Against Nathan Porter: Clement's Gnostic and Divine Assimilation

Nathan Porter's interpretation of Clement of Alexandria's views on the gnostic and divine assimilation misses the nuanced approach Clement employs in his writings. Clement indeed portrays the gnostic as achieving a divine status, but he frequently qualifies this claim, aligning it with Platonic thought that emphasizes assimilation to God "as far as possible." This dual approach underscores the aspirational yet inherently limited nature of human divinization.

The Gnostic as God and Angel

Clement makes bold claims about the gnostic's divine and angelic status in several passages:

• "In this way it is possible for the gnostic already to have become {a} god" (Strom. 4.23.149).
• "He is here equal to the angels" (Strom. 6.13.105).
• "Perhaps he..has already attained equality with the angels" (Strom. 7.10.57).
• "He is fully perfected after the likeness of his Teacher and thus becomes a god while still walking about in the flesh" (Strom. 7.16.101).

In these statements, Clement seems to place the gnostic in a position of almost divine equivalence. This language might suggest an unqualified attainment of divine status.

The Platonic Qualification

However, Clement often qualifies these bold claims with references to Platonic thought, specifically the idea of ομοιωσις θεω κατα το δυνατον (assimilation to god as far as possible):

• "He is the gnostic, who is after the image and likeness of God, who imitates God as far as possible, deficient in none of the things which contribute to the likeness as far as compatible, practising self-restraint [εγκρατευομενος] and endurance, living righteously, reigning over the passions.." (Strom. 2.19.97).
• "For self-control, being present, surveying and contemplating itself uninterruptedly, is as far as possible assimilated to God." (Strom. 4.23.152).

These qualifications make clear that while the gnostic strives to imitate God, there is always an inherent limitation due to their human nature. The aspiration is to align as closely as possible with divine attributes, but full equivalence is unattainable.

The Imperfection of Human Perfection

Clement acknowledges the inherent imperfection of human attempts at divinization:

• "But I know no one of men perfect in all things at once, while still human..except Him alone who for us clothed Himself with humanity....And if [the gnostic] become a martyr out of love, obtaining considerable renown as among men; not even thus will he be called perfect in the flesh beforehand....And now we perceive where, and how, and when the divine apostle mentions the perfect man, and how he shows the differences of the perfect." (Strom. 4.21.130,132).

This passage highlights the essential difference between the gnostic and the divine. The gnostic can attain a high degree of virtue and assimilation to God, but absolute perfection remains the domain of Christ alone.

Conclusion

Nathan Porter's reading of Clement overlooks the critical qualifiers that Clement consistently applies to the status of the gnostic. While Clement indeed describes the gnostic in divine terms, he frequently inserts qualifications that align with the Platonic notion of assimilation to God "as far as possible." This nuanced approach underscores that, for Clement, the gnostic's divine status is an aspirational goal rather than a fully realized state. Understanding these subtleties is essential for accurately interpreting Clement's theological views and for assessing the potential Clementine origin of texts like Epistle 366.