Professional Documents
Culture Documents
unless faced with an unnatural force (Palmer, Sherrard & Ware 1998, p.
363). The coexistence and union of soul and body, as a single human
hypostasis, distinguishes man from the angelic ranks and is therefore
intrinsic to the definition of man qua man, and any rupture in this
relationship would indicate an overturning of the divinely established
order. Though possessing distinct enhypostata, mans being is defined by
the totality of his existence and is his primary essence, to use the
Aristotelian phrase (Florovsky 1987, p. 93), consisting of both soul and
body together. This is a repetition of a concept we find in St. Maximos,
who refers to the form or of man as that is, his
being as a whole (Migne 1857, PG 91, 1112AB; Loudovikos 2005, p.
168; Sherwood 1955, pp.51-2). Palamas further strengthens his position
through his appropriation of the doctrine of the uncreated logoi, which he
receives from Dionysios the Areopagite and Maximos the Confessor. In
Chapter 87 of the Natural Chapters, Palamas quotes the Areopagite: We
call paradigms the essence-forming logoi or inner principles of created
things (Palmer, Sherrard & Ware 1998, p. 387). Again following
Maximos, Palamas identifies the logoi as or ,
that is, divine volitions or predeterminations (Florovsky 1987, p. 223).
While the context of the quote is a refutation of Barlaam and Akindynos
and an affirmation of the uncreated nature of the energies of God, Palamas
also reaffirms the entirely created nature of the human hypostasis,
asserting that the essence of all created things are formed by, but not
identical to, the uncreated logoi. Mans being, though possessing an
internal hierarchy (Palmer, Sherrard & Ware 1998, pp. 356, 362-3), is thus
composed of enhypostata that are ontologically equal insofar as they are
both created and co-constitutive of the human substance. Moreover,
insofar as man constitutes a totality, the eternal logos or that
creates him also predetermines him as such, that is, as a noetic soul with a
particular body.
Another significant feature of Palamas anthropological teaching is his
view of mans creation in the image of God or . The question
of creation in the image and its theological application is not necessarily
a straightforward issue within the larger framework of the Patristic
tradition. The interpretation of the original Biblical passage varies from
writer to writer, with some exegetes offering more than one interpretation
(Mantzaridis 1984, pp. 15-18). Palamas appears to equivocate at times,
suggesting in some passages that the noetic faculty of mans soul is the
exclusive recipient of the divine image, while in others indicating that the
image involves all of mans being. It is outside the scope of this paper to
examine all the dimensions of this issue and the reasons for the various
Rev. Dr. Demetrios Harper 239
expressions.
For the moment, I will follow Mantzaridis in saying that the phrase in
the image is dynamic in its significance and, as such, the variety of
expressions need not be seen as introducing a contradiction in either
Palamas thought or that of the Patristic tradition in general (1984, pp. 15-
18). I would, therefore, argue that it is consistent with Palamas thought to
say that the image of God can be applied to the body as well as the soul. In
a work commonly attributed to Palamas, we read the following: Man
cannot be said to be only soul or only body, but both together, both having
been created in the image of God (Migne 1857, PG 150, 1361). This
passage is quite clear in its identification of the divine image with both
soul and body and would arguably be sufficient, if it were not for the fact
that some have questioned the origin of the work from which it originates
(Lossky 1976, p. 224). I will, therefore, mention one additional passage
from the Natural Chapters in which Palamas equates the tripartite nature
of man not with the soul, as he does elsewhere, but with his triform
capacity for knowledge. The passage, though lengthy, is worth quoting:
As others have also pointed out, the three-fold nature of our knowledge
likewise demonstrates that we, to a greater extent than the angels, are
created in Gods image. Indeed, this knowledge is not only three-fold but
encompasses every form of knowledge. We alone of all creatures have a
faculty of sense perception in addition to our noetic and rational faculties.
Since this faculty is united to our reason we have invented multifarious
arts, sciences and forms of knowledge. Only to man is it given to farm, to
build and to produce from nothingbut not from absolute non-being, for
this pertains to God only [] In addition, by the gift of God it pertains to
men alone to make the invisible thought of the intellect audible by uniting
it with the air and to write it down so that it may be seen with and through
the body (Palmer, Sherrard & Ware 1998, p. 375).
build and to produce from nothing, but not from absolute non-being, for
this pertains to God only. Mankinds ability to create within the
sensible world, to express himself bodily and sensibly through the
multifarious art-forms and sciences renders him, in terms of his eikonic
attributes, superior to the bodiless powers inasmuch as he imitates Gods
creative power in the sensible world; it is mans possession of a body, his
biological reality, that indicates his superior eikonic character. Given this
passage, I think we can legitimately conclude that Palamas considered the
image of God as being involved with the body as well as the soul.
This leads us naturally to Palamas view of the fall and its significance
for the human body. While mans nature, in Palamas view, is indeed
iconically superior to that of the angels, the fall has rendered him lesser in
terms of his likeness ( ) to God. In terms of dignity and
honor, the angelic ranks are greater than the human race, man having
turned away from his proper eschatological destiny (Mantzaridis 1984, pp.
21-22; Palmer, Sherrard & Ware 1998, pp. 366, 376). We might compare
the distinction between in the image and in the likeness in Palamas to
the Aristotelian distinction between and , or potentiality
and actuality. Man, while possessing the potentiality or
to conform to his Archetype and the Archetypes eternal intentions
for his nature, failed to do so, or, more accurately, refused to do so through
his disobedience and failed to realize his . It is this
willful failure and the misuse of his eikonic capacity on the part of man
that constitutes the problematic aspects of bodily existence, that is, illness,
corruption, and finally, physical death (Palmer, Sherrard & Ware 1998, p.
367). Critical to the topic at hand is the fact that mans entire hypostasis,
including his soul, become subject to the consequences of his failure to
exist in accordance with Gods natural intention for him and his nature
(Veniamin 2002, vol. 1, pp.181-83). This unnatural state affects the soul as
well as the body and so also is subject to the ontological consequences of
the fall, for which Palamas utilizes the Biblical definition, namely, death;
physical death is the sensible manifestation of mans dead state and dead
soul. The body, though indeed damaged by the fall, is neither the result nor
the cause of the fall (Palmer, Sherrard & Ware 1998, pp. 366-67, 370-71).
In describing mans fallen state as against nature, Palamas implicitly
appropriates Maximos well-known / distinction, that is,
between natures essential principle and the way in which it exists
(Sherwood 1955, pp. 164-65; Migne 1857, PG 91, 1280A, 1329A, 1341D,
1345B). Death, as it is understood by Palamas, constitutes a mode of
existence that goes against natures principle, a mode of existence that
constitutes a failure to actualize humanitys eikonic potentiality, a
Rev. Dr. Demetrios Harper 241
potentiality that is inclusive of the human body and, therefore, the failure
of which must also entail somatic consequences. Palamas sometimes uses
the term nature to indicate mans fallen state but, as Meyendorff argues,
the context in which Palamas uses this expression indicates that Palamas
means it in a descriptive sense, as a condition basically contrary to its
[natures] destiny (1974, p.122). Mans necrotic state and unnatural
existence gives rise to the the mind-set of the flesh (Keselopoulos 2004,
p.25), an expression used by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans
(Romans 8:7, Meyendorff & Gendle 1983, p. 41). This also functions
descriptively, alluding to mans unnatural state, his improper mode of
existence, and his inordinate obsession with the physical world that
happens as a result of his existential disposition. Palamas explains this in
the following passage: As for us, we think the mind becomes evil through
dwelling on fleshly thoughts ( ), but there is
nothing bad in the body, since the body itself is not evil (Meyendorff &
Gendle 1983, p. 41). Again, it is the obsession with fleshly that is
problematic, rather than the body itself. I use obsession to emphasize the
unnatural mode of this kind of attachment because, as we saw earlier, there
is indeed a rational love of the body that, in Palamas view, accords with
nature and mans natural destiny. It is only due to the fragmented reality of
mans post-lapsarian existence that it becomes necessary to speak about
antinomies between mind and body or fleshly and rational. Mans
natural state or, better, mode of existence admits no such
divisions.
I have so far attempted to show how Palamas anthropological teaching
reflects an eschatology of nature in potentia, and therefore of body, and
lays the foundation for the possibility of theosis. Mans nature was created
as a unified reality with the self-determining potential to respond to his
Creators image and live in accordance with his natures eschata, in
accordance with his Archetype. Yet, the actualization of mans eschatological
potential also is causally contingent upon the Incarnation of the Logos and
participation in the ontological achievements of his earthly dispensation.
Though Palamas makes use of Evagrian language in many of his works,
unlike Evagrius his views are strongly conditioned by Christology, and his
doctrine of deification depends on the Incarnation of Christ and a rigorous
Chalcedonian sense of union and inter-communion between the uncreated
and created natures of Christs hypostasis (Meyendorff 1974, pp. 135-36).
Palamas imitates his theological forebearer, Maximos, in applying a
Christocentric corrective, to borrow a phrase, to Evagrian theological
expressions (Meyendorff 1974, pp.132-33). In his well-known Homily 16,
Palamas says the following regarding the Incarnation:
242 Becoming Homotheos: St. Gregory Palamas Eschatology of Body
The Lord did not just create man anew with his hand in a wonderful way,
but held him near Him. He did not merely restore human nature and raise
it from its fall, but in an indescribable fashion clothed Himself in it and
indivisibly united Himself with it (Veniamin 2004, vol. 1, p.183).
light of the Lords transfiguration does not come into being or cease to be
(Veniamin 2004, vol. 2, p. 138). It is an eternal, divine, and therefore
uncreated energy that demonstrates not only Christs divinity, but also the
fact of His deified humanity. Christ, in actualizing human nature in
Himself, deifies all aspects of human nature and, inasmuch as He draws it
to Himself, causes it to participate in His divinity. Palamas, speaking again
of the light of the Transfiguration quotes St. John Damascene, saying:
The Son eternally begotten of the Father possesses the natural and eternal
ray of divinity; yet the glory of the divinity has also become the glory of
the body (Meyendorff & Gendle 1983, p. 78). Palamas eschatological
perspective becomes quite clear here as he makes specific mention of the
body itself participating in the very eternal divinity of God and,
additionally, we see further the reason for his insistence that the light at the
Transfiguration was uncreated. In so doing, Palamas remains consistent
both in terms of his holistic approach to human nature, but also with
regards to his insistence that the human body reveals the natural state of its
possessor. In the case of fallen man, alienated from grace, the body withers
and perishes, returning to dust. The body of the Incarnate Logos, on the
other hand, communes with divinity itself, and it is fitting, in Palamas
view, that it would manifest this fact in actuality. It is for this reason that
Palamas refers to the light as a natural symbol, as it reveals the nature of
that which it symbolizes. In showing forth uncreated light from His
person, Palamas argues, the Lord became His own symbol, and the
Archetype for all instances of human nature, both by revealing Himself as
the form of all humanity and by showing how Gods splendor would
come to the saints and how they would appear in the age to come
(Veniamin 2004, vol. 2, pp.140-41).
To take it a step further, we can say that because the body constitutes
the sensible portion of the human essence, the body of Christ in
particular functions as the Archetype of humanity par excellence,
revealing materially and phenomenally the fact of created natures
transformation in His person. The body of Christ consists of a call to all
humanity to imitate His uncreated life (Meyendorff & Gendle 1983, p.
88; Veniamin 2004, vol. 1, p. 185; Mantzaridis 1998, p.135). To be clear,
imitate does not merely indicate an external mimicry of the Logos
dispensation, but rather the reception of His deified mode of existence
through participation in Him and the assimilation of the grace that comes
of His outpouring into human nature, an idea which Palamas clearly
considered to have ethical as well as ontological implications (Mantzaridis
1998, pp. 108-14). In a passage from Homily 21, Palamas compares
Christs divinity to fire, saying: The Lord came to send fire upon the
244 Becoming Homotheos: St. Gregory Palamas Eschatology of Body
earth and through participation in this fire He makes divine not just the
human substance which assumed for our sake, but every person who is
found worthy of communion with Him (Veniamin 2004, vol. 1, p. 269).
Imitation of the Archetype therefore means participation in and
assimilation of His uncreated life, a life that is inclusive of all of mans
being, soul and body, as all aspects of mans essence have become divine
through the kenotic work of the Incarnate Logos.
Not coincidentally, Palamas employs Eucharistic language throughout
his corpus, focusing on the deified body of Jesus and its significance for
the human race, especially with regards to its life-giving capacity. In
Christ, the body of death becomes the body of life and the means by
which the mystery of the Incarnation is conveyed to humanity. In Homily
16, Palamas refers to the flesh of Christ as an inexhaustible source of
sanctification (Veniamin 2004, vol. 1, p. 183) by which the effects of the
fall are removed in those who participate. Contrary to what some might
expect from the defender of the hesychasts and noetic prayer, Palamas
uses conspicuously organic and material expressions to expound his
Christocentric perspective and establish the framework for a doctrine of
deification, a tendency that led John Meyendorff to refer to Palamas
theology as Christian materialism (1974, p. 155). In Homily 56, a
homily that Palamas dedicates exclusively to the discussion of
ecclesiology and the Sacraments, he says we become concorporeal
() with the Incarnate one, becoming recipients of the uncreated
life that resides in the Body of Christ (Chrestou & Meretakis 2009, vol. 11,
p. 402). Palamas does not stop here but compares the intimacy of the
familial and marital relationship to the Eucharistic life in Christ:
Christ has become our brother, by sharing our flesh and blood and so
becoming assimilated to us He has joined and bound us to Himself, as a
husband to his wife, by becoming one single flesh with us through the
communion of his blood; He has also become our father by divine baptism
which renders us like unto Him, and he nourishes us at his own breast as a
tender mother nourishes her babies (Chrestou & Meretakis 2009, vol. 11,
p. 410).285
that though these somatic relationships are indicative of the transitory life,
nonetheless, the fact that Palamas considers them worthy eikones of divine
and ineffable truths should tell us that he did not consider them to be
merely fallen functions but realities capable of pointing to higher things,
and therefore redeemable if oriented towards natural existence in Christ.
In light of Palamas Chistocentrism and emphasis on a psychosomatic
eschatology of person, it is much easier to understand his defense of
hesychastic praxis, the human experience of the uncreated light, and
psychosomatic prayer. The Incarnate Christ is the Archetype, as I have
repeatedly emphasized, for all humanity, and His deified body is the
eschatological manifestation of the eschata of all mankind. The
practitioner of hesychia and psychosomatic prayer, then, is one who seeks
to imitate Christ and partake of his divine life, to make the life that is in
Christ his own through a synergetic effort (Meyendorff 1974, p.165;
Mantzaridis 1998, p. 133), in which he orients himself toward Christ by
the grace of Christ. Speaking specifically of hesychastic practice, Palamas
says: For if the hesychast does not circumscribe the mind in his body,
how can he make to enter in himself the One Who has clothed himself in
the body and Who thus penetrates all organized matter[]? (Meyendorff
& Gendle 1983, p. 45). Palamas thus, links noetic prayer explicitly to
participation in Christ and, perhaps even more significantly for the topic at
hand, indicates that imitation of Christ is necessarily psychosomatic, as
matter itself must attain union with Christ and begin to live (Meyendorff
& Gendle 1983, p. 45).
The rupture in mans being as a result of the fall and the divisibility
that plagues mankinds post-lapsarian body is overcome through the
circumscription of Christ in the human hypostasis, as frail matter itself
begins to acquire a form after divinity, an event that is exemplified in the
practice of the hesychast. This is why it is not inconsistent, in Palamas
view, to speak of the light experienced by legitimate hesychasts as
uncreated and, moreover, inclusive of the body. As the divine life is
transmitted to those who participate in Christ, the participants experience a
change of their mode of existence, such that they acquire the existential
of their divine Archetype, becoming concorporeal with the
Incarnate Logos. Christs deifying power becomes enhypostatic,
working within the entire unified human essence (Meyendorff & Gendle
1983, p. 71), reversing the effects of unnatural existence and bringing
man, soul and body, closer to his eschatological destiny, constituting a
foretaste of the life to come. In the latter portion of the Triads, St. Gregory
explains precisely what he considers mans eschatological destiny to be
and the life that awaits the followers of Christ at the second Resurrection.
246 Becoming Homotheos: St. Gregory Palamas Eschatology of Body
Listen to the Father. Having explained as far as possible the way in which
deified men are united to Goda union akin to that of the soul to the
body, so that the whole man should be entirely deified, divinized by the
grace of the incarnate Godhe concludes: 'He [man] remains entirely man
by nature in his soul and body, and becomes entirely God in his soul and
his body through grace[]' (Meyendorff & Gendle 1983, p. 109-10;
Veniamin 2004, vol. 1, p. 206).
Through the grace of the divine Archetype and through His kenotic
dispensation, man, though originate by nature, is clothed with divinity,
existing as God in body and soul.
By way of conclusion, I would reiterate my statement at the beginning
of this essay: the Palamite view of deification depends not on man
transcending his substance or in overcoming his nature, but rather on the
Logos outpouring of divinity into human nature, elevating both mans
noetic soul and material body to divinity through His descent. In Palamas
estimation, Christ is the eschaton of all humanity, inasmuch as He contains
the eschata of all humanity in Himself. It is each persons synergetic and
Eucharistic participation in Christ that enables the particular realization of
the eschata, as each through his self-determining capacity either
assimilates or rejects his eschatological destiny. Those who attain to their
proper end do so according to their Archetype, becoming homotheos by
grace and enhypostasizing divine life not only in their noetic dimension
but in their bodies as well.
Works Cited
Chrestou, P & Meretakis, E (trans. & ed.) 2009, Greek Fathers of the
Church: The Works of St. Gregory Palamas (in Greek), St. Gregory
Palamas Patristic Publications, Thessaloniki.
Chrestou, P & Meretakis, E (trans. & ed.), 1992, The Philokalia of the
Neptics and Ascetics: St. Maximos the Confessor (in Greek), St.
Gregory Palamas Patristic Publications, Thessaloniki.
Florovsky, G., 1987, The Byzantine Fathers of the Sixth to Eighth Century,
Bchervertriebsanstalt, Belmont.
. 1987, The Eastern Fathers of Fourth Century, Bchervertriebsanstalt,
Belmont.
Keselopoulos, A., 2004, Passions and Virtues according to Saint Gregory
Palamas, St. Tikhons Seminary Press, South Canaan.
Rev. Dr. Demetrios Harper 247
Lossky, V., 1976, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, St.
Vladimirs Seminary Press, Crestwood.
Loudovikos, N., 2010, A Eucharistic Ontology, Holy Cross Orthodox
Press, Brookline.
. 2005, Orthodoxy and Modernization (in Greek), Armos Publications,
Thessaloniki.
Mantzaridis, G., 1998, Palamika (in Greek), Pounaras Publications,
Thessaloniki.
. 1984, The Deification of Man, St. Vladimirs Seminary Press,
Crestwood.
Martzelos, G., 2005, Essence and Energies of God according to St. Basil
the Great (in Greek), Pounaras Publications, Thessaloniki.
Migne, J.P., 1857-1912, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graecae,
Paris.
Meyendorff, J & Gendle, N (ed. & trans.) 1983, The Triads, Paulist Press,
Mahwah.
Meyendorff, J., 1974, A Study of Gregory Palamas, The Faith Press,
Leighton Buzzard.
Palmer, G, Sherrard, P & Ware, K (eds. & trans.) 1998, The Philokalia
(vol. IV), Faber & Faber, London.
Sherwood, P., 1955, The Earlier Ambigua of Saint Maximus the Confessor
and his Refutation of Origenism, Orbis Catholicus, Rome.
. 1955, St. Maximus the Confessor, The Ascetic Life, The Four Centuries
on Charity, The Newman Press, Westminster.
Veniamin, C. (trans.), 2004, The Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas (vols.
1&2), St. Tikhons Seminary Press, South Canaan.