WHAT HATH ATHENS TO DO WITH HIPPO:

Deification in the Greek Fathers and in Saint Augustine

Therefore joining to us the likeness of His humanity, He took away the unlikeness of our iniquity,
and being made a sharer of our mortality, He made us sharers of His divinity.1
The topic of deification2 has been of some fascination to recent Biblical and Patristic
scholarship. Recent scholarship has begun to recover a sense of this doctrines place in the Bible
and in the theologies of the early Church Fathers. Much scholarship has treated deification as the
exclusive property of the Eastern Church; deification is often characterized as a strictly Eastern
doctrine that received little, if any, attention in the Christian West (this due in no small part to the
polemics of Vladimir Lossky3).
The study of Augustine of Hippo has been all but central to Christian theology for
centuries. However, due to the Easts supposed monopoly on the study of deification, research on
the doctrines place in Augustine has been scarce. Studies that do mention deification in
Augustine tend to dismiss his use of the concept as something drastically different from the
Easts; it is often given only a cursory treatment, as if it had no major place in Augustines
thought. In the interest of challenging this pattern, this paper seeks to accomplish the following:
1) survey a representative body of Greek Fathers treatments of deification and extract common
elements and definitions; 2) provide a summary of Augustines conception of deification and its
import to his overall thought; 3) compare the doctrine of deification as it is found in the East and
as Augustine conceives of it. It is the contention of this paper that not only do the Greek Fathers

1 Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity. IV. ii. 4 in Gerald Bonner, Augustines Conception of Deification, The Journal
of Theological Studies 37, no. 2 (1986): 376.
2 This paper assumes a general broad definition of deification and its similes (theosis, divinization,
participation union, etc) as being that doctrine which refers to the human being, in some way, partaking of the
Divine Nature of God and/or participating in Christ. Deification and its terminological similes are treated as
equivalent unless otherwise noted.
3 See Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God. London: Faith Press, 1964. ____, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern
Church. London: J. Clarke, 1957.
____, In the Image and Likeness of God. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.

2
and Augustine have a similar theology of deification, but also that deification is of much greater
prominence and import to Augustines thought than is often expressed.
Deification in the Greek Fathers
While the scope of this paper does not allow for an exhaustive and detailed exploration of every
instance of deification-language in the Greek Fathers, a broad survey of deification in a few
representative writings is necessary. After sketching some of the instances of deification and how
they are uniquely used by individual writers, it will be possible to identify and synthesize some
common themes across the Greek Fathers concerning deification.
In his comprehensive work on the subject, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek
Patristic Tradition, Norman Russell offers a helpful summary of many of the Greek Fathers uses
of deification theology. While he does not use the specific term deification, Ignatius of Antioch
is the earliest writer (outside of the NT) to expound upon the theme of participatory union with
Christ. Summarizing Ignatius theology of the Churchs unity, Russell writes, Such unity leads
to participation in God (Eph. 4.2.)Christians are God-bearers (Eph. 9.2)They participate
in God (Magn. 14.1).4 While Ignatius does not provide a robust theology of deification, or even
necessarily a strict definition of participation, he provides a way of expansion of the doctrine by
introducing some of the core language of deification that will be taken up and put to use by later
Greek theologians.
Psalm 82: 6 (I say, You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you) provided much fodder for
the consideration of deification in early Christian theology. Early exegetes wondered exactly
who the gods were that are being addressed in this psalm. Two of some of the earliest instances
of this type of reflection come from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Justin concluded, as the people
of Christ were the new Israel, the gods were those who were obedient to Christ.5 Irenaeus went
4 Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2004), 91.
5 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification, 12.

3
even further; the gods of the Psalm were understood to be those who were baptized into Christ,
and recovered their lost likeness to God and therefore had come to participate in the divine life
which that likeness entailed.6
We have seen that participatory union (or at least language alluding to it) was present in the
theological matrix of the early Church. The following instances constitute the Churchs deeper
theologizing and specialization of this topic, utilizing and expounding the language provided by
the likes of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. Clement of Alexandria provides an example of
a theologian using deification as a technical term, taking its place in Christian orthodoxy as
established, and engaging in systematic and dialectical theology from this presumption. Clement
sees deification as the goal of the human life, and believes that this process can be achieved in
the present through contemplation and asceticism. Indeed, as Russell notes, Clement is able to
say that man, when fully perfected after the likeness of his teacher, becomes a god while still
moving about in the flesh (Strom. 7.101.4); and at the end of his life is enthroned with the other
gods in the heavenly places.7 Clements theorizing about deification plays a crucial role in the
doctrines development, for it introduces (without necessarily answering) a specific problem: if
man is not divine by nature, how can it be that he is able to participate in an utterly transcendent
God? Russell helpfully summarizes the problem: A satisfactory solution requires a Christology
which does justice to both the human and the divine in Christ. For a transcendent God can only
be approached by human beings in an intimate way if he has first united himself to human nature
in the person of Christ.8 Another important aspect of deification in Clementwhich will prove
important when considering Augustineis its relationship to adoption. For Clement, Christians
are adopted as brothers and co-heirs with Christ, and therefore, Correctly interpreted,
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid., 121.
8 Ibid.

4
assimilation as far as possible is the telos and restoration to perfect adoption through the Son.9
To be adopted by God in Christ is to assimilate to Him and receive incorruption and immortality.
Origen also takes deification for granted, and further expounds upon its being rooted in
participation in Christ. Origen seems to be one of the first theologians to specifically attach
deification to 2 Peter 1:4 (by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises,
that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion,
and become partakers of the divine nature.). For Origen, one becomes a partaker of the divine
nature by the infusion of the Holy Spirit, which connects the created person to the uncreated
God; the Holy Spirit deifies the man by communicating Gods attributes to the rational person.
Athanasius expands even further on the nature of participation. For Athanasius, human
participation in the divine nature is made possibly only by the incarnation of the divine Logos.
Athanasius utilized deification as a technical doctrine to combat Arianism, and it is in this
context that we receive his famous mantra: for He was incarnate that we might be made god.10
This theological principal and its implications for both Christology and soteriology would come
to shape much of the development of the doctrine of deification, in both the East and (if
derivatively) Augustine. For humans to be saved, God (in the Son) must take on human flesh and
man must be, in some sense, divinized by taking on Christs nature (hence the opposition to
Arianism, which denies the full divinity and uncreated nature of the Son). For Athanasius,
Through participation in the body of Christ believers participate in the divinity with which that
body was endowed[and in] incorruption and immortality11
The Cappadocian Fathers represent somewhat of a departure from the trajectory set by
Athanasius. For the Cappadocians, deification is a figure of speech used to express the life that is
9 Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2. 134.2 in Russell, The Doctrine of Deification, 136.
10 Athanasius, On the Incarnation (Yonkers, NY: 2011), 107.
11 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification, 12-13.

5
lived in imitation of Christ. Where the Cappadocians move the doctrine forward (for the present
purposes, that is), is in their use of Platonic language to describe deification. The Cappadocians
understood deification to name the process of attainment of likeness to God as far as is possible
for human nature...[this] was the telos of human life. But God remains in His essence utterly
beyond human grasp. The deification of the Christian is subordinated to this by being kept to the
ethical and analogous levels.12 The Platonic influence on the Cappadocians understanding of
deification is exemplified in Basil of Caesarea, for whom the term expressed mans
eschatological fulfillment when the whole man, body and soul, will be spiritualized and rendered
incorrupt that it may enjoy the vision of God.13
Finally, Cyril of Alexandria offers somewhat of a culmination of the development of deification
from Ignatius through Athanasius, especially relying on and developing the work of Irenaeus and
Athanasius. For Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Cyril, salvation was the process by which divine
uncreatedness descended to human createdness and then ascended again; that is, brought created
humans into divine incorruptibility. Cyril understood the Incarnation to be for the transforming
of the flesh, and humans could participate in this transformation by being united to the Incarnate
Christ. Cyril understood human participation in God to be rooted in the Incarnation of the Son
and begun at baptism with the indwelling of the Spirit. Participation in the Son and Spirit, then,
leads man to participation in the Father. For Cyril, 2 Peter 1:4, to which he alludes frequently,
described the deification process by which the human nature is replaced by the divine nature, the
divine likeness is recovered, and incorruptibility is attained.
Upon surveying these Greek Fathers and their treatments of deification, it is possible to
extract some common themes. Deification as a doctrine in the early Church seems to at least
12 Ibid., 232-233.
13 Ibid., 233.

6
include the process of transformation made possible by the Incarnation, participation in God
through imitation of Christ and the indwelling Spirit, being counted among the rank of gods,
the return to the likeness of God, transforming from corruptible to incorruptible while yet
maintain a created nature, and ultimate fulfillment of the deification process in the eschaton.
While all of these elements may not be present at every instance or at every time, these aspects
of deification are thoroughly represented in the Fathers and should be considered prominent.
Deification in Augustine
While Augustine only uses the technical term deification (deificari, deificatus, etc) a
handful of times throughout his work, the theological importance of the concept can be seen in
much of his writing on many topics. The concept of deification, however named, informs much
of Augustines theology and, as will be argued below, fits comfortably within the matrix of
definitions provided by the Greek Fathers, rather than being opposed to them.
In a 1986 article entitled Augustines Conception of Deification, Gerald Bonner outlines
Augustines theology of deification and how it fit into his overall theological program. Bonner
locates the genesis of Augustines thought on deification in two places: his Neoplatonist
background (citing Augustines use of leisure in his Tenth Letter as referring to the
Platonist/Neoplatonist idea of the soul achieving likeness to God through detachment) and his
reflections on Psalm 82. Neoplatonism and the Scriptures establish that man can participate in
God, but how does this deification take place? Augustines answer to this question is closely
linked to his Christology, his soteriology, and his eschatology. An assessment of the role of
participation/deification in Augustines thought on the Incarnation, adoption, and the eschaton
will establish this its overall prominence in his thought.
In speaking of the Incarnation, Augustine writes when the Word became flesh, flesh was

7
taken by the Godhead; the Godhead was not changed into flesh.14 Elsewhere he described this
taking on of flesh thusly; The teacher of humility and sharer of our infirmity, giving us
participation of His divinityhas deigned most highly to commend His humility to us.15
Bonner summarizes the latent theology of deification in these comments: [deification] comes
about, not because the human soul is naturally divine (which is impossible because of its
creaturely status), nor even because it is made in the image and likeness of Godbut because
God has taken our humanity into Himself16 If then, God has taken humanity into Himself in
the Incarnation, humanity itself is forever changed, being wrapped up in God. Augustines
theology of deification-via-Incarnation is made more explicit in Book IV of De Trinitate: We
are not divine by nature; by nature we are men, and through sin we are not righteous men. And
so God, being made a righteous man, interceded with God for man who is a sinnerTherefore
joining to us the likeness of His humanity, He took away the unlikeness of our iniquity, and
being made a sharer of our mortality, He made us sharers of His divinity.17 Here is evidence that
for Augustine, salvation is tied up with Gods Incarnation fundamentally changing humanity by
Christs descent, and raising man-in-Christ to divinity by participation. This, of course, is by
grace, and not obligation. Bonner summarizes, it [deification] comes about through the divine
humanity of Christ. Christ is the Mediator between God and man. By being incorporate in His
body through baptism, our humanity is joined to His divinity through His humanity.18
In addition to his theology of deification-via-Incarnation, Augustine displays his theology of
deification in discussing adoption. For Augustine, Christ assumed humanity in the Incarnation so
14 Augustine of Hippo, The Augustine Catechism: The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Charity, tran. Bruce
Harbert, ed. Boniface Ramsey, (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), 67.
15 Augustine of Hippo, Enar. in Ps. 58, s.I.7 in Gerald Bonner, Augustines Conception of Deification, Journal
of Theological Studies 37, no. 2 (1986): 374.
16 Bonner, Augustine, 374.
17 Augustine of Hippo, De Trin. IV.ii.4 in Bonner, Augustine, 376.
18 Bonner, Augustine, 377.

8
that men might be made His brothers by adoption; He therefore descended that we might
ascend, and, while remaining in His own nature, became a sharer in our nature, so that we, while
remaining in our own nature, might become sharers in His nature19 By Christs Incarnation
and the Fathers adoption of men, mankind is made like Christ. Again, the implications here for
Augustines soteriology are enormous; he ties the remission of sins and adoption as sons directly
to the process of deification. Bonner summarizes, [this is] sonship by adoption and not by
nature, through the Incarnation. This does not mean we may discount the remission of sins
brought about by the same Incarnation; on the contrary, the remission of sins was the condition
of our adoption20 Contrary to some characterizations of Augustine, even his theology of
justification derives from a theology of deification, as can be seen in this commentary on Psalm
82: It is clear that He calls men gods through their being deified by His grace and not born of
His substance. For He justifies, who is just of Himself and not of another; and He deifies, who is
God of Himselfnow He who justifies, Himself deifies, because by justifying He makes sons of
Godby grace of adoption, and not by generation.21
A final aspect of Augustines theology of deification is its eschatological nature. If Augustine
conceives of participation in God as beginning with deification-via-Incarnation, becoming
particular for individuals in deification-via-adoption, then the deification process (i.e., salvation)
is fulfilled in deification-via-eschaton. In a sermon he delivered on Psalm 82, Augustine
expresses the tension of present-deification and future-deification: We carry mortality about
with us, we endure infirmity, we look forward to divinitydivine truth did promise thisthat
we are going to be godsfor the maker of man was made man, so that man might be made a
19 Augustine of Hippo, Letters 140.4 in Augustine and Denis J. Kavanagh (tr.), Commentary on the Lord's
Sermon on the Mount With Seventeen Related Sermons (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press,
2001), 64-65.
20 Bonner, Augustine, 378.
21 Augustine of Hippo, Enar. in Ps. 49.i.2 in Bonner, Augustine, 378.

9
receiver of Godwe have this faith, it has been kept for us in hope, and it will be made manifest
at a definite time.22 So for Augustine, although we have been adopted as sons, made brothers of
Christ, and are filled with indwelling Spirit, the deification processour hopeisnt fulfilled
until the eschaton. Future deification is vital to Augustines understanding of the relationship
between the present and the future: we do not [now] receive the immortality of a spiritual
bodybut we receive righteousnesswe shall therefore be renewed from the old nature of sin
that is a spiritual body, when we shall be made equal to the angels of God, fitted for our heavenly
habitationwhen this corruptible body shall put on incorruption23 The motif of
eschatological passing from corruption to incorruption, so characteristic of the Patristic
description of salvation, is characterized by Augustine as deification. Bonner forcefully
concludes, The essence of Augustines doctrine of deification, as depicted in the texts which we
have just examined, may be described as mans participation in God through the humanity of
Christ, after this earthly life is ended and without any alteration of mans creaturely status.24
Commonalities: Deification in the Greek Fathers and in Saint Augustine
Given this survey of deification in the Greek Fathers and in Augustine, it is possible to
extrapolate some parallels. It is noteworthy that for both Augustine and for many of the Greek
Fathers, the impetus for the deification question is Psalm 82. Both the Greek tradition and
Augustine are able to read Psalm 82 and see (via some form of allegorical hermeneutic) a latent
comment on mans relation to divinity, and particularly the process of Christian participation in
God. Likewise, another source for discussing deification that is common to Augustine and
several of the Greek Fathers is Platonism (or Neoplatonism). Both the East and Augustine seem
22 Augustine of Hippo, Sermons vol. III/11, tr. Edmund Hill, ed. John Rotelle (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press,
1997), 37.
23 Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litt. VI.xxiv.35 in Bonner, Augustine, 381.
24 Bonner, Augustine, 381.

10
to apply Platonic/Neoplatonic conceptions of Gods transcendence and the human spirit to their
deification theology.
The key similarities between the Greek Fathers and Augustine on deification are in their
shared view of the Incarnation, adoption, and eschatology. While the strongest links are between
Augustine and Cyril of Alexandria, we have seen that Cyrils theology of deification represents
the culmination of a developing theory of deification that is latent, if in seed form, in much of the
early Greek Church. Augustine shares his belief that Christians participate in God with Ignatius,
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria. He shares his belief in the location of the
beginning of deification in the Incarnation with Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril.25 For Augustine as
well as for the Greek Fathers, deification is made possible only by Gods first taking on
humanity in Christ and elevating it back to God. For Augustine as well as for the Greek Fathers,
this grace is received individually at baptism. For Augustine as well as for the Greek Fathers,
deification is experienced in adoption now and fulfilled in the eschaton. We are made Christs
brothers, and are given the hope of transforming from corruptibility to incorruptibility. Both
traditions (including even the Cappadocians) share a conception of deification as a return to the
likeness of God. Augustine, then, can say with the Greek Fathers and with Scripture that
salvation consists (at least in part) of the process of becoming partakers of the divine nature.
Conclusion
It has been argued that Augustines conception of deification both fits comfortably within the
theology of the Greek East and plays a central role in his own overall theology. Augustine views
deification in very similar ways to his Greek predecessors, and draws much of his theology
from justification to eschatologyfrom the Scriptural doctrine of mans participation in God.
25 I.e., explicitly. This is not to say that the connection between deification and the Incarnation are not implicit in
the earlier Fathers.

11
Therefore, further scholarship on Augustine should give the doctrine of deification its due
attention as a prominent and vital concept in Augustinian theology. This correction has begun to
take shape in David Vincent Meconis recent work, The One Christ: St. Augustines Theology of
Deification, but there is still much to explore. If the scope of this paper allowed, further research
on Augustines ecclesiology and its dependence upon deification would be fruitful. The
development of deification in the later Western tradition, such as in Bernard of Clairvaux and St.
John of the Cross, and its relationship to Augustine merits further research. Until then,
Augustines doctrine of deification and affinity with the Greek Fathers should serve as a starting
point for bridging the gap between these two vital theological traditions, and should provide
insight into Augustines enormous theological vision.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Augustine. The Augustine Catechism: The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Charity. Translated
by Bruce Harper. Edited by Boniface Ramsey. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999.
________. Commentary on the Lord's Sermon on the Mount With Seventeen Related
Sermons.Translated by Denis J. Kavanagh.
Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2001.
________. Sermons. Volume III/11. Translated by Edmund Hill. Edited by John Rotelle.
Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1997.
Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Translated and edited by John Behr.
Yonkers, NY: 2011.

12
Bonner, Gerald. Augustines Conception of Deification. The Journal of Theological Studies
37, no. 2 (1986): 369-386.
Lossky, Vladimir. In the Image and Likeness of God.
Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.
________. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.
London: J. Clarke, 1957.
________. The Vision of God.
London: Faith Press, 1964.
Meconi, David Vincent. The One Christ: St. Augustines Theology of Deification.
Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2013.
Russell, Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition.
Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2004.

13