Fr. Miroljub Srb. Ruzic: A Clarification of Theological Imprecisions in the Nativity Encyclical of the Eastern American Diocese

Тhe paragraph’s inadequate expression lies in its imprecise use of patristic language, its failure to articulate the Orthodox understanding of participation in the divine life, and its conflation of the Nativity with the Transfiguration

„The Nativity is, therefore, not merely a historical event, bound in time and circumstance, it is the beginning of our salvation. As St. Athanasius the Great proclaimed: ‘God became man, so that man might become god’. In this great mystery of transfiguration: Christ takes on our human nature, so that we may partake of His divinity.” (From the Archpastoral Christmas Word of the Eastern American Diocese)

From the standpoint of traditional Orthodox patristic theology, the cited paragraph suffers from both theological imprecision and a confusion of distinct salvific events, thereby failing to expound rightly the apostolic teaching of 2 Peter 1:3–4 concerning participation in the Divine Nature („Inasmuch as His divine power hath freely given to us all the things for life and piety, through the full knowledge of Him Who called us by glory and virtue, by which He hath freely given to us the very great and precious promises, that through these ye might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption which is in the world by desire”).

First, the paragraph employs the language of theosis in a manner that is insufficiently precise and therefore misleading. St. Athanasios’ well-known dictum, „Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεοποιηθῶμεν”, and the misleading English paraphrase „God became man so that man might become god,” is invoked without its necessary patristic framework. The more theologically exact rendering is: „For He enhominized, so that we may become deified (not divinized)”. θεοποιηθῶμεν is the aorist passive subjunctive of θεοποιέω — literally „to be deified,” and it’s the form used in the Greek text in Patrologoa Graeca (PG 25, col. 192 B). (See note bellow[1]!)

In the Orthodox tradition, this statement never implies an ontological transmutation of human nature into the divine essence. Rather, as clarified by the Cappadocians, St. Maximos the Confessor, and later St. Gregory Palamas, our participation is our union in Christ, by grace, in the uncreated Divine Energies, rather than in the Divine Essence itself.. To speak loosely of „partaking of His divinity” without this distinction risks collapsing the careful patristic balance and obscuring the meaning of 2 Peter 1:4, which explicitly refers to participation (koinōnoi) by grace, not by nature – „ἵνα διὰ τούτων γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως”.

Second, the paragraph conflates the Nativity with the Transfiguration, thereby confusing two distinct moments in the economy of salvation. The Nativity concerns the ineffable mystery of the Incarnation: the eternal Son and Logos of God assumes human nature in time, uniting it to Himself „without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” The Transfiguration, by contrast, is not the moment in which Christ „takes on” human nature, nor is it the beginning of our salvation, but a revelatory manifestation of the uncreated glory already present in the incarnate Logos. On Mount Tabor, Christ does not become transfigured in His essence; rather, the disciples are granted, by grace, the capacity to behold the glory of His divinity shining through His humanity.

By describing the Incarnation itself as „this great mystery of transfiguration,” the paragraph introduces a theological sloppiness foreign to patristic usage. In Orthodox theology, „Transfiguration” has a specific Christological and eschatological meaning tied to the revelation of Divine Glory and the foretaste of humanity’s deification, not to the assumption of flesh in the womb of the Ever-Virgin. To blur these categories is to undermine the pedagogical clarity with which the Fathers distinguish the stages of Christ’s economy for our salvation.

Finally, while it is correct to affirm that the Nativity is not merely a historical event, Orthodox theology does not isolate it from the totality of Christ’s saving work—His life, Cross, Resurrection, Ascension, and the sending of the Holy Spirit. Deification, as taught in 2 Peter 1:3–4, is not inaugurated by the Incarnation alone in abstraction, but is realized through the whole Paschal Mystery and our sacramental incorporation into Christ.

In sum, the paragraph’s inadequate expression lies in its imprecise use of patristic language, its failure to articulate the Orthodox understanding of participation in the divine life, and its conflation of the Nativity with the Transfiguration—errors that distort and obscure, rather than illuminate, the Church’s teaching on theosis as handed down by the Fathers.

fr. MSrbR

---

[1] Note: In the theological idiom of the Orthodox Fathers, St. Athanasios’ celebrated dictum, «Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεοποιηθῶμεν» (PG 25, 192B), must be read with precision, sobriety, and fidelity to the Church’s supra-rational dogma. The verb θεοποιηθῶμεν is the aorist passive subjunctive of θεοποιέω, and signifies „to be deified”, not „to be made God (by nature)”. The passive voice is decisive: deification is not an autonomous achievement, nor an ontological elevation into the Divine Essence, but an act of Divine Grace whereby humanity is acted upon by God. Likewise, the subjunctive mood indicates purpose and divine economy, not an automatic or necessary transformation.

Equally important is St. Athanasios’ use of ἐνηνθρώπησεν („He enhominized” or „He became human”), rather than any expression implying a change in the Divine Nature. The Logos did not cease to be what He eternally Is, nor did He assume humanity in such a way as to confuse or mix the natures. Rather, remaining fully God by essence (κατ’ οὐσίαν), He truly assumed human nature in order to heal, restore, and glorify it from within. The Incarnation is thus a salvific condescension (συγκατάβασις), not a diminution of Divinity.

For this reason, the popular and incorrectly translated paraphrase, „God became man so that man might become god,” while rhetorically striking, is theologically imprecise and potentially misleading if taken without patristic qualification. It risks suggesting either an ontological exchange of essences or a form of metaphysical apotheosis foreign to Orthodox theology. St. Athanasios does not teach that man becomes God (θεός) by nature, but that man is deified (θεοποιούμενος) by grace, participation, and adoption. As later Fathers will clarify—most notably St. Gregory Palamas—this participation is in the uncreated Divine Energies, not in the Divine Essence itself.

Thus, a more exact rendering faithful to the Greek text and to Orthodox dogma is:

„For He enhominized, so that we might be deified.”

This translation safeguards both sides of the mystery: the full reality of the Incarnation and the true, yet grace-filled, deification of humanity. Deification is not divinization in a pagan or ontological sense, but the restoration of humanity to communion with God, conformed to Christ, by the Holy Spirit, unto eternal life. Only this rendering preserves the careful balance of the patristic teaching and avoids the doctrinal ambiguity inherent in the misleadingly translated English paraphrase, „God became man so that man might become god.”