Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deification in Two Early Writings of St. Maximos the Confessor: Attaining Likeness to God

  • Published:
Sophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For St. Maximos the Confessor, the seventh century Byzantine theologian, deification was the ultimate goal of the monk and an event that required action both on the parts of God and the individual. While God originally bestowed upon humanity his image and likeness (Genesis 1:26), as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve that takes place in the garden (Genesis 3), humankind loses its ‘likeness’ to God. According to the Confessor, by following the commandments found in the Christian Gospel, one is able to regain the likeness to God and, by doing so, one moves closer and closer to God, ultimately experiencing deification. This study will focus on the Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer but will also reference the Ascetical Life and the Centuries on Charity. For Maximos, deification will not take place without becoming ‘like’ God.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. St. Maximos the Confessor, ‘Various Texts on Theology, the Divine Economy, and Virtue and Vice’ in The Philokalia, 5.97 (284). Any references to the Philokalia will include text, chapter and section number, and page number in parentheses. The ‘Various Texts’ found in the Philokalia ‘are not the authentic work of Maximos himself’ but a collection of excerpts from his works compiled at a later point, perhaps between the eleventh and twelfth centuries. However, in the same way that I am not completely convinced that Maximos’s Greek Vita should be jettisoned in favor of the Syriac Vita, I am not willing to dismiss this collection of Maximos’s works as not being reflective of his thought or genuinely containing his ideas and words. For a discussion of the sources for Maximos’s contributions found in the Philokalia, see The Philokalia, Volume Two, 50. This particular passage is from the Ambigua, composed by Maximos between 628 and 34 AD. Deification is thought to be Maximos’s ‘chief idea’ (S.L. Epifanovich, quoted in Berthold, 10). I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers of this article, especially the first reviewer who brought to my attention some inconsistences and significantly helped me to focus this paper.

  2. Centuries on Charity (CC) 3:25, found in The Philokalia, Vol. Two (87). The critical edition of the CC is that of Ceresa-Gastaldo (1963), 154. For a discussion on ‘nature’ in Maximos, see Thunberg (1995), 87–90.

  3. For a review of the monothelite controversy in the seventh century, and Maximos’s invaluable contribution to the discussion on the two wills of Christ, see Batharellos (2004), chaps. 2 and 3, respectively. For a brief treatment of Maximos’s life, see ‘Introduction’ in Sales (2015), 13–21.

  4. For an excellent discussion of the role of freedom in deification, see Ivanovic (2019) 177–179, ‘In order for grace to take place, self-movement and free choice have to be exercised’ (177), and ‘deification appears to be “the inseparable union of the proper beginning with the proper end,” connected by the free voluntary movement of the creature’ (179). For a summary of the elements necessary for deification in the thought of Maximus, see Ivanovic (2019) 206–208.

  5. While many Church fathers make a distinction between image and likeness and believe that human beings were created in the image of God but will not receive likeness until the attainment of perfection, others situate the notion of the image in the person of Christ. Image has been interpreted in terms of rational thought, the will, and some Church fathers believe the image and likeness were lost at the same time. For Cyril of Alexandria (AD fifth c.), recovery of the image is the equivalent of being deified. According to Basil of Caesarea (AD fourth c.), likeness is acquired by living a moral life. See Russell (2009), 77–79.

  6. For the most recent general studies on deification, see the two volumes edited by Kharlamov and Finian (2006, Kharlamov 2011) and Christensen and Wittung (2007). For an Eastern Orthodox treatment on the topic, see Nellas (1987), Mantzaridis (1984), and Russell (2009). For a Roman Catholic treatment, see Keating (2007) and Karkkainen (2004) for an ecumenical perspective. For a thorough bibliography on deification in the Christian tradition, see Kharlamov and Finian (2006) 247–265. The most comprehensive studies of deification in the writings of the Greek Fathers are found in Gross (1938) and Normal Russell (2004). For deification in Maximos, the classic study is that of Larchet (1996), and Russell (2004) has devoted a section of his study to Maximos, pp. 262–295. The most recent study on deification in Maximos is found in Ivanovic (2019), 161–208, Tollefsen (2017), 158–170, and Larchet’s (2015) contribution to the Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, chapter 17, where he articulates the topic using the framework of logos-tropos, rather than person or nature (341–342); he argues in favor of the importance of ‘nature’ in understanding deification in Maximus, as opposed to ‘person’ (and includes a bibliography listing of the earlier studies on deification in Maximos, 357–359); and Mitralexis (2017) addresses the topic in his study, 192–200. Other earlier studies on deification in Maximos include Christou (1982); Vishnevskaya (2006a, b), and her unpublished dissertation, ‘Perichoresis and the Context of Divinization: Maximus the Confessor’s Vision of a “Blessed and Most Holy Embrace”’ (Drew University, 2004); Eric Perl’s unpublished dissertation, ‘Methexis: Creation, Incarnation, Deification in Saint Maximus the Confessor’ (Yale, 1991); and the master’s thesis of Stephen James Juli, ‘The Doctrine of Theōsis in the Theology of Saint Maximus the Confessor’ (The Catholic University of America, 1990). See also Blowers (2016), especially chaps. 5 and 8.

  7. Critical editions of both works are found in Ceresa-Gastaldo (1963) and Van Deun (2000), respectively. There are also references to the Mystagogia and the Liber Asceticus, although brief.

  8. Tollefsen’s article (2017) addresses the question of what an ontological change looks like when Maximos describes deification. This will be addressed further along in the paper.

  9. Deification is a two-fold process that requires both the natural inclination of the human being toward God and the salvific activity of God, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, see Kharlamov (2011), 125. Theōsis is articulated in early Christian writings through the exegesis of specific biblical passages: 2 Peter 1:4, which is not speaking of apotheosis as understood in the Greco-Roman sense where human beings advance to the rank of deity (McGuckin (2007), 95; Cicero describes the isotheoi timai, the god-equaling honors that the Greeks were awarding humans, see Spenser Cole, Cicero and the Rise of Deification in Rome (Cambridge, 2013), chap. 1; and Russell (2004) chap. 2), or in the sense of becoming a part of God’s essence and thereby ceasing to be human, but as partaking in specific divine attributes as seen in Christ (Starr (2007), 85; for a Protestant interpretation of the passage where real participation takes place in God, see Olson (2007), 187); 4 Maccabees 18:3, where one receives a divine inheritance which signals a continued life for the soul, ‘the martyr’s reward’ (Starr (2007), 85), and, interestingly, human reason is the source of knowledge in this text, while in 2 Peter, one gains new knowledge through deification; Wisdom 2:23, where human reason leads one to piety and holiness of life which is rewarded by God with incorruption (Starr (2007), 86); Psalm 81:6 (LXX); John 10:34–36. Theosis, in the Christian sense, is perhaps better understood in terms of theopoiesis, or the ascent of the creature to communion with the divine (McGuckin (2007), 95). Early patristic writers who employ the term theopoiesis include Dionysios the Areopagite (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1.3) and Gregory Nazianzus (Oration 21), and Gregory of Nyssa in his Catechetical Orations emphasizes that the human being must have some natural affinity for God with whom he or she has participated and uses the term metousia theou (McGuckin (2007), 104, and Balas (1966)). Russell (2004) provides an excellent background to the terminology used by the Greek Fathers in Appendix 2, and specifically in Maximos, 263–264. For definitions of theosis, see Olson (2007), 189–192, Gavrilyuk (2009), 649, and Kharlamov (2011), 125.

  10. For a discussion on the distinction between image and likeness in the patristic writers, see Mantzaridis (1984), 15–25; Lossky (1989), 70–73; Lossky (1976), chap. 6; Yannaras (1984), 19–27; and Russell (2009), chap. 3.

  11. The importance of following the commandments has always been emphasized, especially in early Christian texts. Perhaps the best examples include Matthew 25, and the Didache 1–6.2 (a late first century writing), where more than half the text is devoted to describing the ‘way of life and the way of death’ (the critical edition is found in Lightfoot et al. (1992), 251–257). The first early patristic writers to emphasize the role likeness plays in deification are Irenaeus of Lyons (see Russell (2004), 107), Clement (135), and Origen (142).

  12. McGuckin (2007), 97.

  13. Vishnevskaya (2006a) states definitively that in Maximos deification does not bring about an ontological transformation (140), as does Wessel (2011), 335. The transformation, as described by Maximos, is a behavioral one, looking to Christ as model and with the assistance of divine grace, where the passions are not eliminated but transformed, see Wessel (2011) 335–336, McFarland (2005a, b) 421, and Tollefsen (2017) 160, who specifies that ‘when man is deified he ascends to God without assuming a divine nature.’ He continues, ‘human nature also may be said to achieve properties that are divine.’

  14. I am not using this term in its technical sense. In the early Christian tradition, the term ‘theologian’ was reserved for specific writers who had been recognized by an official church synod or council. Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390) was recognized with the title of ‘Theologian’ at the Council of Chalcedon (451), but the distinction predates the council.

  15. In an attempt to understand why the editors of the Philokalia chose to include additional writings by the scholiasts with the Ad Thalassium, Palmer et al. (1990) suggest that the original text was ‘highly obscure’ (50) and ‘the editors hoped to render these writings accessible to a wider readership.’ McFarland (2005a, b), in writing about the Gnostic Chapters, describes Maximos’s language as ‘deliberately allusive, interweaving a number of images as a means of challenging readers to deepen their practice of contemplation’ (419).

  16. Though I would argue that Ivanovic’s explanations are a combination of the two. Other texts referred to when discussing deification in Maximos include Ad Thalassium 22, Ad Thalassium 6, Mystagogia 24, and the Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer. The critical editions of these texts are found in the Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca volumes 7 (the Ad Thassium/Questions to Thalassius), and 23 (the Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer), both published by Brepols. Translations of these specific passages from the Ad Thalassium are found in Blowers and Wilken (2003). The translation of the Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer is found in Berthold (1985), 99–125, and The Philokalia, volume two, 285–305. For the critical edition of the Mystagogia, see Sotiropoulos (1978), and PG 91.657–717; for the translation, see Berthold (1985), 181–225. CCSG also has published a critical edition of the Mystagogia, Maximi confessoris Mystagogia; una cum Latina interpretation Anastasii Bibliothecarii, 69, Christian Boudignon, ed. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), which was brought to my attention by one reviewer, but I was unable to attain a copy as a result of the closure of libraries. The critical edition and translation of the Ambigua to John are found in Constas (Maximus the Confessor 2014).

  17. Thunberg 1995, 113.

  18. The notion of the image has traditionally been understood in terms of rational nature, or as the rational part of the human soul. For a brief discussion on the image of God in the human being, see Thunberg (1995), 113–120. The earliest extra-Biblical distinction between the image and likeness of God in the human being (Gen 1:26) is found in Irenaeus’s Adv. Haer. (5.6.1 and 5.16.2). Thunberg in his review of the distinction admits that, in many early writers, it is not absolute. However, in Origen, the idea is fully developed (Thunberg (1995), 121–125). Russell (2009) states the image is ‘a God-given potentiality for sharing in the divine life’ (74). For a more detailed discussion on the distinction between image and likeness in the early Church writers, and the Anthropomorphite controversy, see above fn 7.

  19. Russell quotes Abba Philemon, Philokalia Vol. II, 350 (81).

  20. Cf. Sherwood (1952), 31. Jankowiak and Booth (2015) have advanced the date of the text as prior to 636 AD (30), insisting that Sherwood’s dating to the African period ‘is unwarranted.’ As stated earlier, I have chosen to use the translation from the Philokalia because there is no English translation based on the critical edition of the CCSG. The differences between the Philokalia and the CCSG are minimal, and when the PG has been consulted, I have noted it. For Russell’s (2004) treatment of the CLP, 266–270.

  21. There is the difficulty of isolating the author of the request, though Sophronius of Jerusalem has been suggested. For a discussion on the names of the recipients of Maximos’s works, see Jankowiak and Booth (2015), especially 24–27. There is also the possibility that the vague salutation may be a literary tool.

  22. “ἀγάπην ἐνεστησάμην, δι'αἱδοῦς καὶ εὐνοίας συνισταμένην…” (CCSG 23.11-2)

  23. “Γράφω δέ, τοῦτο πράττειν κελευόμενος, οὐχ' ὅσα λογίζομαι ... ἀλλ' ὅσα βούλεται θεός καὶ χάριτι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ συμφέροντος γένεσιν ἐπιδίδωσιν.” (CCSG 23.35-9).

  24. “τὴν ἑπὶ θεώσει τῆς ἡμετέρας φύσεως ἀπόρρητον κένωσιν τοῦ μονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ” (CCSG 23.42-3). For a detailed discussion of the role the Incarnation plays in deification in Maximos, see Ivanovic (2019), 179-193, and more briefly, Tollefsen (2017), referencing the Ambigua, 159-161.

  25. “εἴπερ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων κατὰ τὸν θεῖον ἀπόστολον ὁ κύριος ἐστὶν Ἰησοῦς.” (CCSG 23.70-1).

  26. “τοῖς μὲν ἀνθρώποις διὰ σαρκὸς ἐμφανῆ ποιῶν ἀγνοούμενον τὸν Πατέρα, τῷ δὲ Πατρὶ διὰ Πνεύματος ... προσάγων.” (CCSG 23.71-4).

  27. “This convergence of the human and the divine through the unifying function of love makes love the greatest of goods,’ Russell (2004), 265. The word used by Maximos and Gregory of Nyssa to express mystical communion with God is enjoyment, see Thunberg (1995), 320.

  28. Maximos, epistle 2 (PG 91.393C). ‘Perfect love heals all divisions, unifies being, and leads to a life “lived naturally in accordance with the perfect natural logos”. Having reached “the blessed end for which all things are ordained,” the faithful enjoy unimpeded union with God.’ (Vishnevskaya (2006a, b), 143).

  29. “θεολογίαν” or theologia for Maximos is knowledge of God, which takes place after one perfects the practical life (πράξιφ) and the contemplative life (φυσικὴθεωρία, or natural contemplation), which are interdependent upon one another. For more on this relationship between praxis, theoria, and theologia, see Thunberg (1995), 334-52, and Blowers (1991), 131-45.

  30. “τῆς τοῦ κρατήσαντος ἡμῶν δι' ἀπάτης πονηροῦ” (CCSG 23.84-5).

  31. ‘…the kingdom of God the Father who subsists essentially in the Holy Spirit.’ CPL 287 (CCSG 23.240–242).

  32. ‘The whole of the Father and the whole of the Holy Spirit were present essentially and perfectly in the whole of the Incarnate Son’ (CLP 287; CCSG 23.89–91). Maximos will address this topic later in the commentary (290–291).

  33. CLP 287 (CCSG 23.95–96).

  34. CLP 287 (CCSG 23.101–102).

  35. The passions will not be annihilated in deification, but transformed, see McFarland 2005a, 421. For a detailed discussion on the passions in Maximos, see Thunberg (1995), Chap. 5. The body is not destroyed but becomes like the soul, and the sensible things become like the intelligible things in dignity and glory, ‘The body has its own glory which is destined to be preserved eternally’ (McFarland (2005a), 421–422).

  36. “μεταποιουμένη θεότητος”

  37. Russell (2004), 262.

  38. On the Incarnation, 54.3 (PG 25.192B).

  39. Cf. CCSG 23.109–110.

  40. There is an extended interpretation of Galatians 3:28 throughout this section of the commentary as Maximos explains the overcoming of the divisions between men and women, Jews and Greeks, and that Christ ‘is all in all’ (Col 3:11). See also Ambiguum 41 for Maximos’s treatise on Christ’s work in overcoming the divisions that exist in the world as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

  41. Cf. Starr (2007), 87. Virtue plays an equally important role in the writings of the Greek and Roman philosophers.

  42. Vishnevskaya (2006a) suggests that, for Maximos, anyone who participates in the virtues participates in God, 137.

  43. “ὁ μὲν λόγος ἐστὶ τῶν διεστώτων ἕνωσις, ἡ δὲ άλογία, τῶν ἡνωμένων διαίρεσις” (CCSG 23.122-4).

  44. Russell (2004), 265.

  45. τοιαύτην αἴσθησιν νοεράν

  46. John 6:35.

  47. The natural will is the ‘rational faculty of self-determination inherent’ in the human being (Thunberg (1995), 211), as opposed to a gnomic will (γνῶμη) which is ‘the free and ambiguous desire and motion active in concrete man and called forth by man’s sense of pleasure (spiritual or bodily)’ (Thunberg (1995), 211). The presence of the gnomic will result from the mutation of the natural will as a result of the act of disobedience by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:6). The incarnate Logos, which does not participate in sin, retains the original ‘natural will’ and does not adopt or take on the gnomic will. For a discussion on the gnomic will in Maximos, see Thunberg (1995), 213–218; for more recent studies on the will in Maximos, see McFarland (2005b), and Blowers (2012), 44–50.

  48. CLP 288 (CCSG 23.138–139).

  49. CLP 288 (CCSG 23.136–137).

  50. CLP 288 (CCSG 23.142–135).

  51. CLP 288 (CCSG 23.148–149).

  52. For a discussion on the will in Maximus, see McFarland (2015).

  53. CLP 289 (CCSG 23.161–163).

  54. Cf. 2 Timothy 1:10; Revelation 21:4; 1 Corinthians 15:26, 55.

  55. CLP 289 (CCSG 23.172).

  56. “τοὺς ...τῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἀποδρύφους ... θησαυρούς” (CLP 289; CCSG 23.192-3).

  57. Cf. CLP 290 (CCSG 23.215–218).

  58. CLP 290 (CCSG 23.221–223).

  59. CLP 291 (CCSG 23.255–257).

  60. CLP 291 (CCSG 23.264–265).

  61. Cf. CLP 291 (CCSG 23.267–269).

  62. Cf. CLP 291 (CCSG 23.272–280). For an excellent discussion on the passions in Maximos, and an explanation of Ambigua 7 and 8, see ‘Introduction’ in Blowers and Wilken (2003), 29–43.

  63. Cf. CLP 292 (CCSG 23.318–320).

  64. Cf. CLP 292 (CCSG 23.320–321).

  65. CLP 293 (CCSG 23.339–340).

  66. CLP 293 (CCSG 23.356–358).

  67. CLP 293 (CCSG 23.360–361).

  68. Cf. CLP 294 (CCSG 23.391–392).

  69. Cf. CLP 294–295 (CCSG 23.397–398).

  70. CLP 295 (CCSG 23.408–414).

  71. CLP 297 (CCSG 23.508–510).

  72. CLP 298 (CCSG 23.529–532).

  73. CLP 298 (CCSG 23.550–553).

  74. Cf. CLP 299 (CCSG 23.562–563).

  75. CLP 299; this section, while appearing in both the Philokalia and Berthold translations, does not appear in the critical edition.

  76. CLP 300 (CCSG 23.608–609).

  77. CLP 300 (CCSG 23.619–621).

  78. For a discussion of the difference between the will and the way in which the will acts, namely, the logos and the tropos, see Ivanovic (2019), 168.

  79. CLP 300 (CCSG23.602).

  80. CLP 301 (CCSG 23.659–660).

  81. Cf. CLP 301 (CCSG 23.664–668).

  82. CLP 301 (CCSG 23.672–674).

  83. CLP 302 (CCSG 23.696–700).

  84. “ἡ καθαρά διάθεσις” CLP 302 (CCSG 23.701-2)

  85. Cf. CLP 302 (CCSG 23.720–721).

  86. CLP 302 (CCSG 23.728–729).

  87. “κατά αἵρεσιν γνωμικῶς” Cf. CLP 303 (CCSG 23.738).

  88. Cf. CLP 303 (CCSG 23.747–754).

  89. Cf. CLP 304 (CCSG 23.803–805).

  90. Cf. CLP 304 (CCSG 23.800–803).

  91. Cf. CLP 305 (CCSG 23.823).

  92. Cf. CLP 303–304 (CCSG 23.765–780). For participation, perichoresis, in Maximos, see Ivanovic (2019) 183–186, and Tollefsen (2017) 160–163. Tollefsen is clear that participation is not simply an exchange of attributes or properties; Perichorsis ‘is understood…as the mutual permeation of activities from the sphere of one being into the sphere of another.’ (164, italics added)

  93. CLP 304 (CCSG 23.780–782).

  94. “τῆς θεώσεως τό μυστήριον” CLP 304 (CCSG 23.783).

  95. Cf. McFarland (2005a), 421–422.

  96. Cf. McFarland (2005a), 422. Ambiguum 7 also addresses the unity of body and soul in human beings. For a discussion of the development of this unity, see Bynum (1995). Ware (1997), in relating an experience of deification described by Nicolas Motovilov when he was in the presence of Seraphim of Sarov, describes the brightness that comes upon the human body when one is ‘in the fulness of the Spirit of God.’ Motovilov turns away from Seraphim because he says ‘your eyes are flashing like lightening. Your face has become brighter than the sun, and it hurts my eyes to look at you.’ Ware concludes that this experience is one of deification whereby the ‘whole body is transfigured by the grace of God.’ (119–120). For the full account of the experience of Motovilov, see Sergius Bolshakoff (1980) 129–140. The ‘notes’ of Motovilov were published by V.N. Iliin, Prep.Serafim Sarovsky (Paris, 1925).

  97. The perfection of the body should not be confused as a type of self-love of the body. Self-love, or philautia, is a well-developed concept in the writings of Maximos and understood as one’s passionate attachment to the body, or an irrational affection for the body. However, there is a positive type of self-love which Maximos refers to as spiritual (νοωρά) self-love, and this love is manifested in the search for the positive and true purpose or teleology of what it means to be human. The classic text on the subject in Maximos is Hausherr (1952), and see also Thunberg (1995), 232–248.

  98. McFarland (2005a), 423.

  99. Ambiguum 7, quoted by McFarland (2005a), 423.

  100. Mystagogia 7, reproduced in McFarland (2005a), 422.

  101. McFarland (2005a), 423.

  102. For a brief discussion of the way in which tropos has been understood in Maximos, see Larchet (2015) 342.

  103. Tollefsen (2017), in examining several of the ambigua, is clear that, if there is no change in the human essence, then the change described is not ontological. Deification takes place when the ‘divine energeia enters somehow into the created being with its energeia, and this is how deification is achieved’ (164). Human beings may participate in ‘divine works’ such as goodness, life, immortality, and simplicity but do not penetrate the essence of God, 164. He also states that ‘the divine presence in creatures is conceived basically as a presence of activity.’ (164) I believe Maximos is saying this same thing in the earlier works meant for a monastic audience.

  104. Constas (2014), Vol. II, 172, ll. 34–38.

  105. McFarland (2005a), 429.

  106. Thunberg (1995), 309, quoted in McFarland (2005a), 433.

  107. McFarland (2005a), 434.

  108. VT 1:46 (2.174).

  109. Maximos’s own understanding of likeness seems to have been drawn from the writings of Origen and Diadochos of Photike, see Russell (2004), 140–154 and 246–248, respectively. Diadochos, in particular, distinguishes between image and likeness: the image of God in the human being was ‘darkened’ by the disobedience of Adam and Eve but baptism regenerates humanity. However, growth in the spiritual life is understood as an ‘ascent from the image to the likeness’ (246). Following Origen, Maximos states that the image of God was given at the beginning to the human being, but the likeness was to be acquired through a spiritual process (Ambiguum 42, Constas (2014), II.180, ll.38–40).

  110. This topic has been covered more thoroughly in the Ambigua, in particular, Ambiguum 7, though Cooper (2005) insists Ambiguum 7 is ‘first of all a treatise about the human body,’ 65. While all of Maximos’s writings, one way or another, address the topic of human salvation, the earlier works include the Ascetical Life, epistle 6, the Centuries on Charity and the Questions and doubts, which have been dated before AD 630 (Sherwood 1952) or 633/34 (Jankowiak and Booth 2015).

  111. The discussion of the Creed makes no reference to the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century or the term homoousios. The focus of the explanation is the role the incarnation plays in the salvation of the human being and how the creedal statement clearly explicates that role, Ascetical Life 1, (CCSG 40.1–31; Sherwood, 103–104), henceforth AL, which refers to the critical edition of Van Deun (2000). I will refer to Sherwood (1952) translation of the Liber asceticus, and all references to the work will include the section number from Sherwood’s text, lines of the critical edition of Van Deun, and page number of the English translation, where the last two pieces of information will be in parentheses.

  112. Matt 28:19 ff.

  113. AL 3 (CCSG 40.51; 104). The topic of mimesis or imitation in Maximos will be addressed also in AL 15, 18, 30, 34 and 45. For a discussion of mimesis in Maximos, see Perl’s unpublished dissertation.

  114. AL 3 (CCSG 40.59–60; 105).

  115. CC 4.70 (Ceresa-Gastaldo (1963), 224; Philokalia II.109). See also Thunberg (1995), 126.

  116. Cf. Ambiguum 7, ‘anyone who through fixed habit participates in virtue, unquestionably participates in God, who is the substance of the virtues’ (Constas (2014), I.ll. 31–33). The language in the secondary literature of energeia, properties, attributes, etc., is confusing and does not advance the discussion. I have attempted to stay focused on the term energeia.

  117. Thunberg (1995),127.

  118. ‘Every intelligent nature is in the image of God, but only the good and wise attain his likeness.’ CC 3.25 (Ceresa-Gastaldo (1963),154; Philokalia II.87).

  119. Thunberg (1995), 127.

  120. Ultimately, the goal of this perfection is well-being. ‘Well-being’ is a technical term in Maximos, and part of his triad of being—well-being—ever-being, see Thunberg (1995), 368–373.

  121. Mystagogia 24, in Berthold (1985), 211.

  122. VT 1:96–97, in the Philokalia, II.186–187.

  123. VT 3:39, in the Philokalia, 219.

  124. Wessel (2011), 322, who refers to agape as perfect love.

  125. Cf. Wessel (2011), 327.

  126. CC 3.25 (Ceresa-Gastaldo (1963),154; Philokalia II.87).

  127. Wessel (2011) states that God and the human being ‘are “drawn together in a single embrace” so that God appears as human and human beings are deified,’ citing epistle 2, 338.

  128. Wessel (2011), 339. But the perfection of love ‘is not a permanent state, but something that needs to be evaluated and nurtured over time’ (337).

  129. Wessel (2011), 339.

  130. Wessel (2011), 341–342.

  131. Norman Russell (2009) asks this question in the final chapter in his book on the Orthodox understanding of theōsis, 169.

  132. CC 3.25 (Ceresa-Gastaldo (1963), 154; Philokalia II.87).

  133. CC 3.27 (Ceresa-Gastaldo (1963), 156; Philokalia II.87).

  134. For a full treatment of Maximos’s vocabulary regarding deification, see Russell (2004), 263–264.

  135. Larchet (2015) 346.

  136. Larchet (2015) 347.

  137. Amb. Io. 42, referenced in Larchet (2015) 343.

  138. Amb. Io. 42, referenced in Larchet (2015) 343.

  139. Larchet (2015) 347.

  140. VT 2:71, in the Philokalia, 202. Olson (2007) correlates the modern interest in deification with the rise of the New Age Movement. Especially among Protestant theologians, he states the interest in deification stems from the ‘weariness with shallow moralistic accounts of salvation’ (187).

References

  • Balas, D. (1966). Μετουσια Θεου: Man’s participation in God’s perfections, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa. Pontificum Institutum S. Anselm.

  • Batharellos, D. (2004). The Byzantine Christ: person, nature, and the will in the Christology of St. Maximos the Confessor. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Gillian Clark and Andrew Louth, General Editors. Oxford University Press.

  • Berthold, G.C., trans. and notes (1985). Maximus Confessor: selected writings. The Classics of Western Spirituality, Intro. by Jaroslav Pelikan, and Preface by Irenee-Henri Dalmais, O.P. Paulist Press.

  • Blowers, P.M. (1991). Exegesis and spiritual pedagogy in Maximus the confessor: an investigation of the Quaestiones ad Thalassium. Christianity and Judaism in antiquity, Vol. 7. Charles Kannengiesser, Series Editor. University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Blowers, P. M. (2012). Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus on gnomic will (γνώμη) in Christ: clarity and ambiguity. Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 63(3-4), 44–50.

  • Blowers, P.M. (2016) Maximus the confessor: Jesus Christ and the transfigured world, Christian Theology in Context, Series Eds, Timothy Gorringe, Serene Jones, Graham Ward. Oxford University Press.

  • Blowers, P.M. and Wilken, R.L., trans. (2003) On the cosmic mystery of Jesus Christ: selected writings from St. Maximus the Confessor. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

  • Bolshakoff, S. (1980). Russian mystics. Cistercian Publications chap. 7.

  • Bynum, C. W. (1995). The resurrection of the body in Western Christianity, 200–1336. Columbia University Press.

  • Ceresa-Gastaldo, A., editor and trans. (1963). Massimo Confessore: Capitoli sulla carita. Verba Seniorum, n.s. 3, A. Editrice Studium.

  • Christensen, M. J., & Wittung, J. A. (Eds.). (2007). Partakers of the divine nature: The history and development of deification in the Christian traditions. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

  • Christou, P. (1982) Maximos Confessor on the infinity of man in Maximus Confessor, Actes du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur. F. Heinzer and C. von Schonborn, eds. Fribourg. 261-71.

  • Constas, N. (2014) On difficulties in the church fathers, the Ambigua (Vol. 1 and 2). Maximos the Confessor Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library, Harvard University Press: Ed & Trans.

  • Cooper, A. (2005). The body in St. Maximus the confessor: holy flesh, wholly deified. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gavrilyuk, P. (2009). The retrieval of deification: how a once-despised archaism became an ecumenical desideratum. Modern Theology, 25, 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. (1938) The Divinization of the Christian according to the Greek Fathers (Trans. by Paul A. Onica; A&C, 2002; originally published in French as La divinization du chrétien d’aprés les Pères grecs: Contribution historique á la doctrine de la grace. Gabalda et Cie.

  • Hausherr, I. (1952). Philautie. De la tendresse pour soi à la charité, selon Saint Maxime le Confesseur. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 137. Pontificale Institutum Orientalium Studiorum.

  • Ivanovic, F. (2019). Desiring the beautiful: the erotic-aesthetic dimension of deification in Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor. The Catholic University of America Press.

  • Jankowiak, M., & Booth, P. (2015). In P. Allen & B. Neil (Eds.), New date-list of the works of Maximus the confessor in the Oxford handbook of Maximus the Confessor (pp. 19–83). Oxford University Press.

  • Karkkainen, V.-M. (2004). One with god: Salvation as deification and justification. Unitas Books/ Liturgical Press.

  • Keating, D. A. (2007). Deification and grace. Introductions to Catholic doctrine. Sapientia Press.

  • Kharlamov, V. (2011). Theosis: deification in Christian theology (Vol. 2). Wipf & Stock.

  • Kharlamov, V., & Finian, S. (2006) Theosis: deification in Christian theology. Princeton Theological Monograph (Vol. 1). Pickwick Publications.

  • Larchet, J.-C. (1996). La divinization de l’homme selon saint Maxime le Confesseur. Les Editions du Cerf.

  • Larchet, J.-C. (2015). In P. Allen & B. Neil (Eds.), The mode of deification. The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor (pp. 341–359). Oxford University Press.

  • Lightfoot, J.B. and Harmer, J.R. eds. and trans., Holmes, M.W., ed. and rev. (1992) The apostolic fathers: Greek texts and English translations of their writings. Baker Book House.

  • Lossky, V. (1976). The mystical theology of the eastern church. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

  • Lossky, V. (1989). Orthodox theology: an introduction. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

  • Mantzaridis, G.I. (1984) The deification of man: St Gregory Palamas and the orthodox tradition. Greek Contemporary Theologians, Number Two. Trans. by Liadain Sherrard, Foreward by Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

  • Maximus the Confessor. (2014). Ambigua to John found in on difficulties in the Church Fathers: the Ambigua, Vols. I and II, Maximos the Confessor, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library series 28 and 29, Nicholas Constas, ed. and trans. Harvard University Press.

  • McFarland, I. A. (2005a). Fleshing out Christ: Maximus the Confessor’s Christology in anthropological perspective. St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 49, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, I. A. (2005b). Naturally and by Grace: Maximus the Confessor on the operation of the will. Scottish Journal of Theology, 58, 410–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, I. A. (2015). In P. Allen & B. Neil (Eds.), The theology of the will in the Oxford handbook of Maximus the confessor (pp. 516–532). Oxford University Press.

  • McGuckin, J. A. (2007). In M. J. Christensen & J. A. Wittung (Eds.), Strategic adaptions of deification in the Cappadocians, Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

  • Mitralexis, S. (2017). Ever-moving repose: a contemporary reading of Maximus the Confessor’s theory of time. Cascade Books.

  • Nellas, P. (1987) Deification in Christ: the nature of the human person. Contemporary Greek Theologians, Number Five. Russell, N., trans. Foreward by Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia; St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

  • Olson, R. (2007) Deification in contemporary theology. Theology Today 64.

  • Palmer, G.E.H., Sherrard, P., & Ware, K., (Translated and edited) (1990). The Philokalia: The complete text compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth (Vol. 2). Faber and Faber.

  • Russell, N. (2004) The doctrine of deification in the Greek patristic tradition. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Gillian Clark and Andrew Louth, General Editors. Oxford University Press.

  • Russell, N. (2009) Fellow workers with god: orthodox thinking on Theosis. Foundations Series. Bouteneff, P.C., Series Editor. St Vladimir’s Seminar Press.

  • Sales, L.J. intro., trans., notes, and bib. (2015) St. Maximus the confessor: two hundred chapters on theology. Popular Patristics Series. Number 53. Behr, J., Series Editor. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

  • Sherwood, P. (1952). An annotated date-list of the works of Maximus the Confessor. Herder.

  • Sotiropoulos, C.G. (1978). Η Μυσταγωγία τοῦ αγίου Μαξίμου τοῦ Ομολογητοῦ. Αθηνῶν.

  • Starr, J. (2007). Does 2 Peter 1:4 speak of deification? In M. J. Christensen & J. A. Wittung (Eds.), Partakers of the divine nature: The history and development of deification in the Christian traditions. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

  • Thunberg, L. (1995). Microcosm and mediator: the theological anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (2nd ed.). Open Court.

  • Tollefsen, T. T. (2017). In M. Edwards & E. Ene D-Vasilescu (Eds.), Like a glowing sword: St. Maximus on deification, Visions of God and Ideas on Deification in Patristic Thought (pp. 158–170). Routledge.

  • Van Deun, P. (2000). Maximi Confessoris Liber Asceticus. Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 40. Turnhout: Brepols.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vishnevskaya, E. (2006a). In M. J. Christensen & J. A. Wittung (Eds.), Divinization as perichoretic embrace in Maximus the confessor, Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

  • Vishnevskaya, E. (2006b) Divinization and spiritual progress in Maximus the confessor in Theōsis. 134-45.

  • Ware, T. (1997). The orthodox church. Penguin Books.

  • Wessel, S. (2011). The theology of Agape in Maximus the confessor. St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 55, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yannaras, C. (1984). The freedom of morality. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Providence College, 1 Cunningham Square, Providence, RI, 02918, USA

    Despina Prassas

Authors
  1. Despina Prassas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Despina Prassas.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prassas, D. Deification in Two Early Writings of St. Maximos the Confessor: Attaining Likeness to God. SOPHIA 60, 797–817 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-020-00809-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-020-00809-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation