In this review article of The Oxford Handbook of Deification, I argue that our understanding of deification is determined, ultimately, not by empirical markers but by divine revelation: The question is whether or not a particular theology offers a faithful and true rendering of our final end.
Still reading and thinking through this. It’s quite good and yet well beyond me. I do think one broad takeaway for me is that the participatory and deification understanding of union with God is far more profound and proficient in its understanding than anything I’ve encountered in Evangelicalism. Seems like they don’t really know what to do with Paul’s “in-Christ” language. Deification is such a wonderfully rich theological tradition I’m getting to explore, thank you for this article!
I found this handbook exceptionally helpful in helping signal where authors (ancient, medieval, and modern) were discussing deification. This helped me slow down and read closely for myself. Thank you!
Thank you for sharing/writing this! A cursory read through brought me back to grad school & my dissertation on deification/theosis - you interacted with many of my interlocutors, and much more concisely ;) I’ll be coming back to this in my free time to engage your points some more!
I think your emphasis on participation is exactly right, but I also think the difficulty you’re addressing arises from treating participation as something added to already existing beings.
Instead, if to exist at all is already to participate in God, then deification is not about gaining access to God, but about the transformation of that participation. The issue is no longer whether we participate in the divine essence or energies, but the degree to which our participation is coherent with the life of God.
Seen this way, the essence–energies distinction is no longer necessary as it is a way of preserving participation within a substance-based framework that has already assumed separation. The essence–energies distinction is a solution to a problem created by the framework itself.
Fr Boersma, Robert Fortuin has just published a response to your essay on deification. I invite you to read it and to share with him and me (and all others) your thoughts about his critique. I know he’d love to have a constructive dialogue with you. https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2026/04/14/114244/
What is the implication behind the use of the term, "suffering of diving things?" Especially as noted in the sentence: "Deification is not the grasping but is rather the suffering of divine things."
Thanks for the question, Fr. Bob. “Suffering” here is not what we usually understand by “suffering.” Here, the term means to “undergo.” In other words, in deification, we don’t act, but undergo. It is God’s action, not ours. On our part, we receive (undergo, suffer) the deifying grace. I hope this is helpful. Feel free to shoot me a personal email if you have further questions.
I think here you are dealing ultimately what has become the ultimate (if it wasn’t already) difficulty for theologians today to properly address. I think to some degree you begin to show us the way—in particular in noting that to see the energies as henads radically misses the point. But I wonder if, with the essence / energies distinction (even if not a “real distinction”) we are bound to bring forward something that cannot but present a seeming aporia to a hard neo-platonism but really a paradox which cannot be resolved: God is simple and yet by giving himself-to go beyond himself to give himself as to be participated or to deify—we are not forced to say while remaining simple in himself he is also multifaceted in giving himself. The virtues blossoming in us as we are in the spirit and putting on Christ are to some degree the shape or image of God as his likeness is realized in us. I guess I’ve come to a point where the revelation of God suffered by the saint always brings with it—in speaking of it, a difficulty. Maybe we are speaking of one ousia, but yet we cannot but break into language which sounds as if the energies of God are multiform. But in the end, is it the event of deification or solidifying its logic that is more important. Yes God is simple, but we require more than one word to describe him in his activity. Does this not make him simple or speak of the limits of our language and concepts?
Still reading and thinking through this. It’s quite good and yet well beyond me. I do think one broad takeaway for me is that the participatory and deification understanding of union with God is far more profound and proficient in its understanding than anything I’ve encountered in Evangelicalism. Seems like they don’t really know what to do with Paul’s “in-Christ” language. Deification is such a wonderfully rich theological tradition I’m getting to explore, thank you for this article!
I found this handbook exceptionally helpful in helping signal where authors (ancient, medieval, and modern) were discussing deification. This helped me slow down and read closely for myself. Thank you!
Thank you for sharing/writing this! A cursory read through brought me back to grad school & my dissertation on deification/theosis - you interacted with many of my interlocutors, and much more concisely ;) I’ll be coming back to this in my free time to engage your points some more!
I think your emphasis on participation is exactly right, but I also think the difficulty you’re addressing arises from treating participation as something added to already existing beings.
Instead, if to exist at all is already to participate in God, then deification is not about gaining access to God, but about the transformation of that participation. The issue is no longer whether we participate in the divine essence or energies, but the degree to which our participation is coherent with the life of God.
Seen this way, the essence–energies distinction is no longer necessary as it is a way of preserving participation within a substance-based framework that has already assumed separation. The essence–energies distinction is a solution to a problem created by the framework itself.
Fr Boersma, Robert Fortuin has just published a response to your essay on deification. I invite you to read it and to share with him and me (and all others) your thoughts about his critique. I know he’d love to have a constructive dialogue with you. https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2026/04/14/114244/
Dear Hans,
What is the implication behind the use of the term, "suffering of diving things?" Especially as noted in the sentence: "Deification is not the grasping but is rather the suffering of divine things."
Thanks for the question, Fr. Bob. “Suffering” here is not what we usually understand by “suffering.” Here, the term means to “undergo.” In other words, in deification, we don’t act, but undergo. It is God’s action, not ours. On our part, we receive (undergo, suffer) the deifying grace. I hope this is helpful. Feel free to shoot me a personal email if you have further questions.
InCarne🔥🩸🪽
I think here you are dealing ultimately what has become the ultimate (if it wasn’t already) difficulty for theologians today to properly address. I think to some degree you begin to show us the way—in particular in noting that to see the energies as henads radically misses the point. But I wonder if, with the essence / energies distinction (even if not a “real distinction”) we are bound to bring forward something that cannot but present a seeming aporia to a hard neo-platonism but really a paradox which cannot be resolved: God is simple and yet by giving himself-to go beyond himself to give himself as to be participated or to deify—we are not forced to say while remaining simple in himself he is also multifaceted in giving himself. The virtues blossoming in us as we are in the spirit and putting on Christ are to some degree the shape or image of God as his likeness is realized in us. I guess I’ve come to a point where the revelation of God suffered by the saint always brings with it—in speaking of it, a difficulty. Maybe we are speaking of one ousia, but yet we cannot but break into language which sounds as if the energies of God are multiform. But in the end, is it the event of deification or solidifying its logic that is more important. Yes God is simple, but we require more than one word to describe him in his activity. Does this not make him simple or speak of the limits of our language and concepts?
Grace and peace to you Father
Lazarus of the Four Days:
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/b9ac37b4-c29e-4e51-90a5-fc5eb61487ac
.....Hosanna!