follow in
his steps,” makes clear that there is a definite and specific way of following
Christ: the way of self-abnegation. If St. Peter had once uncomprehendingly
resisted the idea of a suffering Messiah, it is clear that he had fully embraced
the idea by the time he came to write the first of his epistles.
Humility and freely accepted suffering on the one hand, and intimacy
with God and a share of his glory on the other, are like two sides of a coin,
because suffering was united to resurrection in Christ. If we truly are
disciples of Christ, walking in his footsteps, we shall share this double
aspect. In the world, suffering and humiliation even to death are the
opposites of glory and life. When suffering comes, a worldly outlook sees
suffering and glory as opposites. It is possible to have this worldly attitude
as a Christian, so that suffering becomes an existential and intellectual
problem: why do the innocent suffer if God is good and has the power to
alleviate suffering? Since there is, in my view, no satisfactory intellectual
answer to this question, the person suffering finds that the question adds to
his suffering. The “answer” is not intellectual: it involves a transformation
of one’s whole person, in that one becomes a sharer in the sufferings of
Christ. The word for suffering is pathos: it suggests an ongoing quality about
the sufferings—there is a process of voluntary suffering which continues to
be alive in us.
This share of suffering is also a share in glory. St. Peter describes
himself as “one who shares the glory which is about to be revealed.” The
word which conveys the sharing is the simple Greek word for “in
common”—koinos (1 Pet 5:1). “Glory” is the word we should expect a Jew
to use to describe the manifestation of Light, because it described what
Jews later called the Shekinah, the bright fiery descent of God’s energy
upon the Ark of the Covenant. The “glory” is both in the future, at the end
of time when Christ shall come to judge the world, and also partly in the
present. The latter must be true because St. Peter says that he “shares” it. St.
Peter sees himself, and by implication also his “fellow-elders” 23 (1 Pet 5:1),
as being able to live in the Age to Come now; in our experience we can share
in the Light of Glory that will be completely revealed at the end of the
world.
What, then, does the First Epistle of Peter teach us about St. Peter’s
experience of the Uncreated Light on Mount Thabor? St. Peter had resisted
Christ’s mission to suffer, and Christ had rebuked him. Indeed they had
rebuked one another. One may imagine St. Peter simmering down during
the week before Christ took him up the Mountain. It had been a great test
of his loyalty and he had only just pulled through! Then he beheld the Light
of Christ’s glory, which was to encourage him when the time for Christ’s
suffering came. But even the Transfiguration was not enough. St. Peter
failed, knew he had failed, and wept bitterly (Matt 26:75) about it. However,
23 The expression translates the Greek sympresbyteroi.

the St. Peter of the First Epistle has been strengthened by the Resurrection
and by the Holy Spirit which descended upon him at Pentecost. Aware of
his own failures and of the very great difficulty of understanding the way of
humility, St. Peter teaches about “glory,” that “glory” comes, as it did for
Christ himself, after a passage through unjust suffering voluntarily and
humbly accepted. The Christians whom he addresses, then, should not go
for human glory, which is perishable (1 Pet 1:18).
St. Peter’s experience has taught him the pattern. First there is
suffering. Only afterward—glory. This is what he found in his own time
with Jesus. First there was bitter disillusionment which he could not accept,
and afterward a manifestation of glory, the light of the Transfiguration. First
there was the Crucifixion of his beloved Lord, and only afterward the
Resurrection, Ascension to the Glorious realm of Light with God and the
Heavenly Host. St. Peter wanted his spiritual children to understand this
pattern. First suffering, then subsequent glory, just as the Prophets had
predicted. His message is one of sobriety: we should not expect ecstatic
experiences of light and an approach to the heavenly realm until one has
become like one’s Master in humility.
The Second Letter of St. Peter

This Letter begins with a clear a statement that it is the testimony of St.
Peter the Apostle:
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the
righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,
May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and
of Jesus our Lord. (2 Pet 1:1–2) 24
It is, in the tradition of the Orthodox Church, the direct eyewitness
testimony of the Apostle himself. This is also still believed today among
many Christians who do not belong to the Orthodox tradition. 25 It is
written throughout in the first person singular. St. Peter refers in the first
person plural to himself and his fellow Apostles who witnessed with him
the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ on the mountain. (2 Pet 1:16–18). It is
the view of the present author that 2 Peter has, as its author, the Apostle
Peter, who was drawing on his personal experience of the Transfiguration. I
24 NIV
25 It is Evangelical Christians who have defended the apostolic authorship of
this letter in recent scholarship, for example, Donald Guthrie, New Testament
Introduction, 805–42; Michael Green, 2 Peter & Jude.
base my view mainly on the fact that it was a book eventually included by
the Church in the Canon of Scripture. 26 The Greek word “canon” means a
ruler by which the correct measurement might be established (it was for
example a rod of a certain length), and from this humble meaning it came
to mean “standard” or “rule.” To say that a book is canonical Scripture is to
say that it belongs to those very few books written about Jesus or on his
behalf which go back to the witness of the Apostles and connect us
historically to Jesus Christ. The completed list of books which the Church
decided were canonical is first found in the Easter Letter of St. Athanasius
of Alexandria for the year 367 A.D., where St. Athanasius mentions in his
list “of Peter, two” epistles. 27
However, there are influential scholars who have described 2 Peter, as
if it were almost a matter of absolute certainty, as “pseudonymous”—that
is, a letter pretending to be by St. Peter but actually written by some one else. This
view is accompanied by the assertion that the date of the letter is very late,
written in the early second century. 28 I consider that such theories undercut
the experientialism which I have been arguing for throughout this chapter:
that the theology of the Apostles was generated by direct, historical
experience of the divine energies. These historical experiences are the very
basis of the Orthodox tradition. Insofar, however, as it is possible in such a
short book, I shall try to show the reader how it might have been possible
for St. Peter to have been the author of an epistle written in quite
complicated Greek and containing Greek. How could the simple fisherman
have written such a letter? Part of the answer is that the fisherman was not
so simple …. But first we must examine the doctrine and testimony of the
Letter itself.
St. Peter’s Second Epistle contrasts with the somber First Epistle
because, perhaps, St. Peter wants to complement it with something more
26 I also consider that the arguments for the pseudonymity of 2 Peter are
unconvincing at a scholarly level and align myself with the Evangelical scholars
who defend Petrine authorship.
27 Athanasius, Festal Letters of Athanasius, Letter 39 in Select Works. Letters, NPNF,
PNF (2), IV, 351–352, letter for 367 the year 367 CE.
28 The Catholic scholar Fr. Raymond Brown is one of these: “Indeed, the
pseudonymity of II Pet is more certain than that of any other NT work”
(Introduction to the New Testament, 767). This book has the imprimatur of the Catholic
Church that it is free from moral or doctrinal error. Fr. Brown’s view, which is
shared by many scholars, may be found in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 64:1,
(London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1990), 1017. As to the work of the Evangelical
scholars to whom I refer in this section, it is as if it had never been written.
enthusiastic and encouraging. After the conventional opening, it erupts in a

blaze of glory:
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to godliness,
through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and
excellence by which he has granted us his precious and very great
promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is
in the world because of passion and become partakers of the divine
nature. (2 Pet 1:3–4)
St. Peter emphasizes here our share in the divine glory—we have a share
(koinonoi ) in the divine nature. This participation is brought about through
God’s power, glory, and strength and endows us with immunity from
corruption—the corruption of sinful desire that walks in the way of death.
St. Peter gives weight to the glorious and triumphant side of the life in
Christ for good reason: the Churches were going through a depressing time
because of apostasy. Because there were some who had fallen back into a
worldly way of thinking, with disastrous consequences for them personally
and for the whole Church, St. Peter reaffirmed the Christian potential for
triumph over corruption as strongly as he possibly could.
St. Peter refers specifically to the glory that he personally experienced
on Mount Thabor, when he and his companions, the sons of Zebedee,
James and John, were those who had seen his majesty. To say that one “had
come to be one who had seen” (epoptai; 2 Pet 1:17) the divine majesty is a
very bold statement. For anyone born a Jew it was impossible to claim to
have seen God (John 1:18). However, the language of vision is not invented
or borrowed from pagan visionary mysticism: “we were with him on the
holy mountain” (2 Pet 1:18). St. Peter is recalling his own experience on the
mountain when he saw God’s glory at the Transfiguration.
St. Peter mitigates the boldness of his visionary language by saying that
he was the witness, not of God directly, but of the “majesty” which he
beheld in the transfigured Jesus. St. Peter expressed his experience not only
in the language of vision but also in the other characteristic form of
prophetic experience: he heard a voice from Heaven (1:19) declaring Jesus to
be the Son of God. St. Peter also makes it clear that he was not a solitary
visionary by referring to those who were with him on the mountain: this is
the meaning of “we” in 1:16–19. It is not the use of “we” as a solemn
expression of “I,” because when St. Peter refers to himself he uses the
singular: “I,” “I intend … I think it right … I am … I know … I will see”
(1:12–15). St. Peter refers to the traditional Jewish number of three
witnesses as necessary for the verification of an event, in referring to his
fellow Apostles.
What St. Peter experienced is for all Christians in the Church:

that you may be partakers of divine nature. (2 Pet 1:4)
We share the nature of God! This participation is brought about through the
impact of God’s operations or energies. The divine “power,” “glory,” and
“strength,” which we share and to which I have referred to above, are
different ways of describing the divine energy which we share by grace. The
“participation in the divine nature” is the end of the Christian life and its
perfection.
The phrase “partakers of divine nature” needs to be seen in its
context, where it is explained as a revelation in characteristically Jewish
terms but one which also makes sense in the Hellenized world of the time.
It is not necessary to see the Second Epistle of St. Peter as written by a
Greek pretending to be St. Peter because the Apostle uses one word, physis,
“nature,” which is used in Greek philosophy, or that he was incapable of
writing Greek. It is possible that St. Peter was writing with the assistance of
a secretary who could help him: this is one possible meaning of “by (dia)
Silvanus” at the end of 1 Peter (5:12)—that is, “with his help.” We know
from the Gospels that St. Peter spoke in a dialect of Aramaic which was
recognizably Northern, and for this reason, from his way of speaking, he
was recognized as a “Galilean” when he would have preferred to remain
inconspicuous (Matt 26:73). 29 However, Galilee was also near the Decapolis
or Ten Greek Cities. Now, among the crowds that followed Jesus there
were people from these Greek cities (Matt 4:25). Jesus spoke to and healed
a man who was from the Decapolis (Mark 5:20). It has been argued
plausibly that Jesus and his disciples knew some Greek. 30 We are only
beginning to understand how the “bilingualism” of the Roman Empire
worked, but recent studies in Hellenistic Greek suggest that most people
got by in a form of Greek in addition to their own language and that the
Greek they used was tinged with the grammatical forms of their mother
29 Matt 26:73, “Your accent gives you away” (NIV), and famously “for thy
speech betrayeth thee” (KJV); Mark 14:70 has “You are a Galilean,” and Codex
Alexandrinus (5th century A.D.) adds “and your speech fits this fact,” a reading
taken by all the Reformers, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and KJB, “thy speech
agreeth thereto.” This reading of Mark confirming Matthew, however, is omitted
from modern translations on the basis of the most recent views on textual criticism.
30 Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, “The Languages Jesus Spoke,” in
a learned review of a few pages, which is in itself worth the price of the book, the
conclusion is: “Apparently, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic were all commonly
spoken and understood amongst Palestinian Jews of Jesus’ day” (303).
tongue, the dialect of Aramaic spoken in Palestine. 31 Finally, because of the

universalism of Christianity and its need to communicate to the whole
world, the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament (2nd or 3rd
century B.C.) became important for missionaries. If St. Peter had never
turned to the Septuagint before he became an Apostle, it is very likely that
he did afterward, since it provided so much of the vocabulary that a
missionary needed in speaking to Gentiles.
Consequently, the view that St. Peter could not have known any Greek
or written it is as absurd and as patronizing to working people as to assert a
thousand years from now that the Bedfordshire tinker, John Bunyan, with
but a few years of grammar school education could not have written such a
complex and subtle allegory as A Pilgrim’s Progress in such beautiful English,
because he was a working man. 32
Thus, even at a scholarly level, these assumptions are ridiculous.
However, the Orthodox Church gives a theological reason for the fact that
apparently quite ordinary people can give exceptionally profound teaching
under the influence of the Holy Spirit:
The Holy Spirit provideth all things. He poureth forth prophecy. He
perfecteth the priesthood. He hath taught wisdom to the unlettered. He
hath shown forth the fishermen as theologians. He holdeth together the
whole institution of the Church. Wherefore, O Paraclete, one in essence
and majesty with the Father and the Son, glory be to Thee.33
When this way of interpreting Scripture is lost, especially when it is
lost amongst the scholars, a kind of intellectual decadence takes place which
generates false theories and assumptions about Scripture. It is in fact a form
of that very apostasy which St. Peter is here warning us about—falling back
into worldly ways of thinking. They are all marked by a tendency to
skepticism and to interpret Scripture in a way that makes it no longer the
book of life, so that we feel that we cannot use it to help us.
31 Natalio Fernandez Markos, “The New Approach to Bilingualism.” It is a

complex and specialized subject and a matter of ongoing debate.
32 This analogy between Bunyan and St. Peter is made by Wayne Grudem,
“Could Peter have known Greek well?” 30, after a thorough discussion of the
possibilities of the question of the literacy of St. Peter, against the Palestinian
background.
33 Troparion (or collect) of Pentecost. The expression “unlettered”
(aggrammatous) does not mean “illiterate” but rather “without formal education.”
The latter would only have been available to the upper classes.
There are two false assumptions which often underlie the way this
important passage in 2 Peter about deification has been treated by
unbelieving historians. First, there is the idea that the New Testament
writers were exclusively Semitic in language and thought, knowing only
Aramaic and some Hebrew; second, that any Greek philosophical or
religious terms in the New Testament writings suggest that the writer could
not have been an Apostle.
However, the use of Greek words by the Apostle does not mean that
he had turned into a Greek philosopher or pagan. The effect of Christ on
the Apostles caused a meltdown in previously used language, both in the
Hebrew language, where the legal language of the rabbis was challenged,
and in the Greek language, where the true vision of God was shown to be
not in the Mystery religions but in the gracious revelation of God and in a
historical event of the Incarnate God’s life on earth, the Transfiguration.
A great deal can be done to see our way through the problems to
which I have drawn your attention by attending to the Scripture itself.
“Partakers of the divine nature” occurs as part of a group of words and
sentences; 2 Peter 1:3–4 is quite a complicated grammatical structure. To lift
a phrase out of context and make it into a slogan is a mistake.
The Apostle, having wished “grace” (charis) to his addressees, extends
the greeting into a commentary on what is meant by “grace”—thus taking
the Letter’s salutation beyond mere formalities. 34 Grace is “strength,”
“power,” and “knowledge”: God works by “glory” and “strength.” We have
already seen that these terms here are the active operations of God and that
St. Peter is referring to a new revelation, which Orthodox theology calls
“energies.”
May those who cannot swallow the view that in 2 Peter we are reading
the personal testimony of experience, written by that very Apostle, St. Peter,
at least consider the position that the author of 2 Peter was a disciple of St.
Peter and was conveying the Apostle’s experience in his own style but with
the Apostle’s authority!
However, the Orthodox Church position is altogether straighter: there
is something immediate about reading the words of life, from person to
person, so that when a believer has the assurance of tradition that the words
he reads are Scripture, he comes into contact with the testimonies of the
people who knew Jesus Christ when he walked this earth.
34 In this manner of transforming the normal way of opening a letter in Greek,

St. Peter is very like St. Paul.
THE EXPERIENCE OF ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST AND

THEOLOGIAN 35
The effect on St. John’s theology

of his experience of the Transfiguration
St. John, Peter’s companion on the Mountain with Jesus, also has a
theology of glory—that is, a theology of vision and of participation in the
divine life. In the Prologue to his Gospel, St. John says:
And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten One of the
Father. (John 1:14) 36
This statement is placed in parenthesis, as a personal remark, after the
momentous statement of the first part of this verse:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)
One way of interpreting the “we” is that it is a reference to what he shared
with his brother, St. James, and with St. Peter, when he saw Jesus
transfigured on the Mountain. This changed him. Even so, he expresses
himself as we might expect a Jew concerning the vision of God:
No one has ever seen God. (John 1:18)
But he can say that one may see the “glory” of God. The vision of light on
Mount Thabor was God’s glory. It was this experience that made it possible
for St. John to see Jesus as the revealer of God. Jesus made God known
through the manifestation of God’s glory in Christ. St. John also calls this
manifestation “grace” (John 1:17), “truth” (1:17), and “life” (1:4). Jesus’
whole life made God known in a narrative of the energies of God: the
Greek word exēgēsato (John 1:18), usually translated “has made him known”
(RSV) can mean “told the story about (God),” or “made known in a history
or sequence of events.” 37
35 The Evangelist John is one if only three church writers were given the title
“Theologian,” the other two being St. Gregory Nazianzen (4th century) and St.
Symeon the “New Theologian” (11th century). St. John was given the title because
he taught about the divine Logos and because of his sublime teaching, which is
continued in his Letters and in the Book of Revelation, the Johannine authorship
of which the Orthodox Church accepts.
36 My translation.
37 The related noun diegesis is used in Luke 1:1 to mean “narrative,” “historical
account.”
Light and darkness in the writings of St. John the Theologian

St. John’s writings are marked by the use of the language of light to describe
the revelation in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is light, just as God is light (1
John 1:5), because from Jesus shone the uncreated Light of Glory, the
uncreated energy or grace which connects us to the divine nature, since the
nature cannot be directly known. This light is, in most instances of St.
John’s use of the word, a real light—that is, a real force or energy—not a
metaphor for some human teaching or enlightenment.
Let us review St. John’s use of the word light (phos). In the Gospel of
John, the light appears to describe the as yet unincarnate Word (John 1:4).
It is equated with life, a word which in John does not mean only biological
life but spiritual life:
The light is shining in the darkness and the darkness did not grasp it. 38
The light shines eternally; the present tense of the verb is used to express
this everlasting shining (phainei). On the other hand, the darkness is
something in time: the aorist tense is used; it has made an assault on the
light, trying to overcome it, hating it because not understanding it. The
words ouk elaben, which I have translated above as “did not grasp,” mean
both “did not overcome” and “did not understand,” in the older senses of
the word “comprehended it not” (KJV).
The light of Christ and which, for us, is Christ, is transforming as it
shines upon those who are willing to receive it and makes us belong to the
light: as St. John puts it, it makes us “sons of light.” (12:36). It enables us to
walk with knowledge—that is, to follow the way that leads to God, and it
banishes from our lives the darkness under which we have been oppressed
from as far back as human history can record: despair, depression, injustice,
violence, illness, death, and all kinds of evil. St. John’s experience teaches
unquenchable hope:
“I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in
darkness but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)
However, it would not exactly be true to say that St. John’s experience
had made him an optimist! The light is opposed by darkness. This darkness
is not an eternal force equal to God but represents personal opposition to
the light of God by both human beings and the evil immaterial powers,
demons, or evil angels. The “world” as a system of thinking is dominated
by the Prince of this World—that is, the Devil. When the Divine Word
38 My translation.
came into the world which he had created, he met not only love and
gratitude but also hatred and incomprehension. Christ’s coming divided
people: they either loved Christ or they hated him—and the same goes for
Christ’s true disciples. This crisis is made quite clear by St. John:
This is the judgment [krisis], that the light has come into the world and
men loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were
evil.” (John 3:19)
People were, in St. John’s experience, divided into those who hate the light
and those who receive it (John 3:20–21).
St. John’s sense of a bitter struggle between Christ the Light and the
forces of darkness was intensified when those who had at first been
disciples “went out” from the churches and formed sects with a false
teaching. Here we have the first examples of heresy. In proportion to St.
John’s sense of the goodness of the light, so is his sense of the evil of those
who were perverting the true teaching. He has some of the harshest words
ever written to describe those who, having received the teaching of the
Church, apostatized and formed groups with a false teaching, a teaching
that destroyed the Incarnational basis of our deification, that God had come
in the flesh:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who do not
confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. There is the Deceiver! There is
the Antichrist! Look out yourselves that you do not lose what you have
worked for: you must receive your reward in full. Anyone who is so
“progressive” that he does not remain rooted in the teaching of Christ
does not possess God, while anyone who remains rooted in the teaching
possesses both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you who
does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into the house and do
not greet him, for whoever greets him shares his evil deeds. (2 John 7–
10) 39
These words of the Apostle create some problems for the reader
today. There are some who would say that St. John’s attitude is not
Christian, because it fails in love and especially love of enemy. Moreover,
one may disagree with an opponent whilst remaining courteous. St. John,
however, tells his disciples not even to greet such people (charein was the
39 This is Raymond Brown’s unusually vivid version (The Epistles of John, 645),
which renders the Greek proagon, lit. “going ahead,” as “progressive” in the bad
sense of thinking oneself above even the revelation of Christ. Brown remarks on
the “with us or against us attitude” of the Apostle in this Epistle and his dualistic
mentality (673).
normal way of saying ‘Hello’). They are also told to refuse hospitality to
them. If St. John avoids hatred of his enemies it is not by much, perhaps,
and it seems to contradict his own teaching, which comes from Christ:
he who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness
still. (1 John 2:9, see also 1 John 2:11)
St. John’s language against the heretics, however, is not hatred but
springs from a realization that our deification, the light that can change our
lives, depends upon a definite teaching and that it is centered upon the
person and nature of Jesus Christ, God and Man. It was the duty of an
Apostle then, and today, of their successors the bishops, to uphold the
teaching of the Church. There is no “nice way” to uphold the teaching of
the Church against heresy and schism. It is an unpleasant duty. The refusal
of normal social greeting and hospitality may be explained by the fact that
the well-prepared sectarians will start up discussions which will confuse and
subvert unprepared Christian families.
On the island of Patmos, St. John was given a more sublime vision, if
this is possible, of the light of Christ. This must have more than
compensated for St. John’s bitter disillusionment about the “progressives”
who had seceded from his community. God comforted the Apostle with a
foretaste of the glory that was to come in the future Age at the end of the
world. St. John confirms the truth of this possibility in his vision of the
future glory in the Book of Revelation. He distinguishes between natural
light (Rev 18:23), which is our physical light on earth, and the Uncreated
Light, which will be our equivalent of eternal daylight in the Age to Come,
in the Eternal City of God:
And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory
of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light shall the nations
walk and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it and its gates
shall never be shut by day—and there shall be no night there. (Rev
21:23–25, see also 22:5)
The Prophet Isaiah refers to this Light, which does not emanate from the
planets but which comes directly from God, as being a characteristic of the
Age to Come:
The sun shall be no more your light by day, nor for brightness shall the
moon give light to you by night; but the LORD will be your everlasting
light and your God will be your glory. (Isa 60:19)
Although this light is not the light of the planets which God made to be as
lights, when he said through his Eternal Word “Let there be lights in the
firmament of the heavens” (Gen 1:14), there is a true sense in which,

nevertheless, this light of the Age to Come is truly light. All words are
inadequate to the reality they express, especially in matters of Divinity, but
they do nevertheless have meanings. The word “light” is not in these
biblical texts only a symbol or metaphor of human ethical enlightenment
but also a symbol of the energy of God, of the Uncreated Light by which
we shall have fellowship with God in the Age to Come, through our faith
and love of the Lamb who was slain for us. The battle between light and
darkness, which is the battlefield of this world, will be over:
And night shall be no more. (Rev 22:5)
The teaching on the experience of the Uncreated Light

in the First Letter of John: 1 John 3:2
Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we
shall be, but we know that when he appears 40 we shall be like him, for we
shall see him as he is. And every one who thus hopes purifies himself as
he is pure. (1 John 3:2–3)
In this sentence, St. John expresses a wealth of teaching about deification
through an experience of the uncreated Light of Glory and about the
relationship between the life of faith on earth in the Church and the glory
that is to come in the future Age. It therefore deserves a separate section
and some careful consideration. 41
The verse can be interpreted both as a reference to present experience
in the Church and to the Age to Come. In most Bibles, the future sense is
most obvious, in translation, since the subject of “appears” is assumed to be
“God.” The appearance of God—the Parousia—is the end of this Age and
the inauguration of the Age to Come, the eschaton. However, the verb
“appears” (Greek ephanerothe), while being clearly in the third person, does
not have a pronoun to make clear whether “he” or “it” is meant; the
translations supply the missing pronoun and, in so doing, make an
interpretation of the original Greek. Therefore, the verse could also have an
application to our present existence as Christians, in that there is a stage in
our future before death when it will become clear what we are to be. The final
sentence of the verse, about purifying oneself with the hope of having this
experience, can be taken as a summary of what those who take up the life
40 Or “when it appears”—that is, when what we shall be is manifested.

41 As a preparation for reading Archimandrite Sophrony, We Shall See Him As
He Is.
of asceticism hope for, even in this life, and what they bear witness to,
prophetically, as shining lights, when they have been sanctified.
Since, as we have seen throughout the explanation of St. John’s and St.
Peter’s teaching, there can be a present experience of the future eschaton by
anticipation, it is possible that St. John was deliberately saying two things at
once. There is, most obviously, an appearance of God in the future.
However, there is also a true experience of that future through grace even
now. These two senses do not conflict but complement one another. St.
John, then, is teaching about the experience of grace in the present, but he
has a sense of what he described more fully in the Book of Revelation. Our
complete and full blessedness in the eternal life of glory, confirms and
makes eternal what we have experienced through grace by anticipation.
What does it mean to see God “as he is,” whether in this life or in the
Age to Come? And what does it mean to “be like him”? The latter is
dependent upon the former. Thus our deification depends in some sense
upon the true vision of God “as he is.” The tradition of the Greek Fathers
is to see knowledge of Christ through grace in the Church as also a
knowledge of Christ in glory, so that knowledge of Christ is knowledge of
God as God really is: this is anagogic knowledge, or knowledge that brings
us up to the very throne of the Godhead. Christ is one in essence with God
the Father, in his divine nature, and one in essence with us in his human
nature. Union with Christ through faith, love, obedience to the
commandments, and unceasing prayer takes us through the human nature
to the divine nature and so divinizes us, making us godlike, beings who are
“like him.” On the other hand, the Greek Fathers did not interpret seeing
God “as he is” as meaning seeing what God is, because the essence of God
cannot be known and comprehended by a finite understanding. Rather, we
know God, whether in this age or in the Age to Come, in his uncreated
energies, which connect us to the persons of the Trinity. This, the highest
form of human knowledge, is transforming and takes those who have been
perfected by the energies before death into a deathless and blissful
condition after their departure, at first as blessed souls in Paradise with the
Saints and angels awaiting with joy the Age to Come.
The conjunction “for” (hoti) links the two statements “We shall be like
him” and “We shall see him as he is.” This conjunction, loosely translated
“for” or “because,” refers both backward to the preceding statement and
forward to the following. The sentence simultaneously conveys two ideas.
Firstly, it means that because we see him, we shall be like him: vision of God
produces deification. It also means, secondly, that because we have become like
him, we shall see him truly—that is, “as he is.” The application of this latter
meaning is that we must strive to be like God in order to be able to have a

vision of him.
There are two important theological principles that arise from these
two simultaneous senses. From the first sense—vision of God produces
deification—it is clear that our experience of the Uncreated Light is effected
by God; it is grace. From the second sense—that we need to become like God to
see him as he is—comes the need for effort and struggle even to our last
breath, because not every one who says to Christ “Lord, Lord” will enter
the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 7:21)—and the Kingdom of Heaven is the
vision of God.
THE EXPERIENCE OF ST. JAMES THE GREATER,

THE SON OF ZEBEDEE
St. James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of St. John the Theologian,
did not write any Letters. In this he is to be distinguished from St. James
“the brother of the Lord”: this St. James, a kinsman of Jesus and not one of
the disciples from the first, wrote one Letter and that is the Epistle of James
found in the New Testament. St. James, son of Zebedee, is also to be
distinguished from another Apostle and follower of Jesus from earliest
times, St. James, son of Alphaeus. The latter is only mentioned by St Luke
(Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13); he was one of the Twelve apostles whom Jesus
chose along with James the son of Zebedee, but nothing more is said of
him in Scripture.
But why have a section upon a person who never wrote anything? I
argue that St. James, the son of Zebedee, does have a teaching for us about
deification and that he was, as much as the other two men, St. Peter and St.
John, influenced by the glory which he experienced on the Mountain.
The mysteries of the life of Christ are breakthroughs of the
eschatological glory into the historical world. They are all, in a mysterious
way, participable now, giving us a share in the glorious Age which is to
come. Some mysteries connected with Christ’s earthly life are immediately
and more obviously communicable than others: the Transfiguration is the
most obvious, and, as we have seen, Christ made known his glory in order
to encourage his disciples after a confrontation about his call to suffer at
Jerusalem. The events at Pentecost when Jesus fulfilled his promise to send
the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father is also something that every
Christian can see is for them. We have also seen that Jesus and his Apostles
taught that, to be deified, one must participate in Christ’s humiliation and
passion in some way: this may be accepting the humiliations of everyday
experience in the world, or the acceptance of illness and pain, or martyrdom
in the more technical sense of the Synaxarion 42 —that is, to accept the
destruction of one’s body in order to bear witness to Christ. The
Resurrection and Ascension to Heaven to the Right Hand of the Father are
less obviously something we can share now. However, they too are events
in which we can share even now to some extent. Lazarus was raised from
the dead (John 11, especially 43–44) and so, before he departed this life,
participated in the Age to Come and the Final Resurrection at the End of
the Age, by his first Resurrection. The Church, in its Saints, still has the
power, exceptionally, to raise the dead. In the Holy Liturgy, we participate
in the Resurrection and the Ascension of Christ, because in the Eucharist
we are taken up to Heaven or, alternatively, Heaven descends upon the
faithful. The Eucharist is an eschatological sign and reality in the world. In
receiving the Communion of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ, the
faithful receive the Risen Christ and participate in his incorruption,
becoming deified in their flesh and in their spirits.
The martyrs are not exactly heroes: they are people who have
experienced prophetically the Light of glory. They bear witness to what they
have experienced: the Greek word “martyr” means a witness or someone
who gives testimony. They, especially, are the “lights of the world” (Matt
5:14), who show by their fearlessness that they have come to know
personally the Light of Glory. Because the glory was in them, they were able
to proclaim it from the rooftops and, having confidence of the reality of the
Kingdom of Heaven, were able to face torture and death. The martyrs were
supreme examples of Christ’s words:
“A city set upon a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it
under a bushel but on a stand, and it gives light to the whole house. Let
your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and
give glory to your Father who is in Heaven.” (Matt 5:14–16)
Persecutors find the light unbearable and try to quench it; but they have
never been successful. Martyrdom causes the Church to increase, because
“the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” 43
St. James went through a process of development from quite a proud
man to maturity in Christ. He was present at the argument between Jesus
and Peter. James and his brother John may have been named by Christ
“Sons of Thunder” because they wanted Christ to bring down fire upon the
villages that did not accept Jesus, a request for which Jesus rebuked them
42 That is, the order of the Saints in the Church’s liturgical year and their
biographies.
43 Tertullian Apology, NPNF, ANF, III, 55, “The blood of Christians is seed.”
(Luke 9:54–56). They asked Christ if they could have favored places when
he came into his Kingdom, one on his right and the other on his left (Mark
10:37). They did not know at the time what they were asking for! Jesus
asked them if they could “drink the cup” that He was going to drink and to
be “baptized” with the baptism with which he was to be baptized (Mark
10:38)—that is, his Crucifixion, which made possible “the cup of the new
covenant in my blood,” the renewing power of the Eucharist. They said, in
all naivety, “We are able” (Mark 10:39), and Jesus, with divine
foreknowledge, confirmed them (Mark 10:39).
By the time St. James was a prominent person in the Jerusalem
Church, he was ready and understood things in a different way. Moreover,
God’s grace had now made him able to drink the cup which his Lord had
drunk and to be baptized with the baptism of martyrdom. “Herod,” to be
exact Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod “the Great” 44 and ruler of
Galilee, stretched out his hand to harm “certain (tines) of those from the
Church,” that is, those who were its representatives:
He killed James the brother of John with the sword. (Acts 12:2)
This short, brutal sentence contains a doctrine. To bear witness (martyrein) is
to bear witness to something. The first Martyr of the Church, St. Stephen,
gave a long theological speech (7:2–53), and when his persecutors heard it
“they were sawn through to their hearts,” 45 that is, they were “enraged”
(Acts 7:54, RSV). At the other extreme, we have St. James, who belongs to
the category of martyrs who had no opportunity to speak in words.
However, St. James was, just as St. Stephen, bearing witness to the teaching
of the Church.
44 Who had massacred the Innocents and had now died, his inheritance being
divided amongst his sons.
45 Fitzmeyer’s vivid literal translation of dieprionto, Acts, 392. The AV has “were cut
to the heart” which is more accurate than the RSV’s “enraged.” The expression is
not to be mixed up with the word for those who were “pricked in their heart”
(katenugēsen) when they repented and were converted by a speech of St. Peter (Acts
2:37). St Luke makes a clear distinction between the reactions of the two audiences,
between the pricking of conscience and the emotional tearing-apart of hatred.
There is in Orthodox ascetical theology the expression katanixis, which is a good
pricking of or to the heart and which brings repentance. The Apostolic message
was the same in both cases; the human reactions were different.
ST. PAUL’S EXPERIENCE OF THE UNCREATED LIGHT
The theologian of experience

St. Paul understood that we have entered the last times when the divine
energies will shine intensely upon humankind:
We all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being
changed into his likeness from one degree of glory into another. (2 Cor
3:18) 46
St. Paul understood this, not because he had been told by the Twelve, or
because he had been a disciple of Jesus and heard his teachings and seen his
miracles. St. Paul understood that “we are being changed” (2 Cor 3:18)
because of the decisive experience of the blinding light of the Lord’s
presence, and because of the continuing experiencing of fellowship with
Christ in his own person. The miracle is St. Paul’s own life, which bears
witness to the process of deification. St. Paul had at first, before his baptism
and the time when he was “with the Apostles going in and out of Jerusalem
every day” (Acts 9:28), no authority upon which to rely except the
conviction of what he had experienced and was experiencing. It is even
possible that St. Paul was not fully acquainted with all the sayings and
parables of Jesus but that he had received from the Christian Church only a
basic outline or creed, confirming his own transforming experience.
So intense was St. Paul’s experience of Christ that his ways of
expressing deification are manifold and rich. His teaching on grace (charis) is
that, though God’s generosity, we can become united to the Holy Trinity:
“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship
with the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor 13:14). St. Paul was the
theologian of the transforming power of grace, because he had experienced
that transformation taking place in himself:
By the grace of God, I am what I am. (1 Cor 15:10)
St. Paul echoes here God’s mysterious announcement of his name when he
says to Moses “I am what I am” (Exod 3:14). God is what he is by nature: St.
Paul is what he is by grace—that is, a participant in the divine life.
St. Paul taught deification in a great variety of ways, which we cannot
begin to explore here. Most important is his doctrine that we are all, by
adoption, grace, and baptism, sons of God, sharing in Christ’s Sonship. He
was also a theologian of the Holy Spirit. He was, further, a theologian who
46 Literally “from glory unto glory.”

described grace as energy. In the Letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul describes
the grace of God as given, precisely, “according to the energy” of God. In
the first chapter, St. Paul speaks of “the exceeding greatness of his power
toward us who believe according to the energy of the ruling of his strength” (Eph
1:19). In chapter 3, St. Paul says that he has been made a minister of the
Gospel “according to the gift of the grace of God given to me according to the
energy of his power” (Eph 3:7). 47 This energy builds up every part of the
Church (Eph 4:16). The divine energy is resurrecting, glorifying, and
conquers all the powers of death (Phil 3:21). He was, moreover, a
theologian of the Church, teaching that, by incorporation into the
supernatural Body of the Church, which has as its Head Christ, we are
united to Christ and through Christ to the Holy Spirit and to God the
Father (Eph 4). Then he was a theologian of glory and taught that, having
been justified by Christ and putting all our faith in him, we can experience
now the glory of the Age to Come: “those who he justified he also glorified ”
(Rom 8:30). All grace is centered upon Christ, so that he can say that Christ
unites or sums up all things in himself, whether on earth or in the spiritual
realm, in order that, in the fullness of time, “The God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ might gather together in one all things in Christ” (Eph
1:3, 10). 48
St. Paul’s experience of the Light of Glory

The three Apostles whom Jesus took up the Mountain, St. Peter, St. John,
and St. James, and the sons of Zebedee experienced in history the Light of
Glory. St. Paul also experienced, historically, the Light of Glory, and it is
correct to say that he was converted by an experience of the Transfigured
Christ—that is, of Christ in glory.
St. Luke, who gives the full narrative of St. Paul’s conversion—the
Apostle himself is much more modest and reticent about this experience—
has already revealed to us that the Light of Glory can appear, through
God’s providence in human history. The Light first came to the shepherds.
There it was a peopled, personal glory: the angels were in it and God spoke
from it (Luke 2:13–15 describes the appearance of the Heavenly Host of
47 Most translations obscure the fact that energy is the expression being used
here, and I have translated the passages literally.
48 I quote here the King James translation of anakephalaiosthai, “to sum up in the
head”—that is, “gather together in one,” which is much better than the colorless
“unite” of the RSV. It is important to know this to appreciate St. Irenaeus’s
theology of “recapitulation” (2nd century).
angels). By paying careful attention to what is said about this glory and who
inhabits it in any particular theophany, we can see how the Uncreated Light
belongs to the historical revelation of God and is not a light that belongs to
the general experience of mysticism or any other allegedly supernatural
experience outside the revelation of God in history in the Old and New
Covenants. Moses beheld God’s glory first of all, and his face was
transformed. He knew that the Light belonged to God because of the voice
that came from the glory. On the Mountain, the Apostles also heard God’s
voice confirming Jesus’ divine sonship. They also saw in the developing
Communion of the Saints, Moses and Elijah already in glory, communing
with Jesus. In St. Paul’s experience of the light, Jesus is himself in a state of
glory, having by the time St. Paul meets him risen from the dead and
ascended to the Right Hand of the Father in Heaven.
St. Luke narrates the account of St. Paul’s conversion three times, each
in different settings. The first setting is in the third person as St. Luke
describes the miraculous event that ended Saul’s career as persecutor of
Christians and made him into Paul the Apostle: 49
Now as he journeyed, he approached Damascus and suddenly a light
from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a
voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? And he said,
“Who are you Lord? And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are
persecuting; but rise and enter the city and you will be told what you are
to do.” (Acts 9:3–7)
The second setting gives St. Paul’s account of himself, his defense or
apologia to the Jews, after he had been arrested for his own safety in
Jerusalem as a consequence of a riot begun by Jews from Asia who
recognized him in the Temple as a missionary of Jesus. Knowing Greek, he
was able to persuade the Roman officer to let him address the Jewish
people on the steps of the Temple. He then addressed the people “in the
Hebrew language,” and St. Luke gives us a version of this in Greek. St. Paul
tells them that, as he was on his way to Damascus to persecute the
Christians,
49 Changes of name usually signaled a change of vocation when God destined some
one for a special purpose: Abram became Abraham; Hoshea became Joshua. It is
likely that “Saul” was St. Paul’s Jewish name but that, as with many Jews in the
Roman Empire, he also had a Greek or Latin name. St. Paul was a Roman citizen
and “Paulus” appears frequently on Latin inscriptions. In Latin it means “little.”
Perhaps the name gives the idea that humanly St. Paul is little and powerless but that
he is powerful only through God’s grace.
As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great

light from heaven suddenly shone about me. And I fell to the ground
and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’
And I answered, ‘Who are you Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of
Nazareth whom you are persecuting.’ (Acts 22:6–8)
St. Paul adds that those who traveled with him were speechless, hearing the
voice but not seeing the light. This light blinded Saul. He asked the Lord
what he should do and was told to go to Damascus, where he was “led by
the hand,” being blind (Acts 22:11). Then providence acted in a wonderful
manner: he was received into the Church by Ananias, who gave him back
his sight and arranged for his introduction to the Church and baptism. We
may assume that St. Paul already had an accurate understanding of the
teaching of the Christians, as an educated strict Jew and keen persecutor of
what he had once thought to be “heresy.” However, this experience enabled
him to receive baptism, accepting as true what he believed were
blasphemies.
St. Paul’s experience is not of light in general. The light is personal.
Jesus has taken personally his persecution of his people! St. Paul,
recognizing the signs of a theophany, a manifestation of God’s presence,
fell to the ground, as did the Apostles on the Mountain. There was a voice
from Heaven, just as there was on the Mountain. This time the divine voice
is that of Jesus himself, now in glory.
St. Luke’s third narration of St. Paul’s conversion by a vision of the
Uncreated Light is in St. Paul’s account of himself to “King Agrippa.” This
personage was King Herod Agrippa II, ruler of Galilee and son of King
Herod Agrippa I, who had killed St. James son of Zebedee. St. Paul, having
been arrested, had appealed to Rome for judgment, as was his right as a
Roman citizen of the city of Tarsus. Agrippa II had shown an interest when
Festus, the Roman Governor of Judea, had mentioned St. Paul. One may
imagine that Agrippa’s interest was not very serious. However, St. Paul
gives him a full account, because it is not for the Apostle to judge who will
or will not receive the message of salvation:
At midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven brighter than
the sun shining around me and those who journeyed with me. And
when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the
Hebrew language, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts to kick
against the goads.” (Acts 26:13–18)
Jesus tells St. Paul that he is “to be a servant and witness … to open the
eyes [of the Gentiles] that they may turn from darkness to light and from
the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:12–18 [selected verses]).
In this apologia to King Agrippa, St. Paul adds some details. The light
“brighter than the sun” reminds us of the Transfiguration on the Mountain.
St. Paul says only in his account to King Agrippa that the Light surrounded
his fellow-travelers and that they fell to the ground. It is clear from this
account that St. Paul’s companions on the journey participated to some
extent in this theophany. However, only St. Paul repented and was changed.
The grace that was given to St. Paul was something that he accepted
wholeheartedly.
The light did not just confound him and show him that he was wrong
and bad. In the Light of Glory, Jesus is sorry for the persecutor and reveals
to St. Paul what perhaps he did not realize he felt: the misery and torment
of a person going against the light of God’s glory.
St. Paul was re-created on that day, the day of his transfiguration. This
is why he as able to teach that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation”
(2 Cor 5:17). St. Paul saw the manifestation of the light to him as taking us
right back to the light at the creation of the world, which divided the
darkness into night and made the light day:
Even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.
In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory
of Christ who is the likeness of God. For what we preach is not
ourselves. But Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for
Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness” who has
shone in our hearts to give the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (2 Cor
4:3–6)
This passage is full of references to Moses: “the veil,” “the glory,” and “the
face”—that is, to the manifestation of God to Moses which began the
redemption from slavery in Egypt. However, St. Paul’s mind thinks further
back than this historical event to the very beginning of everything, when,
through his Word, God made the light to shine and divided the light from
the darkness, calling the light “day” and the darkness ”night” (Gen 1:3–5).
This “evening and morning” which was the “first day” of creation
manifested a light which is not derived from the sun or the planets: the
latter is mentioned as the work of the fourth day (Gen 1:14–19). St. Paul
makes a link between the light of the first day and the light of grace. The
reversal of death could not be more complete. St. Paul has taken us back,
before the fall of Adam to the original Creation, as it was perfectly good. In
going back to the beginning of time, St. Paul is also anticipating the end of
time and the restoration of all Creation in Christ.
AT THE FOOT OF THE MOUNTAIN

Language about light today is something of a cliché. It has very much
weakened from the powerful idea that it was in the ancient world. We
speak, rather feebly, of casting light upon an issue and of behaving in an
enlightened manner. We do not often speak of bringing light to the blind,
of light which is brighter than the sun, which dazzles and astonishes. In the
eighteenth century, rationalism was called the Aufklärung, the
Enlightenment, the cool reasoning which argued the miraculous out of
existence for the educated person.
In this final chapter, I have called attention to what the Bible teaches
about the light of Christ. This light is a life-changing light. It is the Light of
Glory. This light shines from God, because God is good. However, the
shining is not a necessity; it does not have to happen as a logical consequence
of what God is. The shining of God’s uncreated energy as light is a personal
consequence of what God is. The light has broken through human history,
because the persons of the divine Trinity were united in will that this light
should be put forth. At the very beginning, before the world was perfectly
formed, and the Holy Spirit was hovering over the face of the still chaotic
waters, God the Father said, through his Uncreated Word, “Let there be
light; and there was light.” When his creation fell away from fellowship with
him, God said again, “Let there be light!” This is the light of his grace and
love, which has appeared to us in the face of Christ.
Just as the putting forth of light was not inevitable because God is
personal and free in his love, so the reception of the light is not inevitable,
either. We, too, are personal beings, and we are free. The Uncreated Light
affects different people differently according to their makeup, according to
the way they have come to be during their lives. For some, the light is
redemption, forgiveness of sins, healing, and joy. For others, this same light
is hateful and caustic: it burns those who hate it, although it is the same
light which is experienced as love by those who have repented and received
God’s grace. It is not a different light to those who receive it and to those
who resist it. The light of God is always loving and true. In this world, there
are many bright lights to distract a person—but eternity is different.
CONCLUSION
In his classic study of deification according to the Greek Fathers, Jules

Gross concluded his brief account of the New Testament as follows:
Therefore if [“divinisation”] and its equivalents are absent from the
New Testament, it is not less certain that the reality that these terms
express is found there. Having been united with God, having become an
adoptive child of God, living by a truly divine life and assured of blessed
incorruptibility, all by and in Christ, the Christian is assimilated to God
and partakes of the divine nature as much as is possible for a human
creature. 1
I hope that I have been able to show that, with regard to the whole Bible,
the reality of deification is taught there in a variety of ways by the Spirit-
inspired writers of the Scripture.
The Eastern Fathers were often highly-trained in Greek philosophy
and rhetoric. In the last two centuries, there has been a reaction by biblical
theologians against the Fathers, following the idea associated with Adolf
von Harnack, 2 that the Fathers distorted Bible-teaching by imposing upon
it Greek philosophy. On this theory, the Greek Fathers thought in Greek
and missed the Aramaic and Hebrew background to the Greek of the Bible,
so that the biblical message became something entirely Greek rather than
Palestinian. It has been alleged against the Fathers that they used a baffling
vocabulary derived from Greek philosophy but which was in fact a
decadent version even of the latter, because they dogmatized without
respect for freedom of thought. The opposing idea has been that the New
Testament writers thought in Hebrew or Aramaic as did Jesus and the
Apostles, and only wrote in Greek. But this reaction is just as questionable as
von Harnack’s and puts the New Testament writers in a sealed Hebrew
bubble which does not relate to the surrounding world. However, we have
seen how the New Testament writers, Jesus and the Apostles, inhabited the
“bilingual” world of the first-century Roman Empire, so that they could
1Gross, Divinization of the Christian, 91–92.

2History of Dogma, I, 48. For the antecedents to von Harnack, see Thomas,
Newman, 171–172, and 299–300, notes 27–29.
179
write and speak a form of Greek partly-coloured by their first language,

Aramaic. The New Testament writers all had a missionary and universal
view of the Gospel. They used Greek words and ideas as well as Hebraic
ones, re-forging both in the crucible of their experience to form a new
language of the Spirit.
I hope that I have gone some of the way in dispelling these caricatures,
either that the Fathers “Hellenized” the Gospel-message or that the
Apostles had a purely Hebrew or Aramaic message, which they
uncomfortably translated into Greek. My schoolmasters, even if they were
clergymen, used to refer to the Greek of the Bible as “bad Greek,” that is, a
kind of Greek which did not fit that standard of Classical Greek as written
by the aristocracy of 4th-century Athens.
The philosophical interests of the Fathers were in many ways an
advantage, because, as Christians, they regarded the Bible as the highest
philosophy. Consequently, they read the Bible with inquiring minds full of
wonder and found in the Bible a still richer form of reflection upon life
than they had found in Plato or Aristotle. They were also able to draw upon
a multilayered way of interpreting a text, which they derived from Stoicism
and from their studies of rhetoric. This enabled them to bring to bear a
method of interpretation which was at least as subtle as the rabbinic
tradition in Judaism, showed a literary awareness of the art of the text, and
which avoided the pitfalls of literalism.
Inspired by the Fathers, I have found in the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament not an ancient but primitive vitality akin to the folktale but
rather a subtle, many-sided style of narrative philosophy. Thus the example
of the Greek Fathers, who did not know Hebrew, has nevertheless
energized my approach to these texts.
However, Orthodox theology is not only a form of intellectual
reflection. It is also experience: it arises from experience and it pushes one
on to have the experience which it expresses. Orthodox theology is a
theology of glory. It is a development of the theology of the experience of
God’s kabod, the fiery energy of God which Moses experienced and which
St. Paul and St. John took up to express how God enables us to share in the
divine life. Although we cannot know the divine nature or essence directly
or completely, we do share in the divine nature by means of God’s glory,
which is a deifying uncreated energy, graciously given to the faithful to
varying degrees in this life. This glory transforms us by its power in our
bodies, intellects, and spirits, so that we can experience as a pledge or down
payment the glory that is to come after this earthly life is over. It is a glory
that we shall share with Christ, the Most Holy Mother of God, and with the
CONCLUSION 181
souls of the Saints in Paradise, where the Saints await with joy the reunion
of the souls with their bodies in the Age to Come. This final Resurrection
will complete our union with Christ as we become with him priests of
Creation, uniting matter to spirit and hallowing it.
What are the fruits of deification in our experience as Christians?
Firstly, there are the virtues of unshakable faith and sure hope. Secondly,
inward joy bears fruit in love, not only of our friends but also of our
enemies and those who are indifferent to us. This love cannot function
without humility, for how can we approach others if we are proud?
Prayer is the hidden fuel for the good works which can be seen. Prayer
should be unceasing. St Paul said:
Pray without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17) 3
Adialeiptos proseuchesthe
A standard recent commentary says that this means that Christians
should be prayerful people but “obviously he does not mean this to be
taken literally.” 4 There is a strong tendency in Orthodoxy to take this
command literally and to seek to attain unceasing prayer with every breath
and moment of our lives. 5 It has two aspects. Firstly, it is a humble
awareness of our own need for grace as we say “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of
God, have mercy upon me, a sinner.” Secondly, it is the glorification of
God in that, having received glory from God, we give it back to him and so
enter the community of love of the divine Trinity, where each person
glorifies the others.
There are dangers in the life of prayer especially in becoming deluded
and misinterpreting our feelings as divine inspirations. On the other hand,
we must not be timid that when the King of Kings and Lord of Lords
offers us fellowship with him. We should ask for great spiritual gifts and
not insult the King of Kings by asking for mean and petty things.
It is a great help to be in the Church in the concrete sense of being
together with other faithful people. In the Body of Christ, there is the
Eucharist to nourish us for incorruptibility and sacramental Confession as
3 Rather than the RSV “Pray constantly.”

4 Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 200. However, an earlier generation of Protestants
had a more mystical idea. Jonathan Edwards commented on this verse: “Breathing
is essential to living and prayer is the Christian’s vital breath,” ed., Jenks,
Comprehensive Commentary, 450
5 In The Way of a Pilgrim, 1–2, the pilgrim’s quest is to find out how this teaching
of St. Paul can be perfectly fulfilled.

the medicine for our faults. There are the prayers of the Church which we
can turn to even when alone, which remind us of our communion with the
faithful on earth and the Saints in Paradise. There are the dogmas, or
teachings, of the Church to ensure that our giving of glory to God is the
right glory, so that our whole life may be a true “doxology” equally to God
the Father, to God the Son who is eternally begotten and who became
incarnate for our sakes, and to God the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the
Father and whom Christ sent to be our Advocate and Comforter—Three
Persons in One God, for ever!
APPENDIX: FOR FURTHER READING
1. BOOKS ON DEIFICATION
Jules Gross, The Divinization of the Christian according to the Greek Fathers.
(Trans. Paul A. Onica. Anaheim, California: A & C Press, 2002. French
original, 1938) provides the best overview of the sources. This may be
supplemented by V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church
(Crestwood, New York: SVSP, 1997; French original, 1944), especially ch.
6.
Philokalia (Ware), IV, is rich in relevant texts; especially 331–342; 418–
425, the latter being The Hagioritic Tome, written in 1341 by St. Gregory
Palamas and signed by the Fathers of Mount Athos. For a more challenging
work by St. Gregory Palamas, see below [2].
The anonymous Way of a Pilgrim: the Pilgrim Continues his Way (London
& Glasgow: Harper Collins, 1991) is a charming introduction to the Jesus
Prayer and the doctrine of deification as it affected Russian piety as a result
of the spread of writings from the Slavonic Philokalia.
Bishop Kallistos Ware’s account of hesychasm is very clear and
uplifting, chapters 6–7 of The Inner Kingdom Volume I of the Collected
Works, (New York: SVSP, 2000), 75–110. His pamphlet The Power of the
Name. The Jesus Prayer in Orthodox Spirituality (Fairacres, Oxford: Sisters of
the Love of God Press, Convent of the Incarnation, 1991) is a balanced
account of a way of prayer cherished by Orthodox people and intimately
connected with the desire for deification, by which one aims to know God,
rather than knowing about God.
A unique book which gives generous extracts from the teaching of
Rumanian contemplatives or hesychasts is Bishop Seraphima Joanta,
Romania. Its Hesychast Tradition and Culture (Wildwood, California: St. Xenia
Skete, 1992).
The works of Archimandrite Sophrony Sakharov (+1993) are very
important. There is his book on St. Silouan of Mount Athos, Saint Silouan
the Athonite (trans. Rosemary Edmonds. Essex: Stavropegic Monastery of St.
John the Baptist, 1991). Read first Part II “The Writings of Staretz
Silouan.” Fr. Sophrony’s theology of deification is also very important,
although he rarely uses the word “deification”: especially, His Life is Mine
183
(Crestwood, New York: SVSP, 1987) and We shall See Him as He Is (Essex:
Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, 1987). This can be followed
up by A. Zacharias Zachariou, Christ Our Way and Our Life. A Presentation of
the Theology of Archimandrite Sophrony (South Canaan, Pennsylvania: St.
Tikhon’s Seminary Press 2003).
Another recent ‘elder’ or staretz is the Elder Porphyrios, whose
Wounded by Love (Limni, Evia, Greece: Denise Harvey, 2005) shows the
relationship between personal deification and the Church.
2. BOOKS ON THE BIBLE
a. Orthodox authors
George Barrois, Scripture Readings in Orthodox Worship (Crestwood, New
York: SVSP, 1997 and Theodore Stylianopoulos, The New Testament. An
Orthodox Perspective (Brookline, Mass: Holy Cross Orthodox Seminary Press,
2002) give a good account of general principles of interpretation. Fr.
George Florovsky’s Bible, Church, Tradition (Belmont Mass: Notable and
Academic Books, 1987) remains useful.
For New Testament Scripture in relation to the Fathers, arranged
according to the liturgical year, nothing is better than Johanna Manley, The
Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox. Daily Scripture Readings & Commentary
(Holy Fathers) (SVSP, 1999). By the same author, and also excellent, are the
books about the Old Testament arranged again in relation to the Church
year: Wisdom, Let us Attend: Job, the Fathers and the Old Testament (Manlo Park,
California: Monastery Books 1997), Grace for Grace. The Psalter and the Holy
Fathers: Patristic Commentary, Meditations and Liturgical Extracts in relation to the
Psalms (Manlo Park, California: Monastery Books 1992), and Isaiah through
the Ages (Manlo Park, California: Monastery Books 1995). Some of Johanna
Manley’s texts of the Fathers on the Bible are from the Nicene & Post
Nicene Fathers (T & T Clark, Edinburgh & Eerdmans, 1994): 19th century
translations. Johanna Manley has also translated herself from a variety
sources, including the Sources Chrétiennes series (Paris: Editions du Cerf)
St. John Chrysostom is the standard for interpretation of Scripture in
the Orthodox Church, see NPNF, PNF(1), Volumes IX-XIV, which are
commentaries on almost all of the New Testament. Some may find the
English off-putting, because it is a very literal and also a nineteenth century
style of translating. Useful Introductions in modern English are:-
Spiritual Gems from the Gospel of Matthew and Spiritual Gems form the Psalms
both translated by Robert Charles Hill. (Brookline, Mass: Holy Cross
Orthodox Seminary Press, 2004).
APPENDIX 185
The commentaries of Blessed Theophlact (11th century) are also highly

prized, since they so concisely summarize Orthodox tradition. Three have
so far been translated into English with the text of the King James Bible
printed in the text. References to the Old Testament are adjusted to take
account of the Orthodox Church’s use of the Septuagint version of the Old
Testament:-
Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew. Translated by Fr.
Christopher Stade. (House Springs, Mo: Chrysostom Press, 2000)
Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Mark. Translated by Fr.
Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Luke. Translated by Fr.
The very reasonably-priced CD-ROM of Peter Kirby of NPNF is
extremely useful for reference:
Early Christian Writings. 2005
Companion CD to www.EarlyChristianWritings.com
An excellent summary of quotations from the Fathers in the order that
they apply to the Gospels, accompanied by the text of the Gospels, is:
Aquinas, Thomas. Catena Aurea. Commentary on the Four Gospels Collected out of
the Works of the Fathers. Translated by John Henry Newman. (Eugene,
Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2005).
For reference to the Old Testament, the version to which the Fathers
refer and the Orthodox Church uses, there is a 19th century version of the
Septuagint Greek version, Sir Lancelot Brenton The Septuagint with
Apocrypha: Greek and English (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1992) and The
Psalter According to the Seventy (Boston, Mass: Holy Transfiguration
Monastery, 1987), which gives the Psalms in the numbering familiar to the
Fathers and to Orthodox readers and arranges them according to the
divisions or “sittings” (kathismata) for liturgical use.
b. New Testament Studies

The Fathers did not have the riches of modern research—archeology,
textual and linguistic studies—at their disposal. Orthodox scholars have not
probed the Scriptures very deeply in our age but conservative Evangelical
scholars have shown that a high standard of scholarship is not inconsistent
with a respect for divine inspiration and tradition. A beautifully written and
presented commentary which presents the best of recent research in a
manner profitable for salvation is the four-volume Zondervan Illustrated Bible
Backgrounds Commentary. Edited by Clinton Arnold. (Grand Rapids, Mich:
Zondervan Publishing, 2002). A one-volume Bible commentary that
explains critical issues clearly in a sober manner is ed. Carson, France,

Motyer & Wenham, New Bible Commentary (Downers Grove, Illinois:
Intervarsity Press, 2005). Its approach is the believing criticism of recent
conservative Evangelical scholarship which respects tradition on matter of
canonicity and apostolic authorship. Even better is D. A. Carson & Douglas
M. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich:
Zondervan, 2005). On the other hand, J. A. McGuckin’s The Transfiguration
of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (Lewiston, New York: Mellen Press, 1987)
presents trenchant insights. His attempt to relate the Fathers to a critical-
redactional approach to the NT accounts is still compelling (although I do
not entirely agree with it). A fascinating re-evaluation of the whole question
of the relationship between the Gospels and their composition has been
published at the time of going to press by Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the
Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, Mich:
Eerdmans, 2006).
3. THE FATHERS AND BOOKS ON THE FATHERS

J. A. McGuckin’s Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology (Louisville &
London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004) provides clear introductions
to individual Fathers and topics pursued by them. This may be
supplemented by J. Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1977) especially ch. 6. From a Catholic
perspective is Tomas Spidlik, S. J., The Spirituality of the Christian East. A
Systematic Handbook (Kalamazoo, Mich: Cistercian Publications). A classic by
an earlier generation which is excellent if one can find it is Louis Bouyer,
Orthodox Spirituality and Protestant and Anglican Spirituality. A History of
Christian Spirituality, Vol. III, (Tunbridge Wells; Burns and Oates, 1968).
Very interesting is the recent account by the Anglican Evangelical
theologian Gerald Bray, The Doctrine of God. Contours of Christian Theology
(Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993) which draws upon the
Eastern Fathers in a manner very sympathetic to the Eastern Orthodox
tradition but relates this to the Reformed tradition and especially John
Calvin.
On Origen: edited by J. A. McGuckin is The Westminster Handbook to
Origen (Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004) which
provides a good overview of this fascinating and controversial figure in the
early Church; see the article “Anthropology” by the present author. Also
important and interesting is Mark Edwards, Origen against Plato (Hampshire,
England & Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2002) which ably
APPENDIX 187
challenges received ideas about Origen’s “Platonism” and presents this

Father as driven rather by the biblical history.
There is no better way to get to know ‘patristics’ than to read the
Fathers—and for an Orthodox Christian, the period of the Fathers covers
what would be described as medieval writings: Byzantium has its Fathers
right up to the conquest of the holy city by the Turks in 1453. (It is argued,
rightly in my view, that the “elders” of modern times are contemporary
Fathers, because, if the Holy Spirit is active in the Church for teaching, then
the age of the Fathers has not yet ended.) The following may be
recommended. They all exist in attractive contemporary translations with
helpful introductions and are listed in chronological order:-
(second century) St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Early Church Fathers. Edited by
Robert M. Grant. (London & New York: Routledge, 1997)
(third century) Tertullian, Cyprian and Origen on the Lord’s Prayer. Edited by
Alistair Stewart Sykes. Popular Patristics Series. (SVSP, 2004)
(fourth century) St. Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Popular Patristics Series.
(SVSP, 2004)
(fourth century) St. Basil of Caesarea. On the Holy Spirit. Popular Patristics
Series. (SVSP, 2004)
(fourth century) St. Gregory Nazianzen. Five Theological Orations & Two
Letters to Cledonius. Popular Patristics Series. SVSP. An excellent
scholarly account of St. Gregory “the Theologian” is given by J. A.
McGuckin, Saint Gregory Nazianzen. An Intellectual Biography. (SVSP,
2001)
(fourth century) Gregory Nyssa, Lord’s Prayer, Beatitudes. Edited by Hilda
Graef. (ACW, 1978)
———.ed. Mursurillo. From Glory to Glory. (SVSP, 1997)
(fourth century) St. Macarius the Spirit-Bearer. Coptic Texts relating to St.
Macarius the Great. Popular Patristics Series. (SVSP, 2004)
(fourth century) St. John Chrysostom. The Early Church Fathers. Edited by
Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen. (London and New York: Routledge,
2000). This book contains a selection of his work with a detailed
introduction clearly written and selections in translation with notes.
(fourth century) St. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on Paradise. Translated by
Sebastian Brock. (SVSP, 1990)
A very attractive translation of St. Ephrem’s midrashe (or poems
interpreting Scripture) is:
Brock, Sebastian P., & Kiraz, George A. Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Poems.
Vocalized Syriac text with introduction and notes. (Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University Press, 2006).
(fifth century) St. Cyril of Alexandria. On the Unity of Christ. Translated by J.

A. McGuckin. Popular Patristics Series. (SVSP, 1995) For those who
wish to pursue this great Father further, nothing could be better than
J. A. McGuckin, St. Cyril and the Christological Controversy, now available
in paperback, (SVSP, 2004); it also contains translations of important
texts which cannot be found elsewhere.
(sixth century) St. Maximus Confessor, On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ.
Translated by Paul M. Blowers & Robert Louis Wilken. Popular
Patristics Series. (SVSP, 2002.)
(seventh century) St. Isaac of Nineveh. On Ascetical Life. (SVSP, 1989). This
may be supplemented by Hilarion Alfeyev, The Spiritual World of Isaac
the Syrian, (Kalamazoo, Mich: Cistercian Publications, 2000)
Brock, Sebastian P., The Wisdom of Isaac of Nineveh (Gorgias Press, 2006)
selects short sayings of the Saint and translates them, providing the
Syriac text in a facing translation in vocalized Serto.
(eighth century) St. John of Damascus. Three Treatises on the Divine Images.
Translated by Rev. Professor Andrew Louth. Popular Patristics Series.
(SVSP, 2003)
———.On the Orthodox Faith. NPNF, PNF(2), Vol. IX. Unfortunately no
modern English edition and translation exists.
On St. John of Damascus, a very clear and informative account which also
tells one much about the Orthodox tradition as a whole is Rev.
Professor Andrew Louth, St. John of Damascus: Tradition and Originality in
Byzantine Theology Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, paperback edition, 2004)
(eleventh century) St. Symeon the New Theologian. On the Mystical Life. The
Ethical Discourses I. The Church and the Last Things. Translated by
Alexander Golitzin. Popular Patristics Series. (SVSP, 2002)
———.On the Mystical Life II. The Ethical Discourses II. Translated by
Alexander Golitzin. Popular Patristics Series. (SVSP, 2002)
NOTE: On the Mystical Life III (SVSP, 2002) is a study of St. Symeon by
Alexander Golitzin.
Symeon the New Theologian. Chapters and Discourses. Translated by J. A.
McGuckin. (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications. Kalamazo, 1982,
reprinted 1994).
(fourteenth century) St. Gregory Palamas, Topics of Natural and Theological
Science and on the Moral and Ascetic Life, Philokalia (Ware), IV, 331–342. A
clear and non-technical introduction to this Saint is Metropolitan
Nafpaktos Hierotheos, St. Gregory Palamas as a Hagiorite. Translated by
Esther Williams (Levadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery,
APPENDIX 189
1997). This book views St. Gregory from the point of his monastic
vocation and his life of prayer. A more academic study is Georgios I.
Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox
Tradition. Contemporary Greek Theologians Series. (SVSP, 1984).
(fourteenth century) St. Nicholas Cabasilas, Life in Christ. Translated by
Carmino de Catanzaro. (SVSP, 1997)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABBREVIATIONS TO BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

ACW=Ancient Christian Writers. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. The
editions are of various dates from 1950s to present: this series, which
is not complete, presents English translations by the Fathers with
scholarly notes and introductions.
CWS=Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press. A wide
variety of editions of works which are ‘mystical,’ taking the broadest
possible interpretation of that word; translations of some of the
Fathers in this series by prominent scholars in the field.
NPNF= Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark; Grand
Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, frequent imprints until the early 1990s).
These literal translations are from the 19th century and, although other
translations and editions have superseded them, they remain the most
complete English translations of the Fathers in English. The most
recent editions (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1994) are slightly
modernized with some re-arrangement of the order of the books; they
are now the only editions in print and the 1st series of the Post-Nicene
Fathers are not published. (None of the changes affect references
made in this book.) However the older T & T Clark and Eerdmans
editions are often found in libraries. Being out of copyright, these texts
are available online at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers
and through an inexpensive CD-R at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/?adword
I have divided them into the following three categories for reference
purposes, that is, the Ante Nicene Fathers and two series of the Post-
Nicene Fathers.:-
ANF=Ante Nicene Fathers. 10 volumes. Edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts
& James Donaldson, revised A. Cleveland Coxe. Edinburgh: T & T
Clark; Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, reprint referred to in this
edition, 1996.
191
PNF(1)=Post Nicene Fathers, 1st Series. 14 volumes. Edited by Phillip

Schaff. Edinburgh: T & T Clark; Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans,
1994.
PNF(2)=Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series. 14 volumes. Edited by Philip
Schaff & Henry Wace. Edinburgh: T & T Clark; Grand Rapids, Mich:
Eerdmans, reprint referred to in this edition, 1991.
In the footnotes to NPNF the volumes will be cited by series, volume
number, and page number in that order. This information will be pre-
ceded by the author and title of the work and title of the volume, if the
context requires it. Full details are in the main Bibliography below.
Philokalia (Ware)=The Philokalia. The Complete Text, compiled by St.
Nikodemus of the Holy Mountain & St. Makarios of Corinth, edited &
translated, from Greek, Kallistos Ware, G. E. H Palmer, Philip Sher-
rard. (London: Faber & Faber, various dates, see below). The word
“Philokalia” means in Greek “love for what is beautiful or good” and
came from this to mean a work of scholarship, especially a collection
of texts. The Greek Philokalia was a late 18th century collection of
works of the Greek Fathers and of spiritual writers from the early
Christian Fathers to writers of 14th century Byzantium. So far four vol-
umes of the projected five are available:-
Volume I, 1979, (paperback).
Volume, II, 1981, (paperback).
Volume III, 1984, (paperback).
Volume, IV, 1995, (paperback).
References to the above volumes in footnotes will be identified
by the abbreviation Philokalia (Ware) and referred to in the order: vol-
ume number, page number.
*NOTE [1] Another Philokalia was compiled by St. Paissy
Velichkovsky translating from Greek into Slavonic, and translated in
the 19th century into Russian by St. Theophan the Recluse. This Sla-
vonic and Russian “Philokalia” translated different Fathers in a differ-
ent order. Selections from this work exist in the following two books,
not necessarily in print at time of going to press. They are not referred
to in this book but would be useful for further reading:-
trans. from Russian, E. Kadloubovsky & G. E. H Palmer, Writings from
the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart (London: Faber & Faber, 1951, 9th
impression, 1977).
trans. from Russian, E. Kadloubovsky & G. E. H Palmer, Early Fathers
from the Philokalia (London: Faber & Faber, 1954, 8th impression, 1981).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 193
[2] These works under [1] above are to be distinguished from another
“Philokalia” to which I refer at some points in the book: the Philokalia
of Origen, a collection of Origen’s texts made by St. Gregory Nazianzen
and St. Basil of Caesarea in the 4th century. There is at present no
English version in print. [There exists a 19th century version, now
unavailable, The Philocalia of Origen. Translated by Rev. George Lewis in
1893. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911.] A critical edition of this work
is to be found in the following Sources Chrétiennes volumes:
SC no. 302, ed. Marguerite Harl, Origène Philocalie, 1–20, Sur Les
Ecritures. 1983
SC no. 226, ed. Eric Junod, Origène Philocalie 21–27 Sur Le Libre Arbitrie.
1976
SC no. 268, ed. Henri Crouzel & Manlio Simonetti, Origène Traité des
Principes. 1980
SC no. 269, ed. Henri Crouzel & Manlio Simonetti, Origène Traité des
Principes. Commentaire et Fragments, 1980
SC=Sources Chrétiennes. Paris, editions du Cerf, 1945–present: these
scholarly editions contain a critical version of the Greek or Latin text
of the Fathers of the Church and facing translation of the text and
detailed commentaries and notes (in French). They are referred to by
the number of the series, (counting from the first text published in
1945), followed immediately by the page-reference.
SVSP=St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press Crestwood, New York State: St.
Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary Press, ongoing: this publisher
concentrates on accessible modern translations of the Fathers and
Orthodox theology.
Alfeyev, Hilarion. St. Symeon the New Theologian and Orthodox Tradition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
———. The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian. Kalamazoo, Mich: Cistercian
Publications, 2000.
Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 volumes. Edited by D. N. Freeman. New York:
Doubleday, 1992.
Anselm. Cur Deus homo (Why God Became Man), in Anselm of Canterbury,
The Major Works. Edited by Brian Davies & G. R. Evans. Oxford:
OUP, Worlds Classics, 1998.
Aquinas, Thomas. Catena Aurea. Commentary on the Four Gospels Collected out of
the Works of the Fathers. Translated by John Henry Newman. Eugene,
Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2005.
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical

Library. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Arnold, Clinton, ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. Grand
Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Publishing, 2002.
St. Athanasius. Athanasius on the Incarnation of the Word. Translated by a
Religious of C.S.M.V., SVSP. [1944], reprinted, SVSP, 1993.
———. Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione. Edited by Robert W. Thompson.
Oxford: OUP, Clarendon Press, 1971.
———. Sur L’Incarnation du Verbe, Edited by Charles Kannengiesser. SC no.
199, 2000.
———. On the Incarnation. Translated by Archibald Robertson (editing
material by J. H. Newman). NPNF, PNF (2), IV.
Barrois, George. Scripture Readings in Orthodox Worship. Crestwood, New
York: SVSP, 1997.
Bashir, Archbishop Anthony. Studies in the Greek Orthodox Church.
Antiochian Press (no date or place specified), 3rd ed. 1960.
St. Basil of Caesarea, The Great. Contra Eunomius, Contre Eunome. Edited by
Bernard Sesboué, G. M. de Durand, L. Doutrileau. Volume, I, SC no.
299, 1982; Volume II, SC no. 305, 1983.
———. Divine Liturgy. Oxford: Oxford University Press & Essex: The
Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, 1982, pp. 102–151;
Anaphora of the Liturgy of St. Basil, 119–135.
———. Letters and Select Works. Translated by Rev. Blomfield Jackson.
NPNF, PNF(2), Vol. VIII.
———. On the Holy Spirit, Popular Patristics Series. SVSP, 2004.
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness
Testimony. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2006.
Blomberg, Craig C. Matthew. New American Commentary, 22. Nashville:
Broadman, 1992.
Bock, Darrell. Luke, Vol. 1: 1:1–9:50. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books,
1994.
Bouyer, Louis. Orthodox Spirituality and Protestant and Anglican Spirituality. A
History of Christian Spirituality, Vol. III, Tunbridge Wells: Burns and
Oates, 1968.
Bray, Gerald. The Doctrine of God. Contours of Christian Theology. Downers
Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993.
Brenton, Sir Lancelot. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English.
Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1992.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 195
Brock, Sebastian P. The Wisdom of Isaac of Nineveh. (Bilingual Edition: Syriac

and English) Texts from Christian Late Antiquity. Piscataway, New
Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2006.
Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John i–xii. Anchor Bible 29. New
York: Doubleday, 1966.
———. The Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible 30, 1982.
Cabasilas, St. Nicholas. Life in Christ. Translated by Carmino de Catanzaro.
SVSP, 1997.
Carson, D. A. & Moo, Douglas M. An Introduction to the New Testament.
Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005.
Carson, D. A. et al. eds. New Bible Commentary. Downers Grove, Illinois:
Intervarsity Press, 2005.
Cyril of Alexandria. Dialogues sur la Trinité. Edited by G. M. de Durand. SC
no. 231, 1976.
———. On the Unity of Christ. Translated by J. A. McGuckin. Popular
Patristics Series. SVSP, 1995.
Davies, W. D. & Allison, Dale C. Jr. Matthew. Volume II, International
Critical Commentary, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991.
Dorsey, David A. The Literary Stucture of the Old Testament. A Commentary on
Genesis to Malachi. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Didymus the Blind. Didyme L’Aveugle, sur Zacharie. Edited by Louis
Doutreleau. SC nos. 83, 84, & 85, 1962.
Early Christian Writings. 2005 Companion CD to
www.EarlyChristianWritings.com
Edwards, Mark. Origen against Plato. Hampshire, England & Burlington, VT:
Ashgate Publishing, 2002.
St. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on Paradise. Translated by Sebastian Brock.
SVSP, 1990.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History I. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by
Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2001.
———. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. NPNF, PNF(2), Vol. I.
______. Histoire Ecclésiatique (Livres I-IV) Tome I. Translated and annotated
by Gustave Bardy(+), 2001. SC no. 31.
Festal Menaion. Translated by Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware. South
Canaan, Penn: St. Tikhon’s Monastery Press, 1990.
Fitzmeyer, Joseph A., S. J. The Acts of the Apostles. Anchor Bible
Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1998.
Florovsky, Fr. George. Bible, Church, Tradition. Belmont, Mass: Notable and
Academic Books, 1987.
Golitzin, Fr. Alexander. St. Symeon the New Theologian on the Mystical Life III:
Life, Times and Theology. SVSP, 2002.
St. Gregory Nazianzen. Five Theological Orations & Two Letters to Cledonius.
Popular Patristics Series. SVSP, 2006.
Gregory Nyssa. From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical
Writings. Edited and translated by Herbert Mursurillo. Introduction by
Jean Danielou, SVS, 1997.
———. Great Catechism. Translated by Henry Wace. NPNF. PNF(2), Vol.
V.
———. Life of Moses. Translated by A. Malherbe & E. Ferguson. CWS,
1978.
———. Life of Moses. Edited Silas House. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
Harper Spiritual Classics, 2006.
———. On the Making of Man. Translated by William More & H. A. Wilson.
NPNF. PNF(2), Vol. V.
———. The Lord’s Prayer; The Beatitudes. Edited by Hilda Graef. ACW, 1978.
Gregory Palamas. The Hagioritic Tome, in Philokalia (Ware), IV.
Gross, Jules. The Divinization of the Christian according to the Greek Fathers.
Translated by Paul A. Onica. Anaheim, Calif.: A & C Press, 2002.
French original, 1938.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis Chapters 1–17. Grand Rapids, Mich:
Eerdmans, 1990.
Harnack, Adolf Von. History of Dogma. Translated from the 3rd German
Edition by Neil Buchanan, 6 vols., Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate,
1897.
Hierotheos, Metropolitan Nafpaktos, The Feasts of the Lord. An Introduction to
the twelve feasts and Orthodox Christology. Trans. Esther Williams. Levadia-
Hellas: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, Greece 2002.
Irenaeus. Against the Heresies. Translated by A. Cleveland Coxe. NPNF,
ANF, Vol. I.
———. Contre les heresies. Edited by Adelin Rousseau & L. Doutrelaeu, S.J.
SC nos., 100*, and 100**, 1965; nos., 152–153, 1969; nos., 263–264,
1979; nos., 293–294, 1982; nos., 210–211, 2002.
———. Early Church Fathers. Edited by Robert M. Grant. London & New
York: Routledge, 1997.
St. Isaac of Nineveh. On Ascetical Life. SVSP, 1989.
———. The Wisdom of Isaac of Nineveh. Edited and Translated by Sebastian
Brock, with facing Syriac text. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press,
2006.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 197
Isaac the Syrian (Isaac of Nineveh). The Second Part, Chapters IV–XLI.
Translated by Sebastian Brock. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium, Louvain: Peeters, 1995.
Jenks, Rev. William, The Comprehensive Commentary on the Holy Bible containing
the text according to the Authorized Version; Scott’s marginal references;
Matthew Henry’s commentary, condensed, but retaining the most
useful thoughts; the Practical Observations of Thomas Scott, D.D.,
with extensive explanatory, critical and philological notes selected from
Scott, Doddridge, Gill, Adam Clarke, Patrick, Poole. Lowth, Burder,
Harmer, Calmet, Stuart, Robinson, Bush, Rosenmueller, Bloomfield,
and many other writers on the Scriptures, the Whole designed to be a
Digest and combination of the advantages of the Best Bible
Commentaries, and embracing nearly all that is valuable in Henry,
Scott and Doddridge. Conveniently arranged for family and Private
Reading & at the same time particularly adapted to the wants of
Sabbath School Teachers and Bible classes; with numerous useful
tables. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1866. Republished in the
Michigan Historical Reprint Series. Michigan: University of Michigan
Press, n.d.
Joanta, Bishop Seraphim. Romania. Its Hesychast Tradition and Culture.
Wildwood, California: St. Xenia Skete, 1992.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Romans. Translated by Rev. J. B. Morris and
Rev. W.H Simcox. Revised by George Stevens. NPNF, PNF(1), Vol.
XI.
———. Spiritual Gems from the Gospel of Matthew. Translated by Robert
Charles Hill. Brookline, Mass: Holy Cross Orthodox Seminary Press,
2004.
———. Spiritual Gems from the Psalms. Translated by Robert Charles Hill.
Brookline, Mass: Holy Cross Orthodox Seminary Press, 2004.
———. The Early Church Fathers. Edited by Wendy Mayer and Pauline
Allen. London and New York: Routledge, 2000.
______. Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis. Translated by Robert Charles
Hill. Boston: Mass: Holy Cross Orthodox Seminary Press, 2004.
______. Sermons sur La Genèse. Translated with notes and introduction by
Laurence Brottier, 1998. SC no. 433.
John of Damascus. On the Orthodox Faith. Translated by Rev. S. D.
Salmond. NPNF, PNF(2), Vol. IX.
———. Three Treatises on the Divine Images. Translated by Rev. Professor
Andrew Louth. Popular Patristics Series. SVSP, 2003.
Karkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God. Salvation as Deification and Justification.

Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2004.
Kontzevitch, I. M. The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia.
Translated by Olga Koshansky. Platina, California: St. Herman of
Alaska Brotherhood, 1988
Larchet, J.-C. La Divinisation de l’homme selon Maxime le Confesseur. Paris: Cerf,
1996
———. Therapeutique des maladies spirituelles. Paris: Cerf, 2000.
Levine, Baruch. JPS Torah Commentary. Leviticus. New York, Jewish
Publication Society, 1989.
Liddel, Henry George & Scott, Robert. A Greek-English Lexicon. 8th Edition.
Life Application Study Bible. New Living Translation. Wheaton, Illinois:
Tyndale House, 1988.
Lossky, Vladimir. In the Image and Likeness of God. SVSP , 1997.
———. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. SVSP, 1997.
———. The Vision of God. SVSP, 1997.
St. Macarius the Spirit-Bearer. Coptic Texts relating to St. Macarius the Great.
Manley, Johanna. Grace for Grace. The Psalter and the Holy Fathers: Patristic
Commentary, Meditations and Liturgical Extracts in relation to the Psalms.
Manlo Park, California: Monastery Books, 1992.
———. Isaiah through the Ages. Manlo Park, California: Monastery Books,
1995.
———. The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox. Daily Scripture Readings &
Commentary (Holy Fathers). SVSP, 1999.
———. Wisdom, Let us Attend: Job, the Fathers and the Old Testament. Manlo
Park, California: Monastery Books, 1997.
Mantzarides. The Deification of Man. SVSP, 1997.
St. Maximus Confessor, On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ. Translated by
Paul M. Blowers & Robert Louis Wilken. Popular Patristics Series.
SVSP, 2002.
McGuckin, Rev. Professor J. A. St. Cyril and the Christological Controversy.
Paperback, SVSP, 2004.
———. Saint Gregory Nazianzen. An Intellectual Biography. SVSP, 2001.
———. The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition. Lewiston, New
York: Mellen Press, 1987.
———.The Westminster Handbook to Origen. Louisville & London:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 199
———. Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology. Louisville & London:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas & Orthodox Spirituality. SVSP, 1997.
———. Study of St. Gregory Palamas. SVSP, 1998.
Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Critical Commentary
on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1996.
Moses Maimonides. The Guide of the Perplexed. Abridged with intro. and
commentary, Julius Guttman, translated from Arabic by Chaim Rabin.
Indianapolis: Hackett, 1995.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Revised. New International
Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1995.
Nafpaktos, Metropolitan Hierotheos. St. Gregory Palamas as a Hagiorite.
Translated by Esther Williams. Levadia, Greece: Birth of the
Theotokos Monastery, 1997.
Nellas, P. Deification in Christ. Crestwood, N.Y.: SVSP, 1987.
Origen. On First Principles De Prinipiis. NPNF, ANF, Vol. IV.
———. Philocalie 1–20 Sur les Écritures. Edited and translated by Marguerite
Harl. SC no. 302, 1983.
———. The Philokalia of Origen. Edited by Armitage Robinson (1983),
Elibon Classics, 2004.
———. Philokalia of Origen. Translated by George Lewis. Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1911.
———. Traité de principes. Edited by H. Crouzel, and M. Simonetti. SC nos.,
268 & 269, 1980.
Pelikan, J. The Spirit of Eastern Christendom. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1977.
Perceval, Henry R., trans. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. NPNF, PNF (2)
XIV.
Plato. Timaeus. Translated by R. G. Bury. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929.
Pomazansky, Protopresbyter Michael. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. A Concise
Explanation. Translated by Seraphim Rose. Platina, California: St.
Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press, 1984.
Popovitch, Justin, La Philosophie de La Verite, 5 volumes. Trans. From
Serbian, J.-L. Palierne, Paris: L’Age de L’Homme, Collection Lumière
de Thabor, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1997.
Elder Porphyrios, Wounded by Love. Limni, Evia, Greece: Denise Harvey,
2005.
The Psalter According to the Seventy. Boston, Mass: Holy Transfiguration
Monastery, 1987.
Russell, Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition.

Sakharov, Archimandrite Sophrony. Saint Silouan the Athonite. Translated by
Rosemary Edmonds. Essex: Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the
Baptist, 1991.
———. His Life is Mine. SVSP, 1987.
———. We shall See Him as He Is. Essex: Stavropegic Monastery of St. John
the Baptist, 1987.
Sarna, Nahum, S. The JPS Torah Commentary. Genesis. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1989.
Selby, Robin C. The Principle of Reserve in the Writings of John Henry Newman.
St. Seraphim of Sarov. Spiritual Instructions. Little Russian Philokalia Series,
Vol. I, New Valaam Monastery, Alaska, 1991.
Spidlik, Fr. Tomas, S. J., The Spirituality of the Christian East. A Systematic
Handbook. Kalamazoo, Mich: Cistercian Publications, 1986.
Staniloae, Dimitru. The Experience of God. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, I,
Brookline, Mass: Holy Cross, 1994.
———. The Experience of God. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, II, The World:
Creation & Deification, Edited by Iaon Ionaita & Robert Barringer.
Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2000.
Stone Tanakh. ‘Tanakh’ (The Jewish edition of their Bible, the Law, the
Prophets & the Writings) By Rabbi Irving Stone, ed., Rabbi Noson
Scherman, New York Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 2003.
Stylianopoulos, Theodore. The New Testament. An Orthodox Perspective.
Brookline, Mass: Holy Cross Orthodox Seminary Press, 2002.
Sykes, Alistair Stewart, ed. Tertullian, Cyprian and Origen on the Lord’s Prayer.
St. Symeon the New Theologian. Hymnes Vol I. Edited by Johannes Koder,
translated by Joseph Paramelle. SC no. 156, 1969.
———. On the Mystical Life. The Ethical Discourses I. The Church and the Last
Things. Translated by Alexander Golitzin. Popular Patristics Series.
SVSP, 2002.
———.On the Mystical Life II. The Ethical Discourses II. Translated by
Alexander Golitzin. Popular Patristics Series. SVSP, 2002.
Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Part II, “Existence and the
Christ.” London, SCM, 1978.
Tertullian. Against Marcion. Translated by Dr. Peter Holmes. NPNF, ANF,
Vol. III.
———. Apology. Translated by Rev. S. Thelwell. NPNF, ANF, Vol. III.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 201
———. Contre Marcion. Edited by René Braun. SC no. 399, 1994.

Blessed Theophylact. Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Luke.
Translated by Fr. Christopher Stade. House Springs, Mo: Chrysostom
Press, 1993.
———. Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Mark. Translated by Fr.
Christopher Stade. House Springs, Mo: Chrysostom Press, 1993.
———. Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew. Translated by
Fr. Christopher Stade. House Springs, Mo: Chrysostom Press, 2000.
Thomas, Stephen. Newman and Heresy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991.
Thomas, Robert & Gundry, Stanley. “The Languages Jesus Spoke,” The
NIV Harmony of the Gospels. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1988, pp.
300–303.
Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, Volume, 2, Part II, “Existence and the
Christ.” London: SCM, 1978.
Toorn, Karel van der. Scribal Culture and the making of the Hebrew Bible.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis. A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. New International
Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1990.
Ware, Kallistos, trans. Philokalia, I-IV. See Abbreviations.
———. The Inner Kingdom, Volume I of the Collected Works. New York:
SVSP, 2000.
———. The Power of the Name. The Jesus Prayer in Orthodox Spirituality.
Fairacres, Oxford: Sisters of the Love of God Press, Convent of the
Incarnation, 1991.
Way of a Pilgrim: the Pilgrim Continues his Way. London & Glasgow: Harper
Collins, 1991.
The Way of the Pilgrim. Translated by R. M. French. Introduction by
Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. London: SPCK, 1997 and frequent
reprints.
Zachariou, Archimandrite Zacharias. Christ Our Way and Our Life. A
Presentation of the Theology of Archimandrite Sophrony, South Canaan,
Pennsylvania: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2003.
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES
Gen
1, 102, 134, 135 5, 135
1:1, 96 5:1, 55, 134
1:1–2:3, 94–101, 98, 106 5:1–3, 134
1:3–5, 176 5:24, 114, 151
1:14, 167 6:5–6, 114
1:14–19, 176 6:9, 114, 134
1:26, 9, 10, 97 6:11–12, 114
1:26–27, 28, 98, 99, 106, 134 9:21–22, 115
1:27, 111 10:1, 134
1:27–28, 135 11:10, 134
1:28, 11, 97, 106, 11:27, 134
1–3, 75, 130, 131, 133, 134, 25:12, 134
136, 138 25:19, 134
2, 135 29:1, 115
2:4, 101, 134 36:1, 134
2:4–7, 101 37:2, 134
2:4–3:24, 101–14, 132 Exod
2:16, 136 3:2, 124
2:19–20, 101 3:14, 172
2–3, 123 7:10–12, 105
2–5, 134 14:4, 9
3:5, 14, 20 18:13–27, 10
3:17, 136 18:18, 10
3:19, 114 19:6, 80, 120
3:21, 112 20:3, 8
3:22–23, 112 20:4, 117
3:24, 19, 103 20:5, 8, 18
4:1, 46, 112, 135 20:17, 122
4:3–16, 114 26:1, 9
4:24, 114 26:31, 9
4–6, 114 33:11, 118
203
33:13, 118 6:33, 115

33:18, 118 7:12, 115
33:20, 117 8:10, 115
33:23, 118 1 Sam
34:29, 141 4:4, 9
34:33–35, 141 15:33, 126
34:35, 119 1 Kgs
Lev 17:24, 116
19, 120 18:40, 125
19:2, 61, 120 19:8–13, 151
19:17–18, 120 19:11–12, 141
20:26, 121 19:12, 119
23:39–43, 151 22:19–22, 95
Num 2 Kgs
18:21–24, 80 2:11–12, 151
21:7–9, 105 2:11–12, 115
Deut 19:15, 113
4:24, 18 1 Chr
5:9, 18 1:1, 135
6:15, 18 Neh
14:2, 80 9:6, 9
18:15, 152 2 Macc
19:17, 10 2:28, 155
26:18, 80 6:28, 155
34:6, 151 6:31, 155
34:10, 152 Job
Josh 1:1, 115
5:13–15, 127 1:3, 115
5:15, 127 1:5, 115
6:17, 126 1:6, 95, 104
6:21, 126 1:8, 115
8:21, 126 38, 73
8:24–25, 126 38:7, 95
8:29, 126 42:7, 116
24:2–15, 127 38–41, 115
24:19, 18, 127 Ps
24:19–20, 127 19:1, 56
24:19–28, 127 22 (LXX 21), 85
Judg 29:1–2, 95
6:3, 115 36:9, 148
INDEX 205
82, 95 Mal
82:6, 10, 12 4:5, 152
82:7, 11 Matt
89:6–7, 95 2:2, 96
104 (LXX 103), 62 3:7, 105
119 (LXX 118):122, 141 4:25, 160
139 (LXX 138):13–14, 55 5:1–7:28, 122
Prov 5:14, 170
1:7, 54 5:14–16, 170
3:18, 103 5:17–18, 122
3:34, 38 5:28, 62
3:34, 38 5:39, 128
3:34, LXX, 38 5:44, 62
Wis 5:48, 62, 122
12:10, 127 6:7, 50
Isa 7:7, 72
2:2–3, 93 7:17–19, 21
6:2, 9 7:21, 169
6:2–3, 77 9:2–6, 24
6:6, 9 9:12–13, 24
6:8, 95 10:16, 105
7:14, 124, 125 12:34, 105
9:6, 125 13:44, 72
11:14, 115 16:22, 146, 155
14:12, 96 16:23, 146
40:13–14, 73 16:24, 146
42:6, 61, 93, 143 16:28, 146
49:6, 61, 93, 143 17:1, 146
53, 79 17:1–8, 142, 145
53:5, 79 17:2, 150
53:7, 155 17:3, 150
60:3, 93, 143 17:6, 150
60:19, 166 17:8, 151
Ezek 17:9, 149, 153
10, 9 17:10, 152
Hos 17:11, 152
6:6, 24 17:12, 152
Joel 17:13, 152
2:28–29, 145 20:1–16, 23
20:11, 23
21:9, 77 2:13, 144

23:33, 105 2:13–15, 173
24:24, 52 2:32, 143
24:36, 144 2:52, 26
26:73, 160 3:7, 105
26:75, 156 4:24–27, 116
27:35, 124 5:20–24, 24
27:51, 142 5:31, 24
Mark 6:15, 169
1:2–4, 29 7:48, 24
1:15, 29 9:23, 146
2:5–9, 24 9:28, 146
2:17, 24 9:28–36, 142, 145
5:20, 160 9:29, 150
8:32, 146 9:30, 150
8:34, 146 9:32, 150
8:36, 46 9:36, 151
9:2, 146 9:54–56, 171
9:2–8, 142, 145 15:11–32, 23
9:3, 150 15:17, 24, 112
9:4, 150 15:19–20, 113
9:6, 150 18:13, 26
9:8, 151 21:8, 52
9:9, 149, 152, 153 23:34, 124
9:11, 152 23:43, 26
9:12, 152 23:45, 142
10:37, 171 24:25–27, 123
10:38, 171 24:48, 30
10:39, 171 John
11:9–10, 77 1:4, 163, 164
13:5–6, 52 1:14, 30, 163
14:50, 148 1:17, 163
14:70, 160 1:18, 159, 163
15:24, 124 1:20–21, 152
15:38, 142 2:25, 152
Luke 3:14, 105
1:1, 163 3:16, 32, 33
1:2, 149 3:19, 165
1:26–38, 96 3:20–21, 165
2:8–9, 142 4:14, 144
INDEX 207
8:12, 143, 164 3:23, 19

9:1–38, 143 5, 137
10:24, 11 5:1–2, 22
10:30, 12, 13 5:12–15, 80
10:31, 12 5:12–21, 91
10:34, 3 7:15, 19
10:35, 12, 13 8:22–23, 28
10:36, 12 8:29, 79
10:37–38, 12 8:30, 173
10:39, 12 11:1–2, 122
11, 170 11:12, 122
11:43–44, 170 11:33–34, 73
12:36, 164 12:1, 42
14:6–7, 14 15:2, 4
14:10, 14 1 Cor
15:13–15, 74 14:3, 4
15:26, 32, 33 15:10, 172
16:7, 32 15:20, 80
16:13, 32 15:42, 27
Acts 15:44, 27
1:13, 169 2 Cor
2:1–3, 153 3:15, 72
2:32, 30 3:18, 26, 172
2:37, 171 4:3–6, 176
2:42, 41 5:17, 176
2:43, 42 11:14, 45, 51
2:44–45, 42 13:14, 32, 172
3:6, 43 Gal
7:54, 171 1:8–9, 44
9:3–7, 174 2:20, 2, 44
9:28, 172 4:24, 87
12:2, 171 Eph
22:6–8, 175 1:3, 173
22:11, 175 1:10, 54, 75, 91, 173
26:13–18, 175 1:19, 173
Rom 2:4–5, 80
1:18–32, 24 3:7, 173
1:19–20, 53 3:18, 74
3:2, 61, 122 4, 173
3:21–5:2, 21 4:13, 26, 154
4:14, 52 3:18–19, 154

4:16, 173 3:19, 154
Phil 3:21–22, 154
2, 79 4:12–14, 155
2:5–11, 79, 149 5:1, 156
2:7, 79 5:5, 38
2:6, 149 5:12, 160
3:21, 173 2 Pet
Col 1:1–2, 157
1:18, 80 1:3–4, 159, 162
1 Thess 1:4, 160
4:13–17, 145 1:12–15, 159
5:4, 145 1:16–18, 157
5:17, 181 1:16–19, 159
1 Tim 1:18, 159
6:16, 67 1:19, 159
2 Tim 1 John
3:13, 52 1:3, 32
3:16, 72 1:5, 164
3:16–17, 70, 71, 89 2:11, 166
Titus 3:2, 167
1:10, 52 3:2–3, 167
3:5, 78 3:7, 52
Heb 2 John
1:1–2, 79 7, 52
4:3, 100 7–10, 165
4:9–10, 100 Rev
11:39–12:2, 127 1:8, 77
Jas 18:23, 166
1:19–20, 52 21:23–25, 166
4:6, 38 22:5, 166, 167
1 Pet
1:18, 157
2:9, 80
2:20, 154

Stephen Thomas - Deification in The Eastern Orthodox Tradition - A Biblical Perspective-Gorgias Press, LLC (2008)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stephen Thomas - Deification in The Eastern Orthodox Tradition - A Biblical Perspective-Gorgias Press, LLC (2008)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEIFICATION IN THE

EASTERN ORTHODOX TRADITION

This publication is made possible by a generous grant from

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Printed in the United States of America

The Forms of Divine Revelation....................................................................53

Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 191

Without the emotional support of my mother Doreen Agnes Therese and

and unfailing good-humor of “Pharmacy Direct,” Southampton: the

THE THEME OF THIS BOOK

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK

However, the concentration upon the Greek Fathers in explaining

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK

Law or Old Testament—teaches that human beings are, in a sense, “gods”

6 This is an expression which will be carefully explained in chapter 5, 93.

THE MEANING OF THE TERM “DEIFICATION”

1 In French books on the subject, the Greek words are translated by

ISN’T IT BLASPHEMOUS TO CLAIM TO BE A “GOD”?

one most powerful or “High God” who is surrounded by other less

3 I am grateful to my friend the Romanian theologian, Mihail Neamts, for the

served him: the angels. By contrast, Orthodox Christianity interprets

and second to the gods in the plural.

“I SAID ‘YOU ARE GODS’ ”—STARTING FROM THE BIBLE:

7 See Babylonian Talmud, tractate ‘Aboda Zara, 5a.

“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

participate in God’s work or proclaim his message during the Old

THE HUMANITY OF GOD MAKES POSSIBLE

11 The ideas of Old and New Covenants or Testaments as it applies to

How is it Thou makst men Gods?

1 Symeon le Nouveau Theologian, Hymnes, SC no. 156, Hymns 6, stanza 2, ll, 5–

THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF DEIFICATION: A SUMMARY

9 The real problems in believing in the historicity of the Adam narratives in

own efforts. He comes to us. We know God truly because of God’s

sin as a result of the damage done to human nature by the original

This is the interpretation of St. Gregory Nyssa in On the Making of Man,

degree of perfection, in which love even of enemies and nonresistance to

14 J.-C. Larchet, Thérapeutique, 10.

pronounced not guilty by a judge in a law court 15 conveys an idea of

Evangelical tradition, comments on Rom 5:1–2, “Jesus Christ through whom we

The Eastern tradition calls attention to Jesus’ statement about his

THE TRANSFORMATION OF OUR NATURE

32, where sin is a force ruling over people.

an eccentric or marginal figure in the Orthodox tradition.

PARADISE AFTER DEATH

The Orthodox word for this is “asceticism,” which means “training.”

The infinity of God’s goodness is one reason for the Orthodox

THE RESURRECTION OF THE GLORIFIED BODY

DEIFICATION AND THE COMMUNION OF THE SAINTS

IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD

DEIFICATION AND THE WORK OF SALVATION

31“Ecumenical” means councils that were universally accepted, as distinguished

32 The Seven Ecumenical Councils are: Nicea I (325), Constantinople I (381),

part of the Eucharistic liturgy of the Western and Eastern Churches.

34 St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione, SC no. 199, 458, “enanthropêsen, hina emeis

DEIFICATION IS THE GRACIOUS WORK OF THE WHOLE TRINITY

35 My literal translation; RSV omits “only begotten,” Greek monogene.

“love,” and “communion” are not different things in themselves but

THE “UNCREATED ENERGIES” OF GOD

The essence being simple, whatever be the manifold fruit according to

37 Ibid., section 442e.

There is an explanation for this in spiritual experience. The uncreated

Orthodox written theology, the knowledge that is expressed in words

41 In addition to formal written theology, such as dogmatic theology, there is in