You are on page 1of 13

BECOMING HOMOTHEOS:

ST. GREGORY PALAMAS


ESCHATOLOGY OF BODY

REV. DR. DEMETRIOS HARPER

In his Homily On the Glorious Ascension of the Lord, St. Gregory


Palamas says of Christs fulfilment of His dispensation: By the
unapproachable divine fire of His Godhead He cleansed this nature of every
tendency towards passion, and made it equal to God(Veniamin 2002, vol. 1,
p. 269). This passage, perhaps as much as any other, expresses the core of
Palamite thought. In the original Greek, the phrase equal to God or same
as God, to render it more literally, is homotheos (), a term that St.
Gregory employs more than one once in his corpus, and which demonstrates
his focus on Gods ultimate intention for man: a state of deification or
theosis in which mans created nature not only communes with God but
takes on the existential features of divinity to the extent that it may be
properly termed homotheos. The doctrine of theosis is one that is commonly
attributed to Palamas and one that has made him famous in some
contemporary theological circles and helped to make him notorious in
others. Less commonly emphasized, however, is the fact that Palamas
believes deification is rooted in Christs hypostatic union to our human
nature in the Incarnation through which created natures mode of existence
is transformed, causing deification to be attainable for all other instances
of human nature. Deification, in causal terms, occurs because of the
kenotic act of Christ and involves the transformation of human nature as a
whole, soul and body, and not merely the noetic aspect of humanity
through a transcendental event, as it is sometimes supposed. The Incarnate
Christ is the eschaton of human nature, the paradigm to which all of
humanity must aspire and in which all humanity must participate, a reality,
Palamas insists, that is inclusive of mans body as well as his soul. In this
236 Becoming Homotheos: St. Gregory Palamas Eschatology of Body

paper, I shall focus upon this eschatology of human nature in Palamas


writings, attempting especially to show that an eschatology of human
nature also means an eschatology of body.
A proper articulation of Palamas anthropology requires at least a
cursory mention of his cosmology and cosmogony. Following in the wake
of St. Maximos the Confessor and his great theological synthesis, Palamas
set out to articulate a theological perspective that was free from what he
considers to be the errors of the pagan philosophers. St. Gregory was
explicitly critical of many of the features of the larger Hellenic
philosophical tradition, especially those which, in his view, tended towards
pantheism by blurring the distinction between uncreated and created being
(Meyendorff 1974, pp. 128-30). In the first few pages of the Triads,
Palamas writes polemically against the pagan philosophers, accusing them
of having deprived God of His sovereignty through their ontological
monism (Meyendorff & Gendle 1983, p. 26). Palamas goes on to mention
the Plotinian doctrine of the world soul, the pre-existence of matter, and
seems to allude to the henads of Proclus, all of which, he argues, constitute
a violation of Gods ontological exclusivity and, consequently, of the
doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Palamas, thus, affirms the need for a careful
distinction between uncreated and created being, an explicit corrective of
the Hellenic philosophical tradition that goes back to some of the earliest
expressions of Christian dogma (Martzelos 2005, pp.14-19). Only God can
be said to possess absolute being, while created things are beings to the
extent that they participate in absolute being (Palmer, Sherrard & Ware
1998, p.388). Moreover, all beings that have their being through
participation are created by nature and were brought out of nothing by an
act of divine will, and are therefore essentially other in relation to God.
(Palmer, Sherrard & Ware 1998, pp. 356-57).
This point regarding creation ex nihilo may seem to be mundane, but it
establishes the framework for understanding Palamas eschatological
perspective and helps to distinguish his thought from certain Neo-Platonic
tendencies, especially those which identify creation with the fall and link
the human body to a loss of ontological fullness (Sherwood 1955, p.47-
51). In affirming that man and all the bodiless powers are entirely created,
Palamas seeks to follow Maximos in correcting an Origenist-style
cosmogony by establishing creation and fall as ontologically separate
events (Loudovikos 2010, p. 7-10). Man does not acquire a body or a
material dimension due to the fall, but is created from the beginning as a
noetic soul conjoined () to a material body (Palmer, Sherrard &
Ware 1998, pp. 362-63). He is created as a composite or two-fold
Rev. Dr. Demetrios Harper 237

hypostasis284 consisting of a created soul and body. Palamas, comparing


the soul of man to the bodiless powers, says the following:
On the other hand the noetic and intelligent nature of the human soul has
received a life-generating spirit from God since the soul is created together
with an earthy body, and so by means of the spirit sustains and quickens
the body conjoined () to it (Palmer, Sherrard & Ware 1998, p.
363).

The life-generating spirit that the soul possesses is not an uncreated


element within the human hypostasis, but is also created and can be seen
as a power or charisma of the soul, a power that, as Palamas himself
points out, the bodiless powers are lacking (Palmer, Sherrard & Ware
1998, p. 363). Palamas is quite adamant in asserting all that is termed
noetic, both that which is human and that which is angelic, is created
(Palmer, Sherrard & Ware 1998, 362). The body and the soul are thus
created together, as one essential reality. The intimate connection between
the soul and body is confirmed in the following passage: The spirit of
man that quickens the body is noetic longing (), a longing that issues
from the intellect () and its thought-form () (Palmer, Sherrard &
Ware 1998, 362). It is the souls noetic eros for the body that animates it
and causes the psychic and somatic parts of man to be one. It is essential
to make a distinction between this noetic eros for the body that Palamas
presents here in the Natural Chapters and the
(Romans 8:7) or mindset of the flesh, as some translate it, that he
mentions elsewhere in his corpus (Keselopoulos 2004, p. 25). Palamas
clearly ascribes the former to mans natural or existence, and
he certainly would have considered it to have been an attribute of pre-
lapsarian humanity. The latter, the mindset of the flesh, is indicative of
fallen mans inordinate obsession with the sensible world and functions
, or against nature. We will return to this later on.
The souls natural love for its particular () body is so great,
Palamas tells us, that it never wishes to abandon it and would not do so,
284 Palamas does not actually use the term composite or in this
particular context. However, it is clear from passages in the Natural Chapters that
he has this term in mind, when he describes the indissoluble relationship of the
soul to the body. Polycarp Sherwood (1955, pp.51-3), in the introduction to his
translations of Maximos the Confessors The Ascetic Life and The Four Centuries
on Charity, distinguishes the different uses of in the Patristic tradition.
When used in an anthropological context, it is meant to indicate that though the
human hypostasis is composite, it constitutes a single species or nature. This must
be differentiated from its use in Christology, in which case it is used with the
intention of indicating the dual natures contained in the hypostasis of Christ.
238 Becoming Homotheos: St. Gregory Palamas Eschatology of Body

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).

This passage, among other things, echoes St. Maximus discussion of


the synthetic nature of knowledge, that is, the fact that mans authentic
knowledge of the created world consists of sensory intuitions as well as
rational intellections (Christou & Meretakis 1992, vol. 14B, p. 370). Mans
knowledge is synthetic precisely because man himself is substantially
composed of both sensible and psychic dimensions, both of which work
together in harmony, if functioning according to nature, and both of which
are necessary for intuitions. What is truly remarkable about this passage is
the fact that Palamas argues that it is mans possession of physical senses
and therefore his unique psychosomatic composition that he, more so than
the angelic powers, reflects eikonically Gods own creative power. To
again quote a phrase from the passage: Only to man is it given to farm, to
240 Becoming Homotheos: St. Gregory Palamas Eschatology of Body

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).

The Incarnation is described here as achieving two things: 1)


correcting mans fallen mode of existence and 2) uniting human nature
unto uncreated in the person of Christ. While it is clearly a significant
given that Christs dispensation corrects mans fallen existence, what
Palamas wants to emphasize particularly here is the fact that human nature
paradigmatically attains fulfillment in the Incarnation, an assertion that is
repeated in Homily 26. Speaking again about mans nature and the
charismata with which God endowed it, Palamas says: God adorned
human nature in this way, because He was going to clothe Himself in it.
He was to assume it from the blood of the Virgin, transform it into
something better, and set it on high above all principality and power []
(Veniamin 2004, vol. 2, p. 47). The Logos assumption of human nature is
the actualization and fulfilment of humanitys destiny and indeed, to the
extent that man is the glory of creation, of creation itself. Moreover, nature
was endowed with particular charismata, constituted in a particular way,
so as to provide the capacity to realize its destiny in the Incarnation. In
claiming that all of creation was brought into being in conjunction with the
eternal intention for the coming of the Incarnate Logos, Palamas
establishes an eschatology in which all of human nature aspires to Christ
as its Archetype. Soteriology and eschatology are connected as man has
the opportunity to both leave his fallen mode of existence behind and
assimilate the grace that both redeems him and changes his natures mode
of existence from created to uncreated, a point that will be demonstrated
below. The fact that Palamas considered creation as unfulfilled prior to the
Incarnation is confirmed in yet another passage from Homily 16, in which
he says that if the Logos of God had not been made Incarnate, the Trinity
would not have been revealed to creation and God would have appeared as
merely some sort of energy observed by creatures (Veniamin 2004, vol.
1, p.192).
This archetypal significance of Christs incarnate state is reflected in
Palamas extensive discussions of the Transfiguration on Mt. Thabor and
the light that was manifested to the Apostles in His person. One of the
many purposes Palamas had in discussing the event was to show that the
real presence of divinity was manifested in the person of Christ, a
manifestation that included the participation of His complete humanity,
hence Palamas insistence that the light must be properly termed
uncreated. As Palamas says in his Homily on the Transfiguration, The
Rev. Dr. Demetrios Harper 243

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

The significance of Palamas use of somatic relationships as images of


the heavenly and Eucharistic should not be overlooked. Palamas does
indeed assert in his writings the fact that marriage, human procreation, and
childbirth became a part of mans mode of existence post-fall (Veniamin
2004, vol. 1, p. 182). This, however, is a subject that is too vast to discuss
in the present context. Suffice to say for the moment, we should observe

285 The translation is based on John Meyendorffs.


Rev. Dr. Demetrios Harper 245

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

Basing his views yet again on those of St. Maximos, he says:

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.

You might also like