THE SOURCES OF AT chapter 1 HANASIUS DOCTRINE OF DEIFICATION ‘To understand the roots of the doctrine of deification for Athanasius, it is necessary to examine both Hellenistic and Hebrew thought, as well as the development of the concept in early Christianity. By the fourth century the interrela tionship between Christian doctrine and classical culture had become quite complex, and there is no clear-cut line of ancestry connecting deoroin- cs in the writings of the Bishop of Alexandria to Homer or Plato on the one hand, or to Moses and Jesus on the other. Harnack set the general tone for modern scholarships evaluation of Athanasius as having liberated Christianity from Greek philosophy through his biblical concerns but this has not gone unchallenged.’ Specifically in reference to deification, Bousset characteristi- cally asserted, “It is perfectly clear that this ideal of deification stems from Hellenistic piety? But it may be the cautious balance of Gross which best assesses the situation, although it leaves the question open-ended. Writing of the Patristic doctrine in general, he proposes that “the idea of deification served as a connection between Hellenism and Christianity?” “To explicate this relationship, we will exam- ine, although somewhat cursorily, the concept of the deification of man in paganism, both reli- gious and philosophical, especially in the Greek culture of late antiquity. After considering the biblical roots of the doctrine, we will turn to Rabbinic Judaism and Philo, and finally the Fathers themselves, with special emphasis on Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, An investigation so vast in time and space must nec- essarily be limited in detail, but our aim is pri- marily to ascertain and illuminate the literary background to Athanasius’ leading soteriological motifs. Such a survey also dictates a rather heavy reliance on secondary works concerning the top- ics and personalities discussed, but this tech- nique may be of value as a guide to further inves- tigation. Deification in Pagan Re Homer reflects the widespread Greek reli- gious belief that one of the primary characteris tics of divinity is immortality, so that 66s and G@ivaros are often synonymous.’ Consequently,Deiication; The Content of Athanasian Soterology Homer declares that the immortal gods are very different ftom men. The religion of Homer had no idea of a soul naturally immortal; the shades of the dead in Hades had no substantial exis- tence." This means that, despite the Few men who had been received into Olympian divine happi- ness and deathlessness, the desire to be like the gods is the greatest presumption and sin, But the real first principle of the religion of the Greek people is this—that in the divine ordering of the world, humanity and divini ty are absolutely divided in place and nature, and so they must ever remain, A deep gulf is fixed between the worlds of mortality and divinity? ‘This, combined with a general indifference to the fortune of individuals on the part of the gods, results in a pessimistic outlook in early Greek religion: § ‘After, there is no more than a shadow of a shad- ow’ But if Homer recognized certain heroes of the past who overcame the usual fate of mortals, Hesiod exhibits @ more refined pessimism with regard to the present, fifth age of man. Sunk in toil, grief and evil, men no longer have the prospect of a deification, or even a blessed life on the “isles of happiness!”” Only the gods above are eternally happy. But Greek religious thought did not remain in this impasse. The solution was assimilation to God (Suotwors G€08), the attainment of godhood which brings immortality." Thus Festugi@re sees two trends in Greek thought: the warning against the desire for deification as iBpis (in Hesiod, Pindar, and the tragic dramatists), and the long- life is only a shadow. And after? ing to free oneself from the passions of the flesh, the tyranny which enslaves true being," Although at first deification was ascribed to a choice few, in the seventh and sixth centuries n.c.t. the cult of the heroes and the dead was expanded, along with the growth in the idea of the immortal soul.” Nevertheless, until the rise of the Myste level of the gods was confined to heroes or rulers such as Alexander. immortality could be enjoyed in the Elysian Fields or the Blessed Isles, but this is not full Talbert has called attention to the distinction between “etemnals.” who were gods from the first, and “immortals,” who were not always gods, but were for various reasons taken Religions, an actual exaltation to the An eternal Gewpia and deification. up to heaven, immortalized and given a place among the gods. That antique religion is known for its charac teristic stress on personal deification is largely due to the rising popularity of the Mystery Religions.” Although our knowledge of these cults, as well as their relationship to Christianity, is hampered by the absence of sufficient « texts, it is clear that the immediate goal of the mystic was escape from the mire of mortal life, and that this immortality “consisted in a happi: ness equal to that of the gods, ie., immutable and ‘without end.”* While initiation into the myster- ies of Eleusis only implied deification,” the cults of Dionysius, Orpheus, Isis and Mithras were more extravagant in their promises. The notorious orgiastic rites and feasts of the Dionysian cult symbolized the attainment of union with the god. Orphism was also centered con sacred feasts, but included purification aimed at liberation of the soul from the body." "The doc- trine that the nature and origin of the soul were entirely divine is seen for the first time in Orphism, and divinization became a restoration to the original state of purity from materiality: Initiation into the Isis cult was a ritual ree actment of the death and rebirth or resurrection of the god, based on the annual fertility cycles of nature life and becomes Mithraism, although its ritual was based on the had a basis which The mystic is reborn to a supernatural the equal of the immortals, Persian rite of Taurobolivin,was much more ethical than the other mysteries. sal- Whereas the earlier version tended to ma itiate,» vation entirely a divine gift to the Mithraism promised an abode of blessedness in the realm of the stars, the result of an ascent through the seven heavens, from the power of both ritual and moral purification, More explicit deification texts are found in the Hermetic Tractates, which promise godhood through knowledge: roird gor 18 dyattn redds the leitmotif of the Hermetic writings is salvation from ois ywdow éoxnk6or, Bet cinapuérn by means of a divinization through gnosis, which is achieved not by ritualistic means, but an intellectual liberation and vision (a) of God, while still in the body: Xalpouer br & jaow Awa Bvras dnedéwoas TA acavrod 8a" This “Vision of God .... gives an intimate person- which delivers man from ciy.apuévn.”» Similarly to Orphism, the al insight into ultimate reality Hermetic view of the divine origin of the soul implies some sort of pre-existence. After getting tid of the body, the essential man ascends through the heavenly spheres to the Ogdoad, and finally comes to God himself. While the diviniza tion promised by the mysteries is more one of belonging and protection, in Hermeticism, “a direct and immediate contact, approaching iden- tification,” is established between the mystic and his god. It is a reabsorption of man into the Divine One from which he had gone out.” This ‘mystical pantheism goes beyond the Greek con- cepts the devotee is “not only the nats 8¢o8, kari dv" dyoo¥o.os; he is himself de6s)”" so that “every distinction between the divine and human, appears erased in this entire religious outlook.” In summary, Greek religion, under the influ ence of the mystery cults, prepared the ground for the idea of the immortality of the soul and The Sources of Athanasius’ Doctrine of Deification + overcame its original pessimism with the prom- ise of a divine and eternal blessedness in the realm of the Gods, based on a restored likeness or assimilation. Theology and dogma, however, did not arise from Greek religion but from philoso phy.” Deification in Plato and Greek Philosophy Both the sharp awareness of human frailty and perishability in contrast to the divine, and the ideal of assimilation to God are found in Plato.” Platonism is dominated by a spirit-matter dualism which separates the ideal world of true realty, being in itself, from the perishable and perceived by the ‘God” is in some sense a personification of the abstract realm of static and unchangeable Ideas,” without beginning, center or limit.” changeable world of becoming This implies a profound separation between God and rman, so that fellowship in the sense of becoming fone with Deity is excluded: debs dvepimy ob petywura.* On the other hand, although all materiality is foreign to God, man is a mixture of body and soul. The latter’ essence is “pure,” immaterial or spiritual, 6 well as unoriginate, but not quite on ability. Nevertheless, its powers of thought and reason make it akin to “the Good” by nature, and thus able to compre- hend." By means of “purification” the soul the Ideal level of uncha reveals itself as divine and is thus rendered god- like even on earth.” The goal of Platonic teaching is to be set free of the mortal and corruptible, so that the soul enters into the union with the divine by likeness to it, outside time and space.* Since the natural resemblance of man to God resides in his rationality, or Saiyan, it is by exer- cising this faculty that we are raised to heaven: by thinking thoughts édvara «ai de‘a, immortal and divine, we partake of immortality. The crucial passage in Plato refecring to the assimilation to God is in the Theaetetus 176A-B,+ De 1m: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology and this became the Platonic proof-text for deification, widely cited by generations of Christian and pagan philosophers. Because evils have no place among the gods, Socrates says in the dialogue, they cluster about the earth and mortal natures. “Therefore we ought to try to flee from hence as quickly as possible, Now to flee thus i ike ness to God as far as possible; and this like- ness isto be just and holy by means of pru- dence." ‘The importance of this passage is in its juxtapo- sition of several crucial concepts. Assimilation, or becoming like God, is a process of “fleeing” the material, sensual world, through a rational holi- ness and righteousness. Nevertheless, there is a limit to this duotoots; it is only karé 79 Buvarée." This limitation, which assumes an ontologi: cal duality, was seized upon by the Christian Fathers, since, by preserving monotheism, it allowed them to develop the idea of deification along Platonic lines, and required that they take into account this spirit-matter dualism. The ten- sion between the idea of deification through assimilation to God and the ontological separa~ tion from him is expressed in the Platonic idea of the elniv, or material image, as opposed to the archetypal Idea, The prototype of an image or copy exists on a higher level of reality, and each level derives its worth by its degree of resem- blance to the level above it This doctrine of imitation is... applied to the relation of God the Divine sou! to other souls... Plato uses the same kind of termi- nology to describe the imitation of souls to God as he does to account for the imitation of forms by things.” Although one would expect the model for man to be the Ideal Form of trie manhood, in practice God is the “ensoulment” of the virtues, such as justice, wisdom, temperance, and courage, which man must imitate." But just as the gap between sensible and Ideal Forms can never be bridged, man never reaches the level of God's perfection. “The image remains an image, it never becomes a reproduction. The image is both like and unlike. ..."" As Ladner points out, in Platonism “image” denotes something inferior to the archetype, while “likeness” indicates close resemblance, and “must have been congenial to Christian thinkers who desired to make use of Platonic formulations in order to illustrate the closest possible relation between the creature ‘man and the creator God.* ‘Thus Plato advocated an imitation ot assim- ilation to God based on the participation of man in the virtues of “God.”* Through this imitation eibnuuov'a can be achieved; man becomes like God insofar as he fulfils his potential and is happy. ‘Ouotwors eo8, the transformation through just conduct and knowledge of the divine, is the means to the reward of eternal life. This ethical and intellectual emphasis formed the basis for a “spiritualized” dei ication for those who no longer believed in the old gods." It rep- resented an advance in humanistic terms over the vagaries and pessimistic fatalism of Greek reli- gion, but the reliance on self-control and intel lectual ascent made it elitist, a prospect primari ly for the dproro..” In this respect Platonic phi- losophy carried on the tradition of the cult of the hero ot (Geos, transferring deification from the mythic inép dv@puras or Betas dap to the gus: cobs. Despite the drawbacks and inconsisten cies of this Platonic view of deification, the con- nection which he “established between the ideas of being, divinity and immortality,” as well as the equation of assimilation with deification, “exer- ised a strong influence on the later conceptions including those of the Church of salvation, Fathers." Nevertheless, this influence was not direct. Plato's doctrine was filtered down through andinterpreted by a host of followers, students, and compilers Aristotle, who urged man to strive for immortal: ) throt The first of these was, of course, ity (davai partaking of divinity through his vots.* Despite his view of Deity as even more impersonal than that of Plato, “Aristotle reaffirmed the conception of Plato, according to which true happiness consists for man in his assimilation to God, in his deifica- Nevertheless, Aristotle seems to exclude a personal, conscious immortality, so that the con- tion.” tent of deification was considerably reduced. ‘The Stoics inherited the tradition of a deifi ‘ation through philosophy, and the basis of this ‘was a filial relationship to God as the “Father” of all men. Thus Aratos, in his Phaenomena (¥. 5, cited by Paul in Acts 17:28) testifies, “we are of his race.” But this filation is really a metaphor, expressing the harmony of the cosmos, and divinization is watered down to the eidayiovia of an ethical naturalism which ultimately dissol into pantheism; “all distinction between Godhood and manhood is given up” A marked tendency to pantheism is also found in Neoplatonism, whose principal theme is the ascent and return of the soul to the One Like Plato, Plotinus believed that we resemble God because of our vois, which is kar” ofotan elxdv O00." Assimilation to God means to become like the Nous, or the world of Forms, in goodness and beauty. adopted the Aristotelian view that mind in act is But since Plotinus “has the same as the object of its thought,” assimila tion implies a union or identification: “So we are not so much to resemble as to become Gods Elsewhere this is described as becoming pure intellect (vois)."" By casting off impurities, the soul regains its original divinity, which is neces. sary for illumination or contemplation of the One, through resemblance, absorption and sub: mergence of the self into the infinite immensity of the divine. The Sources of Athanasius’ Doctrine of Deification = 5 Thus Plotinus was less restrained than Plato in his view of the possibilities of deification, although Merki’s idea that Plato urges only becoming like God, while Plotinus proposes a return to Godhood is an exa geration, since Plotinus’ “Vergottlichung” is actually a Platonic The goal of mystic union is achieved by the individual's own efforts: process of yi ocavrév. detachment from works of the flesh, asceticism and charity, as well as contemplation, are the means of rising above everything corporeal and Thus, although Neoplatonism influ- enced the Christian concept of God which sensible, Athanasius professed the pantheistic tendency which implied a virtual annihilation of human, personality, combined with a basic self-sufficiency and elitism, rules out the conclusion that pagan philosophical deification was the primary source for his doctrine.» However much they may have appropriated t e language and intellectual con Hellenistic cultural milieu, the Fathers looked to their Biblical tradition above structs of their all for their inspiration, The Biblical Roots of the Doctrine of Deification In examining the “biblical roots” of the Pattistic doctrine of deification, the primary intent of this section is not an exegetical study of the biblical text itself. Whether or not the concept can be described as endemic or even consistent with the Bible would require a separate volume; the question here concerns which biblical texts or ideas are important as sources or background for other words, what scriptural passages could lend themselves to a deification interpretation? This disclaimer is needed because one group of modern scholars Athanasius’ soteriology. I hhas denied any scriptural warrant for the doc- trine and terminology of deification in the Fathers.“There is nothing in either the Old or the New Testament which by itself could even faintlyDei suggest that man might practice being a god in this world and actually become one in the next.” writes Butterworth.” When this. premise is accepted, the conclusion is inevitable: it must be attributed solely to Greek influence. In a similar vein Bousset, following Reitzenstein, had traced the Christian doctrine entirely to the analogous phenomena in a “whole array of religions” in pagan Hellenism. Such a doctrine would be “very difficult, and indeed even impossible, to conceive of on the soil of the Old Testament Jewish reli- gion or of the authentic gospel of Jesus?" But such an assertion starts from the specific Hellenistic definition and terminology of deifica: tion, and then concentrates only on the parallels or similarities in the Church Fathers. However, this methodology obscures and distorts the Patristic doctrine. “It isa fact,” Faller points out, “that the Christian doctrine of deification never appears in the same form as in paganism.”” Since deification has a different content for the Fathers than for their pagan religious and philosophical counterparts, several scholars have seen the bib- lical influence as primary.” Faller traces deifica- tion to the psychological, ethical and sacramental thinking of the Old Testament, especially in the concept of the image of God in man." The Fathers, asserts V. Ermoni, were careful not to introduce any doctrine which could not be found to some degree in holy scripture.” Lattey criti- cizes Butterworth directly for his denial of any scriptural warrant for deification, even in Paul ‘The “good news” of Christianity, writes Gross, fulfills both the Jewish aspirations of divine fila tion and the Greek ideal of deification, so that even though the specific terms denoting deifica- tion are not found in the New ‘Testament, it is nevertheless certain that the reality Which they express is found there: by and in Christ united to God, becoming an adopted son of God, living a life truly divine, assured a blessed incorruptibility, the Christian is tion: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology assimilated to God and participates in the divine nature as far as possible for a human creature.” ‘This was the hope which the Fathers took up and. adapted to their milieu, founded on Paul's doc- trine of the death and exaltation of Christ as the basis of salvation and John's incarnate Logos as the principle of divinization ‘To assert that deification is incompatible with the Bible on the basis of the differentiation between the divine and human found therein is to impose an ontological standard on the text which was not there originally. Stauffer asserts that the Semitic concept of God has to do prima- rily with power, not metaphysical being, Immortality “is simply a presupposition of this lordship.’ so that “the emphasis is on the dynam- ic definition rather than the metaphysical” Although the Septuagint had greatly subdued the anthropomorphisms of the Hebrew Scriptures, “the personal nature of God” was very much “a living reality” to the earliest Christians.” Matthew 5:48 calls God éhet0s “not of metaphysical speculation, but in terms of the sense moral perfection." God is “faithful,” meaning that his goodness is unfailing, but nowhere is he described as “unchangeable” in an ontological sense. The glib assumption that the Bible's “sharp distinction” between God and man precludes deification is ill-conceived; in fact, this is an example of Greek philosophical metaphysics read into the text. The irony is that it was the Church Fathers themselves who worked at rec~ onciling sch philosophical principles with the biblical revelation, while at the same time they ‘were expounding a soteriology of deification." Pethaps the most fundamental biblical text which was used to support this explanation of salvation was the Genesis account of the creation ‘of man. The overall force of the description of humanity as being formed “in the image and likeness of God" (LXX: kar! ebxéva ai Kas”Syo{wotw 08), is to differentiate him from other living things: he is distinctly on a higher, more divine level" Although von Rad asserts that man is “dust and ashes” before God's holiness, so that “the witness to man’s divine likeness pays no pre dominant role in the Old Testament,” this view is belied by the repetition of the phrase in Genesis 5:Iff., 9:6, and even Psalm 8:4ff." hast made him a little less than God (cx75xq), and thou dost crown him with glory and honor. Although man, in the image of God, was certain- ly subordinate to him, the Old Testament ascribes a greatness to him by virtue of his cre- ation, and this was used to the utmost in Patristic soteriology. Gross describes the situation of original humanity in the G divinization, since, in addition to being in the nesis account to be one of image and likeness of God, Adam and Eve had the possibility of immortality from the tree of life, provided they remained obedient. Although the Old Testament never speaks of the image of God in man being lost (cf. Gen. 5:36), the restoration to the original state of creation became a major theme of Patrstic soteriology Despite the monotheistic stress on Yahweh's sovereignty, many instances can be found in the (Old Testament which apply the epithet “gods” to men. By far the most prominent of these for the Christian doctrine of deification was Psalm 82:6 (LXX 81:6). Although the context of this passage seems to apply to judges who represented God despite their mortality (ef. ss. 1 and 7), the use of the phrase, "Ey etna, Scot ore by Jesus in John 10:34 interpretation on the part of his followers. The thurch always understood Psalm 81:6 as asserting that men were originally created as gods clearly justified a much broader early and meant to occupy that rank, until the Fall brought on sin and mortality. Thus Christ's mis sion was to help fulfil their true destiny.” Other examples of the title of divinity applied to men Sources of Athanasius’ Doctrine of Deification + 7 n Genesis 6:2; Moses in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1; the judge or place of judgement in include ote = Exodus 21:6 and 22:71f3 and the anointed king in Psalms 2:7, 45:7, and 110:1-3 (cf. Isaiah 7:14, 9:6). In the New Testament, eiwiv connotes the presence of the original in the image. “When Christ is called the eixiv 109 Geo8 in 2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15, all the emphasis is on the equality of the iki with the or Hebrews 10:1 sharply distinguishes the eixdva from the axiav rv yedXSvrav dyadav, but Romans 1:23 charges idolaters with exchanging the 5é€a of the immortal God for the mere Suotajia elxéves of men or animals. Paul prom: ised (Rom. 8:28-30) that the elect would be restored to the image of Christ, which is “identi cal with the 56€«, with the divine essentiality nt in Christ." which is now pre Paul has been uniquely the object of contro: versy over the issue of deification, since Reitzen stein saw a Hellenistic influence in passages such as Romans 8:30, which connects justification with glorification, and which Reitzenstein com- pared to Hermetic deification." Bousset was more cautious, since Paul scrupulously avoided the taint of pantheism. grading of the flesh and pessimistic outlook on But Paul's radical down: the sta e of humanity, based on a Greek spirit by Bousset as favorable fication, which aimed at matter dualism, was to a gnostic type of d liberation or purification from the flesh. In tization of Pauls “mysticism,” Schweitzer insisted emphati- reaction to the Hellenistic cate; cally that deification has no part in it" Writing against the theses of Reitzenstein, Bousset and Loisy, H. A. A. Kennedy saw Paul’s emphasis on individuality as precluding any mystical absorp- tion into the deity But the exclusion of pantheism by Paul does not rule out a doctrine of Christian deification, which is neither pantheistic nor polytheistic, since the redeemed are always subordinate to8 + Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soterology God, no matter how much they share in his glory. The importance of this point for the Fathers cannot be over-emphasized. no question of worship, asin the pagan deifica tion of rulers. Latiey, defending the basis of Clement of Alexandria's doctrine of deification, analyzes Paul's doctrine of salvation as resting on the syllogism that (1) Christ is God, and (2) the is united to or identified with Christ-2v xp.0r6.” Thus the Christian is deified, as Colossians 1:18-20, 2:9-10, and Ephesians 4:11-13 signified for Clement" Lattey asserts that There was ristian the identification of the Christian with Christ was the central doctrine of St. Paul, and... he understood this as necessarily bringing with it defication. Thus, Gross, also anticipating the later Patristic interpretation of the Apostle, sees a deification mysticism centered on Christ as the most characteristic element of Paul’s soteriolo- gy." The union with Christ comes with baptism, ‘which is an assimilation to his death and resur. rection (Romans 6:3-5)." According to Philip- pians 3:10, I Corinthians 1:7, and Romans 3:16-18, the followers of Christ partake of his passions in order to share his glory." The inher- itance of eternal life promised to those who endure includes perpetual fellowship with God (I Thessalonians 4:17), and a glorious body (Philippians 3:20-21; I Corinthians 15:42-44), This crown is beyond all comparison or experi- ence (II Corinthians 4:16-18; I Corinthians 2:9; Romans 8:18). Although Paul did not specifically use the deification terminology of the later Fathers, his soteriology, promising that Christians would be ovywnpavsuor xp.orot, was readily appropriated by his successors, both ecclesiastical and heterodox, the doctrine that man may “become a god.” Another aspect of Pauline thought which the Fathers used in their explication of deification as justification for was the corollary to becoming heirs of God-divine sonship.™ The idea that we should be “children of our Heavenly Father” permeates the New ‘Testament, and was one of the major themes of Jesus’ preaching. Its roots are in the Old ‘Testament metaphor of Israels sonship, expressed in a covenant of tenderness and pro- tection on the part of God the Father, and of fidelity and love from the people."* Jesus deepens the Old Testament sense of God's Fatherhood to include all humanity, but called upon men to establish a spiritual sonship by repentance and ‘moral perfection." The goal is “eternal life” in the eschaton (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:30), in which the righteous will “shine as the sun” (Matthew 13:43; = Daniel 12:3). They will feast with the Patriarchs (Matthew 8:11; cf. Isaiah 25:6), and, being filled with goodness, will see God and be called his sons (Matthew 5:6-9). Gross describes this Synoptic picture of divine filiation as “a certain participation in the glory and indefectible happiness of God threshold of a mystery according to which the Christian is assimilated to the divine nature?” This line of thinking is further developed by the Fourth Gospel, which advocates a spiritual rebirth enabling believers to become children of God (John 1:12-13, 3:5, ef. 11:52). Here Jesus promises that his followers will do even greater works than he has done (14:12), prays that they will be one even as he and the Father are (17:11, up to the 20-23), and is going before them to prepare a place of rest for them (14:2). But, for the Fathers, the most obvious Johannine reference to deification is I John 3:2: wwe are now the children of God, but shall be like him when he appears, seeing him as he is." The context of this statement, an exhortation to moral purity, recalls the subtle but powerful theme of imitatio Christi which John’s gospel delineates: the Son does what he sees the Father do (John 5:19 ff), and should be believed for theworks he does, which prove that the Father is in him (10:37£5 14:10f.), Whoever thus believes will do these same works of God, and even greater cones (14:12), because of the love that binds them to God (17:26)."" The idea of moral perfection tion of God goes back to Israel 19:1-2), reiterated in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:48): Yahweh's “Be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy.” is echoed by Jesus’ fect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Because of the emphasis on obedience to divine authority, this is not the same idea as Plato's advice in Theaetetus 176B," although the con- cepts were quickly equated by the Fathers, raised in a Platonist intellectual milieu.” The idea of imitation was aso seen in Jesus’ phrase dxoho6¥et fhrough imita. covenant (Lev Be per- uot, while Paul exhorted his readers to be wpe (Ephesians 5:1; I Corinthians 1:1; 1 Thess lonians 1:6; Philippians 3:17; cf. 4:9). an ethical application of the idea of the divine mage in man. According to Paul, the destiny of Christians was to become oupudpbous 1 This was elxévos 70 j (Romans 8:29) or 1 aairiv cixéva werapopbor ay (I Corinthians 3:18)." ‘The passage cited as the most explicit New ‘Testament reference to deification, and which ‘was seized upon as the epitome of the soteriolog- ical teaching of Paul and John, is in Il Pet 1:36. Unfortunately the text obscure and thus controversial, but the pr is somewhat of a sharing of participation (coxa) in the divine nature (elas iaews) clearly combines the moral effort of man with the surpassing gift of God. It goes beyond imitation, since it “con: sists, in fact, of making man to live in the ‘eternal glory? in the same life as God ... in short to defy him.” “The eschatological fulfillment of this prom- ise (II Peter 1:11) is similar to other New ‘Testament passages which hold out the prospect The Sources of Athanasius’ Doctrine of Deification + 9 of exaltation to the divine life." Hebrews 12:18-23 speaks of the city of God, the heavenly angels. I a joint reign with Christ if we endure, while Revelation 1:6, 5:10 and 20:6 Jerusalem, and the company of Timothy 2:12 promises similarly describe the kingdom over which the saints will reign jointly with Christ in the age to ‘The brief sampling of biblical passages undertaken here does not exhaust the soteriolog- ical content of the Christian scriptures, but it is abundantly clear that, for anyone seeking it, thei nple material in the revealed word upon which to construct an explicit doctrine of deifi- is precisely what the Fathers did. If they resorted to the language of their culture to express this doctrine, they perceived the content as being primarily biblical, and they were careful to avoid the pitfalls of both polytheism and pan- cation, and this theism. Before considering the development of deifi cation among the early Fathers, however, it will be of some interest to examine Jewish sources contemporary with the rise of Christianity, determine whether they contain any doctrine parallel to this distinctive Christian soteriology. Jewish Thought Relating (o Deification For the most part, Jewish religious thought moved in a direction which tended to exclude any thought of placing man on level of fellow. ship with God. Especially in the face of develop: ing Christology, Judaism increasingly stressed monotheism and divine transcendence." God's overwhelming majesty would permit no ap- proach by imperfect human nature, so that com- n with him tended to be mediated by the Law, angels, or the expected Messiah, rather than by dir +t revelation,” Stauffer concludes that “later Judaism considers it extremely important to exclude any idea of an intermingling or inter- fusion of the divine and the human.