Christian theurgy and divine indwelling

Abstract

This article discusses Charles Stang’s understanding of a Pauline and Pseudo-Dionysian concept of deification prayer, and the role of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer, in light of both Neoplatonic metaphysics of participation and Paul’s understanding of the term “spirit”. It argues that this can be understood through a concept of divine indwelling, explicated theurgically through the Neoplatonic conception of the One of the soul. While the Christian and non-Christian Neoplatonic traditions diverge on the nature of this indwelling, particularly as it relates to divine revelation, it serves the same function for both. A theurgic perspective helps us not just discover parallels and divergences between Christianity and Pagan Platonism, but also provides us with a language and a metaphysics which helps us explicate the work of the Holy Spirit.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Proclus, Elements of Theology (hereafter: ET), prop. 35, cf. props. 1–13, 23–39 (esp. 25–39). Also see Chlup, Proclus, 62–82; Davison, Participation in God, 64; Sammon, “Redeeming Chenu?”

2 Addey, Divination and Theurgy, 26, 113–117, 173–180; Afonasin, Dillon, and Finamore, eds., Iamblichus and the Foundations; van den Berg, Proclus’ Hymns, 67–70, 79–81, 91–107; Butler, Metaphysics of Polytheism; Butorac and Layne, eds., Proclus and his Legacy; Chlup, Proclus, esp. 9–46, 112–136, 163–184; Luck, “Theurgy”; Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul, 173–191; Shaw, “Theurgy: Rituals of Unification”; Steel, “Proclus”; Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy in Late Antiquity. In this approach, Iamblichus and Proclus follow (and adapt) the second century Chaldean Oracles. See Majercik, The Chaldean Oracles. Also see Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy; Spanu, Proclus and Chaldean Oracles. If I cite the Oracles themselves, I cite title (Chaldean Oracles) and fragment number. If I cite the commentary or other parts of the book, I cite author and title (Majercik, The Chaldean Oracles).

3 Iamblichus, De mysteriis (hereafter: DM), VIII, 2; ET, props. 7–13, 113. For a discussion of this from a Proclean perspective, see Butler, Metaphysics of Polytheism.

4 van den Berg, Proclus’ Hymns, 18–22; Finamore, “Iamblichus, Theurgy, and Ascent.”

5 Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul, 80, cf. 121–133.

6 Struck, “Pagan and Christian Theurgies,” 30, cf. DM, I, 15; I, 21; III, 17, 27; V, 23.

7 DM, V, 18; VI, 6.

8 DM, I, 15; I, 21; III, 17, 27; V, 23, cf. Addey, Divination and Theurgy, 26, 113–117, 173–180.

9 Addey, “Divine Providence,” 135–140; Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul, 134–143.

10 For some treatments, see Burns, “Theurgic Liturgy of Pseudo-Dionysius”; Gersh, From Iamblichus to Erieugena; Pallis, “Dionysius the Areopagite”; Perl, “Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite”; Saffrey, “New Objective Links”; Shaw, “Neoplatonic Theurgy”; Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity; Stang, “Dionysius, Iamblichus, and Proclus”; Stang, “Corpus Dionysiacum”; Struck, “Pagan and Christian Theurgies”; Wear and Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite. Pseudo-Dionysius’ works are The Celestial Hierarchy (De coelesti hierarchia, hereafter: CH), The Divine Names (De Divinis Nominibus, hereafter: DN), The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, hereafter: EH), The Letters (Epistulae, hereafter: Ep.), and The Mystical Theology (De Mystica Theologia, hereafter: MT). For critical editions of his works in Greek, see Corpus Dionysiacum I, ed. Suchla and Corpus Dionysiacum II, eds. Heil and Ritter. For English translations, see Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Luibheid with Rorem and The Works of Dionysius, trans. Parker. I use Parker’s translations, with some modifications. See Kringlebotten, Liturgy, Theurgy, 4, n2.

11 See esp. Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 81–152; Stang, “Dionysius, Iamblichus, and Proclus”; Stang, “Corpus Dionysiacum”; Wear and Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite, esp. 85–129.

12 Kringlebotten, Liturgy, Theurgy, 131–164; Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 112–114; Struck, “Pagan and Christian Theurgies,” 30–38; Wear and Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite, 99–101.

13 DN, II, 6 (644C). In this case, I have changed the translation (see n10), to highlight the underlying Iamblichean and Proclean framework. Parker translates tēs agathoprepoũs eis hēmãs theourgías as “the goodly work of God towards us,” tòn huperoúsion lógon as “the superessential Word,” and tēs anthrōpikēs autoũ theourgías as “His human work of God.”

14 Addey, “Divine Providence,” 135–140; Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul, 134–143.

15 DN, IV, 10 (705D, cf. 705B–708B), cf. Gersh, From Iamblichus to Erieugena, 27–120; Perl, “Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite,” 773–777.

16 DN, IV, 10 (708A), cf. Romans 11:36: “For from him and through him and to him are all things.” Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from Scripture follow the New Revised Standard Version.

17 ET, prop. 35, cf. props. 1–13, 23–39 (esp. 25–39). Also see Chlup, Proclus, 62–82; Davison, Participation in God, 64; Sammon, “Redeeming Chenu?”

18 Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 115, cf. 105–116.

19 Shaw, “Neoplatonic Theurgy,” 589, cf. DM, I, 21.

20 Shaw, “Neoplatonic Theurgy,” 589, n65.

21 Davison, Participation in God, 155–164; Doolan, “Aquinas on esse subsistens”; Kringlebotten, Liturgy, Theurgy, 32, 234–235; O’Rourke, Metaphysics of Aquinas, 258–259; Perl, “Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite,” 773–777. As we will see, this is also central for Aquinas, as an interpreter of Pseudo-Dionysius.

22 See particularly Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book On the Divine Names of Blessed Denys (In librum B. Dionysii De divinis nominibus expositio); Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q.13, a.9; q.104, a.1; II-II, q.94, a.4; q.97, a.4 ad 3. Unless otherwise noted, Aquinas’ works (Latin and English) are found in Opera Omnia. For some treatments of Aquinas’ Neoplatonic leanings, see Booth, “Thomas Aquinas”; Kringlebotten, Liturgy, Theurgy, 28–63; O’Rourke, Metaphysics of Aquinas.

23 DN, IV, 10 (705D–708A), cf. ET, prop. 35. Also see Chlup, Proclus, 62–82; Davison, Participation in God, 42–64; Perl, “Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite,” 773–777; Sammon, “Redeeming Chenu?” Though Pauline authorship of some epistles are debated, I will use “Paul” or “Pauline” for all the letters traditionally attributed to Paul, as Pseudo-Dionysius most likely assumed that Paul wrote all letters attributed to him.

24 For some relevant passages, see Romans 1:9; 5:5; 8:1–10; 8:14–16; 12:11; 14:17; 15:13; 15:16; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 14:15–16; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 5:5; 12:18; Galatians 3:14; 4:6; 5:16–18; Ephesians 1:13; 1:17; 2:18–22; 3:16; Philippians 2:1; 4:23; Colossians 2:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Timothy 1:14; 4:22; Titus 3:5; Philemon 25 (cf. James 4:5). For the Greek text of the New Testament, see Novum Testamentum Graece, eds., Aland et al.

25 Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 89–92, 102–116.

26 Addey, “Divine Providence,” 136–140; Davison, Participation in God, 126–130; DM, I, 21; II, 11; Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul, 134–143; Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 98–102; Struck, “Pagan and Christian Theurgies,” 30–38.

27 Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 115.

28 Davison, Participation in God, 155–164; Doolan, “Aquinas on esse subsistens”; Kringlebotten, Liturgy, Theurgy, 32, 234–235; Steel, “Proclus,” 645–647 (cf. 637–639). Also see Plato, Parmenides, 131 (cf. 130b–132e). In ET, prop., 67, Proclus states that the “unparticipated” is a “whole-before-the-parts” (as apposed to a “whole-of-parts” or a “whole-in-the-part”).

29 ET, prop. 98.

30 ET, prop. 24, cf. 23–24, 67, 99–102, 123, 161–164; Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides (hereafter: In Parm.), I, 706–711; III, 783–838; IV, 838–917.

31 Doolan, “Aquinas on esse subsistens,” 618.

32 ET, props. 113–165. See Chlup, Proclus, 47–136 (esp. 48–62, 99–136); Butler, Metaphysics of Polytheism. Also see DM, I, 1 (cf. I, 3), which starts with an invocation of “Hermes, the god who presides over rational discourse” (pp.4–5). For Proclus, these gods are not absolutely simple: “Every god is participable, except the One” (ET, prop. 116).

33 In Parm., VI, 1071, 22–24. The authority in question is most likely Iamblichus. See n49 in the commentary (p.425).

34 Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (hereafter: In Tim.), II, 211,25–26 (emphasis added).

35 In Tim., II, 211,25–26, quoted in Dillon, “Platonic Philosopher at Prayer,” 19 (emphasis added). See Addey, “Divine Providence,” 135–140; Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul, 134–143.

36 In Tim. II, 211,30–212,1.

37 I use the term “sacrament” not only for Christian, but also for Pagan practices. In Chaldean theurgy, we can talk of a “sacrament of immortality”, which is ascension or elevation (Gk. anagōgē). See Chaldean Oracles, frags. 123, 190; Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy, 487–489 (cf. 177–226, 276–278, 305); Majercik, The Chaldean Oracles, 30–46, 188, 211. Also see Finamore, “Iamblichus, Theurgy, and Ascent”; Shaw, “Theurgy: Rituals of Unification”; Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy in Late Antiquity, 21–44, 56–95.

38 DM, I, 15 (pp.56–59).

39 Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul, 127.

40 Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 109, 111.

41 DN, IV, 10 (705D), cf. Perl, “Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite,” 773–777.

42 DN, IV, 10 (708A). For a discussion of this from a Trinitarian and participatory viewpoint, see Davison, Participation in God, 42–64.

43 ET, prop. 35, cf. props. 1–13, 23–39 (esp. 25–39). Also see Chlup, Proclus, 62–82; Davison, Participation in God, 64; Sammon, “Redeeming Chenu?”

44 DN, XII, 4 (972B), cf. XI, 6 (956AB); Ep., IX, 2 (1108D), cf. Davison, Participation in God, 155–164; Doolan, “Aquinas on esse subsistens,” 614–628; Kringlebotten, Liturgy, Theurgy, 32, 234–235; Steel, “Proclus,” 645–647 (cf. 637–639).

45 Aquinas, Commentary on the Book On the Divine Names, c.1, 1, 30. Elsewhere, in his Disputed Questions on Spiritual Creatures (Quaestiones Disputatae de spiritualibus creaturis), a.1, corp., Aquinas states that “because any thing participates in the first act through similitude insofar as it has existence, the participated existence must in each case be related to the nature participating in it, as act is related to potency.” Also see Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q.13, a.9; q.104, a.1; II-II, q.94, a.4; q.97, a.4 ad 3.

46 Aquinas, Commentary on the Book On the Divine Names, c.12, 1, 955, cf. Kringlebotten, Liturgy, Theurgy, 32–33, 40–44; te Velde, “Participation,” 130, n18, 134–135, n26, 136–138.

47 O’Rourke, Metaphysics of Aquinas, 258, cf. 255–260.

48 O’Rourke, Metaphysics of Aquinas, 258, cf. Davison, Participation in God, 155–164.

49 In Parm., VI, 1071, 22–24, cf. Doolan, “Aquinas on esse subsistens,” 614–628.

50 CH, IV, 1 (177D); DN, V, 4 (817D).

51 Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West, 244, cf. 244–246.

52 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q.45, prol.; DN, I, 4 (589D); II, 4–5 (640D–644B); II, 11 (649A–652A).

53 Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles I, c.26:10.

54 Doolan, “Aquinas on esse subsistens,” 618, cf. O’Rourke, Metaphysics of Aquinas, 41–48. Doolan (pp.620–628) notes that since God, for Aquinas, is ipsum esse or ipsum esse subsistens, “(subsistent) being itself”, he sees this indwelling likeness as the act of existence, the esse, of the creature. Aquinas notes: “Since God is very being (Lt. ipsum esse), everything is, in so far as it participates in the likeness of God.” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q.14, a.9, ad 2)

55 In Parm., VI, 1071, 22–24.

56 See DM, I, 1–3; ET, props. 113–165, cf. Chlup, Proclus, 8–62, 99–136; Butler, Metaphysics of Polytheism.

57 DN, V, 2 (816C–817A). We find the Areopagite’s hierarchical vision particularly in CH, but also, on a ritual and liturgical level, in EH.

58 1 Corinthians 8:4–6; Titus 2:13.

59 van den Berg, Proclus’ Hymns, 86–111; Butler, Metaphysics of Polytheism; Chlup, Proclus, 112–136; Luck, “Theurgy”; Shaw, “Theurgy: Rituals of Unification.”

60 EH, III:III, 4; III:III, 5; III:III, 11 (429C, 432B, 441C); EP, IX (esp. I, 1108A), where Pseudo-Dionysius talks about Christ passing unto us “the theurgical mysteries” (Gk. tá theourgà mustḗria). See Davison, Participation in God, 126–130; Kringlebotten, Liturgy, Theurgy, 54–62, 131–164; Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 98–102; Stępień, “The Understanding of Symbols”; Struck, “Pagan and Christian Theurgies,” 30–38; Wear and Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite, 99–101.

61 Plato, Republic, 500d: “The philosopher who allies himself with the divine and orderly becomes divine and orderly, as far as is possible for a human being.” Also see Plato, Theaetetus, 176ab.

62 EH, I, 3 (376A), cf. de Andia, “Dionysius as Mystic,” 656–666; Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 92–116. For a thorough discussion of theosis or deification in Eastern Christian thought, which emphasises links to Iamblichus, Proclus, and Pseudo-Dionysius, see Russell, The Doctrine of Deification, esp. 14, 34–52, 248–295, 333–344.

63 EH, II:I (392A), cf. II–IV (392A–485A). Pseudo-Dionysius has a particular emphasis on Baptism (“illumination” or “enlightenment”), the Eucharist (“synaxis”) and Confirmation (“Muron” or “ointment”).

64 Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 115.

65 This also suggests that the work of God does not destroy nature, but perfects it. God works within creation, not in spite of it. This is also important for Pseudo-Dionysius, who says that “to destroy nature is not a function of Providence” (DN, IV, 33, 733B), and for Aquinas, who, paraphrasing the Areopagite, says that “grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q.1, a.8, ad 2).

66 This does not mean that Paul is (anachronistically) using a Neoplatonic term centuries in advance, but that this provides a language through which Paul’s thought can be explicated.

67 Davison, Participation in God, 126–130, 155–164; Doolan, “Aquinas on esse subsistens”; Steel, “Proclus,” 645–647 (cf. 637–639).

68 Cf. In Tim., II, 211,25–26.

69 Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 153–205.

70 Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity, 115, cf. 109–116.

71 Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul, 127.

72 Romans 5:5; 8:9–17; 2 Corinthians 1:19–22; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:21; 3:16–19; 5:18.

73 van den Berg, Proclus’ Hymns, 86–111; Luck, “Theurgy”; Shaw, “Theurgy: Rituals of Unification.”

74 Kringlebotten, Liturgy, Theurgy, 131–164 (esp. 140–146, 153–162); Stępień, “The Understanding of Symbols”; Struck, “Pagan and Christian Theurgies,” 30–38.

75 In Parm., VI, B, 2 (1071); O’Rourke, Metaphysics of Aquinas, 258–259.

76 van den Berg, Proclus’ Hymns, 86–111; Kringlebotten, Liturgy, Theurgy, 131–164 (esp. 140–146, 153–162); Luck, “Theurgy”; Shaw, “Theurgy: Rituals of Unification”; Stępień, “The Understanding of Symbols”; Struck, “Pagan and Christian Theurgies,” 30–38.