“Partakers of the Divine Nature”: some expositions on the doctrine of deification from an unlikely source

Before delving into the primary theme of this post—i.e. the ‘unlikely source’—I would like to provide an introduction of sorts on the doctrine of deification (also termed theosis). From the entry under the heading “Deification” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (1983) we read:

Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’ (cf. Gen. 1.26), and the Fathers commonly distinguish between these two words. The image refers to man’s reason and freedom, that which distinguishes him from the animals and makes him kin to God, while ‘likeness’ refers to 'assimilation to God through virtues' (St John Damascus). It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both OT and NT (e.g. Ps. 82 (81).6; 2 Peter 1.4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (cf. Rom. 8.9-17; Gal. 4.5-7), and the Fourth Gospel (cf. 17.21-23). [Page 147 - for more Biblical passages germane to this issue see THIS POST.]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church under Part One 'The Profession of the Christian Faith’, chapter two, article 3.I.460 ‘Why did the Word become flesh?’, had the following to say:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81.

78 2 Pt 1:4.

79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.

80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

[Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Eng. 1994 ed. p. 116; Eng. 1997 2^nd ed. p. 116 - for additional selections on deification from Catholic authors see THIS THREAD; for dozens of references from the Church Fathers see THIS POST.]

Robert V. Rakestraw provides an Evangelical perspective on deification; note the following:

In one of his letters Athanasius, the fourth-century defender of the faith, made his famous statement that the Son of God became man “that he might deify us in himself.”1 Elsewhere he wrote similarly that Christ “was made man that we might be made God.”2 This is the doctrine of theosis, also known as deifcation, divinization or, as some prefer, participation in God.3

While the concept of theosis has roots in the ante-Nicene period, it is not an antiquated historical curiosity. The idea of divinization, of redeemed human nature somehow participating in the very life of God, is found to a surprising extent throughout Christian history, although it is practically unknown to the majority of Christians (and even many theologians) in the west.

1 Athanasius, Letter 60, to Adelphius, 4. See also 3, 8 (NPNF, 2d Series 4.575–578).

2 Athanasius On the Incarnation 54 (NPNF, 2d Series 4.65).

3 A. M. Allchin entitles his book on theosis Participation in God: A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Wilton: Morehouse-Barlow, 1988).["Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis", JETS 40/2 (June 1997) 257-269 – LINK.]

Time now to introduce the ‘unlikely source’ mentioned in the title of this thread: Charles Taze Russell. Russell was the founder of the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society of Pennsylvania (1881; incorporated 1884), the related magazine Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence (1879), and the movement that became known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses (the name adopted in 1931). From the first three volumes of his six volume magnum opus, Millennial Dawn (later renamed Studies in the Scriptures), we read (all bold emphasis that follows in mine):

If the masses of mankind are saved from all the degradation, weakness, pain, misery and death which result from sin, and are restored to the condition of human perfection enjoyed before the fall, they are as really and completely saved from that fall as those who, under the special “highcalling” of the Gospel age, become “partakers of the divine nature." (Millennial Dawn, 1.173)

Notice that this teaches not only that angelic nature is not the only order of spirit being, but that it is a lower nature than that of our Lord before he became a man ; and he was not then so high as he is now, for “God hath highly exalted him,” because of his obedience in becoming man’s willing ransom. (Phil. 2 : 8, 9.) He is now of the highest order of spirit being, a partaker of the divine (Jehovah’s) nature. (Millennial Dawn, 1.178)

When Jesus was in the flesh he was a perfect human being ; previous to that time he was a perfect spiritual being ; and since his resurrection he is a perfect spiritual being of the highest or divine order. It was not until the time of his consecration even unto death, as typified in his baptism—at thirty years of age (manhood, according to the Law, and therefore the right time to consecrate himself as a man)—that he received the earnest of his inheritance of the divine nature. (Matt. 3 : 16, 17.) Tlie human nature had to be consecrated to death before he could receive even the pledge of the divine nature. And not until that consecration was actually carried out and he had a6lually sacrificed the human nature, even unto death, did our Lord Jesus become a full partaker of the divine nature. After becoming a man he became obedient unto death ; wherefore, God hath highly exalted him to the divine nature. (Phil. 2 : 8, 9.) If this Scripture is true, it follows that he was not exalted to the divine nature until the human nature was actually sacrificed—dead. (Millennial Dawn, 1.179)

…it is purely of God's favor that angels are by nature a little higher than men ; and it is also of God's favor that the Lord Jesus and his bride become partakers of the divine nature. It becomes all his intelligent creatures, therefore, to receive with gratitude whatever God bestows. Any other spirit justly merits condemnation, and, if indulged, will end in abasement and destruction. A man has no right to aspire to be an angel, never having been invited to that position ; nor has an angel any right to aspire to the divine nature, that never having been offered to him. (Millennial Dawn, 1.189)

None have a right to dictate to God. If he established the earth, and if he formed it not in vain, but made it to be inhabited by restored, perfect men, who are we that we should reply against God, and say that it is unjust not to change their nature and make them all partakers of a spiritual nature either like unto the angels, or like unto his own divine nature ? (Millennial Dawn, 1.191)

That the Christian Church, the body of Christ, is an exception to God's  general plan for mankind, is evident from the statement that its selection was determined in the divine plan before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1 : 4, 5), at which time God not only foresaw the fall of the race into sin, but also predetermined the justification, the santification and the glorification of this class, which, during the Gospel age, he has been calling out of the world to be conformed to the image of his Son, to be partakers of the divine nature and to be fellow-heirs with Christ Jesus of the Millennial Kingdom for the establishment of universal righteousness and peace.—Rom. 8 : 28-31. (Millennial Dawn, 1.193)

The conditions on which the Church may be exalted with her Lord to the divine nature (2 Pet. 1 : 4) are precisely the same as the conditions on which he received it ; even by following in his footprints (1 Pet. 2 : 21), presenting herself a living sacrifice, as he did, and then faithfully carrying out that consecration vow until the sacrifice terminates in death. This change of nature from human to divine is given as a reward to those who, within the Gospel age, sacrifice the human nature, as did our Lord, with all its interests, hopes and aims, present and future—even unto death. In the resurrection such will awake, not to share with the rest of mankind in the blessed restitution to human perfection and all its accompanying blessings, but to share the likeness and glory and joy of the Lord, as partakers with him of the divine nature.—Rom 8:17; 2 Tim. 2:12. (Millennial Dawn, 1.196)

Those thus transformed, or in processor change, are reckoned “new creatures,” begotten of God, and partakers to that extent of the divine nature. Mark well the difference between these “new creatures” and those believers and “brethren” who are only justified. Those of the latter class are still of the earth, earthy, and, aside from sinful desires, their hopes, ambitions and aims are such as will be fully gratified in the promised restitution of all things. But those of the former class are not of this world, even as Christ is not of this world, and their hopes center in the things unseen, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. The prospect of earthly glory, so enchanting to the natural man, would no longer be a satisfying portion to those begotten of this heavenly hope, to those who see the glories of the heavenly promises, and who appreciate the part assigned them in the divine plan. This new, divine mind is the earnest of our inheritance of the complete divine nature—mind and body. Some may be a little startled by this expression, a divine body; but we are told that Jesus is now the express image of his Father's person, and that the overcomers will “be like him and see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2.) “There is a natural [human] body, and there is a spiritual body.” (1 Cor. 15 : 44.) We could not imagine either our divine Father or our Lord Jesus as merely great minds without bodies. Theirs are glorious spiritual bodies, though it doth not yet appear how great is the glory, and it shall not, until we also shall share the divine nature. (Millennial Dawn, 1.200)

At his second advent he does not come to be subject to the powers that be, to pay tribute to Csesar and to suffer humiliation, injustice and violence; but he comes to reign, exercising all power in heaven and in earth. He does not come in the body of his humiliation, a human body, which he took for the suffering of death, inferior to his former glorious body (Heb. 2:9); but in his glorious spiritual body, which is “the express image of the Father's person” (Heb. 1 13); for, because of his obedience even unto death, he is now highly exalted to the divine nature and likeness, and given a name above every name—the Father’s name only excepted. (Phil. 2:9; 1 Cor. 15:27.) The Apostle shows that it "doth not yet appear" to our human understanding what he is now like; hence we know not what we shall be like when made like him, but we (the Church) may rejoice in the assurance that we shall one day be with him, and like him, and see him as he is (1 John 3 : 2)—not as he was at his first advent in humiliation, when he had laid aside his former glory and for our sakes had become poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich. (Millennial Dawn, 2.108, 109)

[Our Lord was put to death a fleshly or human being, but was raised from the dead a spirit being. And since the Church is to be  “changed” in order that she may be like Christ, it is evident that the change which occurred in the Head was of a kind similar to that described as in reservation for the overcomers, who shall be changed from human to spiritual nature, and made like him—“partakers of the-divine nature.” – footnote p. 108]

…we recognize A. D. 1881 as marking the close of the special favor to Gentiles—the close of the “high calling, “ or invitation to the blessings peculiar to this age—to become joint-heirs with Christ and partakers of the divine nature. And, as we have seen, this marks a great movement among the Jewish people toward Christianity, known as the "Kishenev Movement." (Millennial Dawn, 2.235)

The stopping of the favor or ''call" here, in 1881, is followed, or rather lapped upon, by the general call of the whole world to the Millennial blessings and favors upon condition of righteousness, obedience (not self-sacrifice). This however is a lower call, a lesser favor than that which ceased—a call to enjoy the blessings of the Kingdom, but not to be parts of the anointed, Kingdom class. And this change—this stopping of the higher favor and beginning of a lesser favor—will be little noticed here, now, by reason of the fact that the great prize of the Kingdom and jointheirship with Christ as partakers of the divine nature, has been generally lost sight of in the Church. (Millennial Dawn, 3.218)

So, during the Gospel age, our Lord has continually, through his mouth-pieces in the church, invited all believers to enter into his service. The full reward, the divine nature and kingdom glory, was clearly stated at first, and continually repeated, though not always clearly understood throughout the age. (Millennial Dawn, 3.223, 224)*

 And from Zion’s Watchtower:

"YE ARE GODS."

"I have said ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes" [literally heads]. Psa. 82:6.

Our high calling is so great, so much above the comprehension of men, that they feel that we are guilty of blasphemy when we speak of being "new creatures"—not any longer human, but "partakers of the divine nature." When we claim on the scriptural warrant, that we are begotten of a divine nature and that Jehovah is thus our father, it is claiming that we are divine beings—hence all such are Gods. Thus we have a family of Gods, Jehovah being our father, and all his sons being brethren and joint-heirs: Jesus being the chief, or first-born. (Zion's Watchtower - December 1881 pp. 2, 3 - Reprints p. 301.)

Many more examples could be added, but I shall end here for now.

Grace and peace,

David

*All six volumes of the Millennial Dawn/Studies in the Scriptures series can be read and/or downloaded via THIS LINK.

An interesting lecture by the late patristic scholar, R. P. C. Hanson

Over the weekend, dialogue has resumed in one of the older AF threads—The Trinity and the Development of Doctrine Late Friday evening, Andries van Niekerk from Stellenbosch, South Africa posted his first comment here at AF.

Following my response, Andries—in his second comment—provided a link (here) to a lecture by R. P. C. Hanson that was delivered back in 1981, that I did not remember reading. He found the lecture published online at a blog named, DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY (link), which he republished at his website with the following introduction:

I post it here in order to preserve it for public use. I corrected spelling errors, added headings, bolded main thoughts and divided the text into more readable paragraphs, but I did not alter the text in any way.

The lecture itself, begins with:

WHEN we read the Creed of Constantinople of the year 381, which is generally called the Nicene Creed, we gain the unmistakable impression that we have travelled a long way from the opening verses of St. Mark’s Gospel. This paper will consist of an attempt to answer the question, Was this journey really necessary?

Some online research revealed that this lecture was first published in the Scottish Journal of Theology – Volume 36, Issue 1, Feb. 1983, pp. 41-57, under the title, “The Doctrine of the Trinity Achieved in 381” (link).

Now, R. P. C. Hanson is one of my favorite patristic scholars of all time. I have read his massive tome, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (link) twice now; and have quoted him at least a dozen times here at AF (see this label under his name).

Two years after the release of the book, Hanson’s paper, "The achievement of orthodoxy in the fourth century", was published in, The Making of Orthodoxy – Essays In Honour of Henry Chadwick, pp. 142-156. (link). Interestingly enough, the note at the end of the paper informs the reader that, "This paper was written before the publication of R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, Edinburgh 1988".

For those folk interested in the development of the doctrine of God prior to 381 A.D who have yet to read Hanson’s book, and/or paper referenced above, his 1981 lecture is a must read.

Grace and peace,

David

Peter Damian’s, The Book of Gomorrah

In the combox of the previous thread, I posted the following:

In my last comment I mentioned that I was “rereading four books on Catholic Church history that are germane to our topics at hand”—those four books are: Malachi Martin’s, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church; Peter De Rosa’s, Vicars of Christ; Philip Hughes, A History of the Church – Volume 2; and, John Rao’s, Black Legends. (I have also included germane sections from Philip Schaff’s multi-volume, History of the Christian Church and Warren Carroll’s, A History of Christendom - Volume 2.)

I am currently up to Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand)—who died on March 25, 1085—in my readings. (link)

Both Martin and Rao mentioned Peter Damian’s Liber Gomorrhianus (The Book of Gomorrah); from Martin’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, we read:

We still have documents of Byzantine ambassadors reporting on the four questions ritually put to every priest about to be consecrated as a bishop of the Roman Church: "Have you sodomized a boy? Have you fornicated with a nun? Have you sodomized any four legged animal? Have you committed adultery?" These questions accurately reflected the standard required of would be bishops. St. Peter Damian wrote a famous book, the Liber Gomorrhianus (Book of Gomorrha), graphically describing the venality, lechery, bestiality, and homicidal fecklessness of his fellow Roman clerics. (Page 131)

And John Rao:

These Tusculani, as they are generally styled, had enjoyed such a domineering position once before, and had sometimes even exercised it with more respectability than their debased predecessor. Unfortunately, they were soon to provide one of the worst of the possessors of the papal dignity, Benedict IX. Probably only twenty years old at his accession, Benedict sat three distinct times on the throne of St. Peter (1032-1044, 1045, and 1047-1048). This was due not only to political pressures but also to a corruption so great as to permit him literally to sell his own position and then try to steal it back after pocketing the dough. Vividly attacked as a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest by St. Peter Damian (1007-1072) in his aptly named Liber Gomorrhianus, Benedict was dismissed much more off-handedly by a future successor, Blessed Victor III (1086-1087), as being simply utterly unspeakable. (Page 272)

Peter Damian lived towards the end of the most corrupt and immoral period of Church history—the tenth and eleventh centuries. Accounts of simony, murder, fornication, homosexuality, and even bestiality engaged in by popes, bishops, clerics and monks were chronicled. Peter Damian’s The Book of Gomorrah, was an opusculum (little work) sent to Pope Leo IX circa A.D. 1051. It provides one of the most detailed accounts of the deviant sexual behavior being practiced by clerics and monks in his day.

Until this last week, I had not read Peter Damian’s The Book of Gomorrah. It was not available in English until 1982 (Pierre J. Payer); another English translation was published in 1990 (Owen J. Blum); and a third in 2015 (Matthew C. Hoffman). I have now read Payer’s and Hoffman's contributions. Google Books provides the following synopsis of the latter work:

"Alas, it is shameful to speak of it! It is shameful to relate such a disgusting scandal to sacred ears! But if the doctor fears the virus of the plague, who will apply the cauterization? If he is nauseated by those whom he is to cure, who will lead sick souls back to the state of health?"

With these words, St. Peter Damian introduces the Book of Gomorrah, undoubtedly the most stirringly eloquent and impassioned denunciation of sexual perversion ever penned by a Catholic saint. Although it was written almost a thousand years ago, the Book of Gomorrah in many ways seems addressed to our own times, associating the phenomena of clerical homosexual behavior and pederasty, and endorsing the imprisonment of clergy who are a danger to youth.

The Book of Gomorrah offers a scathing analysis of the evil of sodomy, while also expressing compassion for those who have fallen into such vice and the possibility of their redemption by the aid of divine grace. It explains the devastating effects of the vice both spiritually and psychologically, and warns that such behavior, particularly among the clergy, will bring down the wrath of God. It also urges the permanent defrocking of clerics who are habituated to homosexual behavior and endorses the permanent confinement those guilty of child sex abuse.

This new translation by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman is the most accurate and faithful available in English, and carries a foreword by Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iñiguez, Archbishop Emeritus of Guadalajara. It also includes a 10,000-word biographical introduction recounting Damian's struggle against corruption in the Catholic Church, and a translator's preface that breaks new scholarly ground and resolves old controversies about the text. (link)

I found Hoffman’s book to be significantly superior to Payer's. In addition to his excellent translation (pp. 77-158), the “Introduction” (pp. 5-43) and "Translator’s Preface" (pp. 45-75) are quite informative. I especially appreciated his critique of the attempts by a number of Catholic authors to discredit The Book of Gomorrah (pp. 56-67).

Hoffman’s book is a must read for Catholics who have been appalled and scandalized by the numerous accounts of the practice of homosexuality/sodomy by a significant number of priests in the America's and Europe since Vatican II.

Grace and peace,

David

Origen on military service and warfare

Whilst reading Origen’s Contra Celsus, I came upon his interpretation of Isaiah 2:3,4. From book 5, chapter 33 we read:

"Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob ; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in them." For the law came forth from the dwellers in Sion, and settled among us as a spiritual law. Moreover, the word of the Lord came forth from that very Jerusalem, that it might be disseminated through all places, and might judge in the midst of the heathen, selecting those whom it sees to be submissive, and rejecting  the disobedient, who are many in number. And to those who inquire of us whence we come, or who is our founder, we reply that we are come, agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to "cut down our hostile and insolent 'wordy' swords into ploughshares, and to convert into pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war."  For we no longer take up "sword against nation," nor do we "learn war any more," having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those whom our fathers followed, among whom we were "strangers to the covenant," and having received a law, for which we give thanks to Him that rescued us from the error (of our ways), saying, "Our fathers honoured lying idols, and there is not among them one that causeth it to rain." (ANF 4.558 - PDF here.) 

One of Celsus’ attacks against Christians was that they refused military service in the Roman army. An important aspect of his argument was that Christianity emerged out of Judaism, and accepted their writings (i.e. the Old Testament) as authoritative. He appealed to OT passages that clearly supported military service and warfare; as such, the refusal by Christians to participate in Roman military service was contradictory. Origen countered Celsus’ by demonstrating that Jesus Christ established a higher, spiritual law that superceded the Mosaic Law. He also applied a number of OT prophetic passages—e.g. Is. 2:2, 4—to the Christian dispensation, a dispensation that began with the advent and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In book 8, chapter 73, Origen relates that, “Celsus urges us 'to help the king with all our might, and to labour with him in the maintenance of justice, to fight for him ; and if he requires it, to fight under him, or lead an army along with him.’" (ANF 4.667)

Origen’s response is quite interesting; note the following:

To this our answer is, that we do, when occasion requires, give help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, "putting on the whole armour of God." And this we do in obedience to the injunction of the apostle, "I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men ; for kings, and for all that are in authority ;" and the more any one excels in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even more than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many of the enemy as they can. And to those enemies of our faith who require us to bear arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply : "Do not those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend on certain gods, as you account them, keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods ; and even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed !" And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs, when along with righteous prayers we join self-denying exercises and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures, and not to be led away by them. And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under him, although he require it ; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army—an army of piety—by offering our prayers to God. (ANF 4.667, 668)

Origen continues his apologia in the next chapter (74):

And if Celsus would have us to lead armies in defence of our country, let him know that we do this too, and that not for the purpose of being seen by men, or of vainglory. For "in secret," and in our own hearts, there are prayers which ascend as from priests in behalf of our fellow-citizens. And Christians are benefactors of their country more than others. For they train up citizens, and inculcate piety to the Supreme Being ; and they promote those whose lives in the smallest cities have been good and worthy, to a divine and heavenly city, to whom it may be said, "Thou hast been faithful in the smallest city, come into a great one,"  where "God standeth in the assembly of the gods, and judgeth the gods in the midst ;" and He reckons thee among them, if thou no more "die as a man, or fall as one of the princes." (ANF 4.668)

Origen clearly understood that the real struggle for Christians (and the world at large) is not a physical battle, but rather, a spiritual one. His above response to Celsus brings to mind the following from Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (KJV – 2 Cor. 10:3-5)

Shall end for now with a stern warning from Jesus Christ:

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (KJV – Matt. 26:52)

Grace and peace,

David