Platonic and Biblical Likeness to God in Clement of Alexandria

In the context of our discussion of early Christian appropriations of intellectual

traditions,1 I want to put forward a particular aspect of Clements synthesis of Plato and
Scripture. In doing so, I hope to show first that he is claiming these traditions for ecclesial
Christians alone, and second that he is doing this in order to counter Valentinian claims to
these same Platonic and scriptural traditions. In order to do this, I will highlight two of
Clements most frequently cited and alluded to verses one each from Scripture and from
the Platonic corpus. These are Gen 1:26-27 and Platos Theaetetus 176b, both of which
speak of likeness to God. The pertinent part of the first (Gen 1:26-27) of these is as
follows:
God said, Let us make the human according to our image and our likeness. []
So God created the human in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
The second, Platos Theaetetus 176b is as follows:
Flight [from earth to heaven] is likeness to God as much as possible. And
likeness is to become just and pious with judgment.
By the time of Clements writings, both of these passages were traditional texts for
understanding their respective Christian and Platonic theological anthropology and ethics.
That this was true of Gen 1:26-27 is seen in one of Clements works; that the same was
true for the passage of the Theaetetus is seen in other philosophical writers, both prior to
and contemporary with Clement. I want to emphasize and I will demonstrate in what
follows that Clement is not novel in his use of either of these passages. What is novel is
the way in which he brings these established traditions together, appropriating them into
1 This paper is included in the section, The Intellectual Culture and Context of Secondand Third-Century Patristic Authors II, organized by Kristina Meinking at NAPS Annual
Meeting in Chicago, IL, 22-24 May 2014.
1

his own self-avowed eclectic theological project.2 I will begin by demonstrating how
Clement brought these two ideas together; I will follow that by putting forward my
suggestion that this conflation is done in reaction to the Valentinians.
It has not gone unnoticed by scholars that Clement conflates these two passages.3
However, the importance of this conflation in Clements theological project has perhaps
been underemphasized. In Stromateis 2.19-22, Clement provides a doxography of a
whole range of philosophers and their opinions concerning the Good, which Clement
equates with happiness () and the end (). He finds, at the end of this
survey of opinions, that Plato is by far the closest to Christianity, seeing the end as
likeness to God as far as possible. This is quoted directly from the Theaetetus. But why,
out of all of Platos works, does Clement fasten onto this particular passage as Platos
definition of the end? Clement is not unique in putting forward likeness to God as
the defining element of Platos philosophy. A whole range of the so-called middle
Platonists before Clement, as well as their contemporary non-Platonists, agreed on this
conclusion.4 And these same philosophers recognized that this passage in the Theaetetus
was alluded to in a passage of the later Timaeus, in which happiness () and
assimilation () feature both of which are mentioned by Clement with respect
2 See Str. 1.1-7.
3 Salvatore R. C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and
Gnosticism (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), 44, 58, 106-8; Raoul Mortley,
Connaissance religieuse et hermneutique chez Clment dAlexandrie (Leiden: Brill,
1973), 150-57; Henny Fisk Hgg, Deification in Clement of Alexandria with a Special
Reference to His Use of Theaetetus 176B, Studia Patristica 46 (Louvain: Peeters, 2010),
169-73.
4 Diogenes Laertius, Vitae 3.78; Albinus, Didaskalikos (or Epitome) 2.2.6; 28.1.1-2.1;
Theon of Smyrna, De utilitate mathematicae 15.20-16.2; Apuleius, De Platone 2.23; see
Albinus, Isagoge (or Introductio), 6, among others. The later Neoplatonists also hold to a
form of this; see Daniel C. Russell, Virtue as Likeness to God in Plato and Seneca,
Journal of the History of Philosophy 42, no. 3 (2004): 241-60.
2

to Platos end.5 So, we can say that Clement, in his use of this definition, is
appropriating an established Platonic philosophical tradition.
It is important to note that Clement uses this Platonic tradition of the as likeness to
God to interpret the Scriptures, rather than the other way around.6 That is, while
Clement relies on Platos philosophy, he does so because he perceives a (likely) divinely
inspired intertextual association between the two documents: that is the sharing of the
word likeness, . He is also happy to rely on this Platonic tradition because
above all it rests on an established Christian interpretation of Gen 1:26-27. In this
Christian interpretation, attaining to Gods likeness is the end of the Christian life,
whereas Gods image was bestowed upon all people at the time of humanitys creation.
The place in Clements works where we see most clearly the tradition of this
interpretation of Gen 1:26-27 is also in the second book of the Stromateis. He asks this
rhetorical question of the reader:
Is it not so that some of our [interpreters] have advanced the argument that
humanity received what is according to the image immediately upon its
creation, but that it will receive afterwards what is according to the likeness in
the future upon its perfection?7
This would also become a common interpretation of this passage for early Christian
writers after Clement.8 The interpretation comes about on the basis of a careful reading of
5 Timaeus 90d; see Robbert van den Berg, Becoming Like God According to Proclus
Interpretations of the Timaeus, the Eleusinian Mysteries, and the Chaldaean Oracles,
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 46 (2003): 189-202.
6 Lilla, Clement of Alexandria, 108, for example, notes this.
7 Str. 2.22.131.5-132.1.
8 Hubert Merki, Homoisis Thei: von der platonischen Angleichung an Gott zur
Gotthnlichkeit bei Gregor von Nyssa (Freiburg: Paulusverlag, 1952); Augustinus Mayer,
Das Gottesbild im Menschen nach Clemens von Alexandrien (Romae: Herder, 1942);
Gregory E. Sterling, The Image of God: Becoming Like God in Philo, Paul, and Early
Christianity, in Portraits of Jesus, ed. Susan E. Myers, (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012),
157-173; Jostein Brtnes, Eikn Theou: Meanings of Likeness in Gregory of
Nazianzus, Studia Patristica 41 (2006): 28791; R. McL. Wilson, The Early History of
3

Gen 1:26-27. In verse 26, God deliberates, saying, Let us make the human according to
our image and our likeness. However, following that in v. 27, the narrator states that,
God made the human according to his image. There is no mention in the second verse
that God ended up fashioning humanity according to his likeness also. This interpretation
is seen in other places in Clements works. At one point the image is said to have been
given to all people at their creation, whereas the likeness exists in two places: (1) in
Christ, following his incarnation, and (2) in Clements true Gnostic. Clement writes
this in his Paedagogus:
The view I take is, that [Christ] himself formed the human out of the dust, and
regenerated it by water, and grew it by the Spirit, and trained it by the Word, to
adoption and salvation, guiding it by holy commandments; so that, in
transforming the earth-born human into a holy and heavenly one by his
approaching humanity, he might fulfill to the utmost that divine utterance, Let us
make the human according to our image and our likeness. And indeed Christ
became this fulfillment of what God had spoken; but the rest of humanity is
conceived as being created only in his image.9
Here Clement speaks of the relationship between Christ/the Logos and the rest of
humanity, clearly showing that the rest of humanity is created merely in [Gods]
image. I note again that likeness to God is fulfilled in Christ, but also that it is fulfilled
in the one who is regenerated by water, grown in the Holy Spirit, trained by Christs
word to adoption and salvation, and directed in the sacred precepts. Though there are a
few other mentions in Clements works of Christ bearing both the image and likeness of
God in his humanity,10 Clements recurring interpretation of this passage is with respect
to the Christian who has been trained in righteousness, to maturity.
Throughout the Stromateis, Clement labels this mature Christian the true Gnostic. We
the Exegesis of Gen 1:26, Studia Patristica 1 (1957): 42337.
9 Paed. 1.12.98.2-3.
10 Str. 5.14.94.5-6; Paed. 1.2.4.1-2; 1.3.9.1-2; Prot. 10.98.3-4.
4

see the true Gnostic especially in the context of Clements conflation of the Platonic
and scriptural traditions that I have been discussing, especially in his Stromateis. This
occurs in the second book, which (like the first) is concerned to show that God has
revealed himself to the Jews through the Law, and to the Greeks through philosophy. It is
not surprising, then, to see Clements appropriations of these two traditions unfold in this
context. In his preface to the doxography on the end (), happiness (), and
the Good, which I mentioned before, Clement writes this:
The Gnostic is the one who is according to the image and likeness of God, who
imitates God as much as possible, lacking in none of the things which tend
towards the possibility of likeness, practicing self control, submitting, living
righteously, ruling the passions, bestowing of what he has as much as possible,
and doing good both in word and in deed.11
Following this, after Clement provides a whole number of definitions of the Good based
on the schools we might expect Epicurean, Stoic, Pythagorean, among others he
finally comes to the Platonic, which he fully admits is closest to the Christian definition
of the end. And while at the beginning of the doxography he already defined what was
the Christian end which is true Gnosticism according to the image and likeness of
God finally he gives the Platonic one which is seen to be almost identical to the
Christian one:
Plato the philosopher, defining happiness () as the end (), says
that it is likeness to God ( ) according to ability (Theae. 176b);
whether agreeing with the teaching of the Law (for great natures that are stripped
of passions sometimes hit the mark respecting the truth, as the Pythagorean Philo
says in relating the things of Moses), or whether instructed by certain sayings of
the time, thirsting as he always was for instruction. For the Law says, Walk after
the Lord your God, and keep my commandments. For the Law calls assimilation
() following; and such a following assimilates according to
ability.12
11 Str. 2.19.97.1-2.
12 Str. 2.19.100.2-4. See also Str. 5.14.94.3-95.2.
5

Here Clement directly quotes from Theaetetus 176b; at two other points throughout the
doxography he paraphrases it.13 We also see and , both of which I
have already mentioned feature in the passage from the Timaeus. It is thus apparent in
this passage that Clement is explicitly incorporating the two scriptural and Platonic
traditions into one.
Clement is, on the one hand, committed to remaining within what he considers the
established ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition. Like other prominent Christian writers
of the second century, he was a proponent of the rule of faith.14 He insists that biblical
interpretation (even his own, which is not always straightforward) must be in line with
this tradition. On the other hand, he is dedicated to the project of what Tollinton referred
to, over a century ago, as Christian liberalism15 incorporating the learning of the
Greeks and Barbarians, which were both God-given, into a traditional and biblical
Christian framework. In this incorporation of traditions, the Platonic corpus stands at the
forefront. At the same time that he is bringing together these traditions, he also develops a
comprehensive Christian ethic, which comprises a spiritual progress from faithlessness,
to simple faith, to knowledge (). It is within this larger theological project that we
can see how vital these Christian and Platonic traditions of likeness to God are to
Clement. They are not only representative of his incorporation of Greek philosophical
13 Str. 2.22.131.5-6; 2.22.136.6.
14 Str. 6.15 and 7.16 are the most clear in demonstrating Clements acceptance despite
his eccentricities of a regula fidei according to apostolic tradition. Str. 1.1.15.2;
1.19.96.1; 4.15.98.3; 6.15.125.3; 6.18.165.1-2; 7.7.41.3; 7.15.90.2; 7.16.94.5; 7.16.105.5.
Also see Eric F. Osborn, Reason and the Rule of Faith in the Second Century AD, in
The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. Rowan Williams
(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 40-46; F. R. Montgomery
Hitchcock, The Creed of Clement of Alexandria, Hermathena 12, no. 28 (1902): 25
28.
15 R. B. Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Liberalism, 2 vols.
(London: Williams and Norgate, 1914).
6

thought into a traditional Christian framework. The passages also represent Clements
attempt to show how one might make his or her way from simply the image of God
(faith), to likeness to God (knowledge): this is Clements spiritual progress.
Clements Interpretive Privilege
In our discussion of the appropriation of traditions, two things seem to be worthy of
further mention: the first is Clements claim of interpretive privilege; the second is my
suggestion that Clement is reacting against Valentinian appropriations of these same two
traditions. With respect to the first, Clements true Gnostic alone has interpretive
privilege. This true Gnostic has achieved the end of likeness to God. Clement writes
that the Gnostic is impressed with the closest likeness: the mind of the Teacher.16 And
so, being like God in justice and piety, with judgment (Theaetetus 176b), he or she
alone is allowed to interpret the Scriptures. Without venturing too far into Clements
biblical interpretation, I can confidently assert that this, along with the rule of faith, is
Clements sole criterion for a true interpretation of the Bible. Only true Gnostics, of
whom Clement is one, are able to see through the veiled language of the Scriptures and
come to its true meaning.17 At the end of his work the Stromateis, he writes this as
something of a summary of who the true Gnostic is:
Therefore our [true] Gnostic alone, having grown old in the Scriptures
themselves, and maintaining apostolic and ecclesiastical orthodoxy in doctrines,
lives most correctly in accordance with the gospel; and having been sent forth by
the Lord s/he discovers proofs from the Law and the Prophets. For I think that
the life of the [true] Gnostic is nothing but deeds and words following in the
tradition of the Lord.18
16 Str. 6.15.115.1.
17 See, for example, Str. 6.15.115.5-6: The Gnostic alone is able to comprehend and
make clear the things spoken by the Spirit obscurely. Also see Str. 5.9.57.1-2;
6.15.129.4.
18 Str. 7.16.104.2.
7

There is much more that could be said about this. However, it will suffice to say that
Clement, in his claim to interpretive privilege, is in the early Alexandrian tradition of
biblical interpretation. This same privilege of the pious interpreter has been noticed in
Origen most recently by Peter Martens19 and Philo before him:20 though Clement
certainly has his own ideas about biblical interpretation, he stands within this interpretive
tradition.
The Anti-Valentinian Aspect of Clements Understanding of Likeness
In conclusion I want to put forward the suggestion that Clement, in his conflation of the
biblical text and the Platonic corpus, is reactionary. As constructive as his theology is, it
has been recognized by many that Clement is constantly in polemic however subtle
against those he considers to be heretics: primarily the Basilideans and the Valentinians.21
Judith Kovacs has especially highlighted the fact that his interpretation of the Scriptures
at nearly every point counters Valentinian claims.22 I believe this to be the case in this
instance also. In the Excerpta ex Theodoto (fragments of Valentinian exegesis passed
down to us by Clement), we see a Valentinian interpretation of Gen 1:26-27:
19 Peter W. Martens, Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life (New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012).
20 See Karen Jo Torjesen, The Alexandrian Tradition of the Inspired Interpreter, in
Origeniana Octava, ed. Lorenzo Perrone (Leuven: Peeters, 2003).
21 Everett Procter, Christian Controversy in Alexandria: Clements Polemic against the
Basilideans and Valentinians (New York: P. Lang, 1995); Mark Edwards, Catholicity and
Heresy in the Early Church (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2009), 57-64.
22 Kovacs points this out in many of her articles on Clements biblical interpretation:
Echoes of Valentinian Exegesis in Clement of Alexandria and Origen, in Origeniana
Octava, ed. Lorenzo Perrone (Leuven, 2004), 317329; Clement of Alexandria and
Valentinian Exegesis in the Excerpts from Theodotus, Studia Patristica 41 (2006), 187
200; Grace and Works: Clement of Alexandrias Response to Valentinian Exegesis of
Paul, in Ancient Perspectives on Paul, ed. Tobias Nicklas, A. Merkt, and J. Verheyden
(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 191210; Concealment and Gnostic
Exegesis: Clement of Alexandrias Interpretation of the Tabernacle, Studia Patristica 31
(1997): 414-37.
8

From Adam three natures are begotten: first is the irrational, whose [representative]
was Cain; second is the rational and just, which was Abel; and third is the spiritual,
which was Seth. And the one [made] of dust is according to the image; the
psychical is according to the likeness of God; and the spiritual is according to its
own.23
We learn elsewhere in these Excerpta, Clement, and other testimonia, that the
Valentinians interpret this in such a way that the image, the likeness, and this other
category (its own) correspond to non-Christians, ecclesial Christians, and Valentinians
respectively.24 Clement takes issue with this interpretation. In it he sees the Valentinians
articulating salvation by nature, whereas he, throughout his works consistently argues
against this, for salvation by choice / free will.
However, I think that in this case Clements polemic against the Valentinians goes further
than simply his biblical interpretation of Gen 1:26-27. I want to suggest that Clement, by
bringing together the ends of Christian and Platonic thought, counters what he
perceives to be an inadequate and heretical conflation of the two. Shortly after Clement,
Hippolytus (for example) advances the polemic that Valentinians, among other
Gnostics, should not be considered Christian at all, calling them instead Platonists or
Pythagoreans.25 I want to make clear that I am not suggesting that Valentinianism is
simply a synthesis of Platonic and biblical thought.26 Instead, what I am suggesting is that
Clement sees it in this way. Further, he sees the Valentinians making what he considers
rather shoddy use of the two: reading the Scriptures superficially and against apostolic
and ecclesiastical tradition; and what is more, they are not even reading what has been
23 Exc. 54.1-2.
24 See especially Str. 4.13. Also see Exc. 56.1-3, and Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1.6.
25 A substantial amount of the sixth book is taken up with proving this: Hippolytus,
Refutatio 6.16-24.
26 The origins of the various forms of Gnosticism are apparently very complex. For a
recent survey of scholarly opinions, see Carl B. Smith, No Longer Jews: The Search for
Gnostic Origins (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 7-43.
9

established as central in Platos thought, and instead simply looking to his cosmological
speculation in the Timaeus and the Critias.27 Thus, in bringing together the intellectual
tradition which sees likeness to God as central to Platonic thought, and the ecclesial
tradition which sees being according to the likeness to be the destiny of the Christian,
Clement counters the heretical Valentinian synthesis, and provides his own intellectually
satisfying and traditionally Christian one to the ecclesial Christians.

27 This cannot be backed up solely on the grounds of Clements Stromateis. Valentinian

protology and cosmology are rarely mentioned in Clements works, and never at
length; his focus appears to be more on Valentinian soteriology. There are, however, hints
that Clement like Hippolytus after him sees this sect () as relying on
Pythagorean and Platonic thought. (These two philosophies are also linked in Clement,
not least when he calls Philo the Pythagorean; see David T. Runia, Why Does
Clement of Alexandria Call Philo the Pythagorean? Vigiliae Christianae 49 (1995): 122.) The first is in Str. 2.3-4 when, in his attempts to refute Valentinian views, Clement
refers not only to the Scriptures, but also Plato above all other philosophers. This is in the
context of his discussion of Basilidean and Valentinian soteriology as he understands it
(Str. 2.3), which is followed by Clement laying out biblical proofs, followed by several
philosophers (Aristotle, Epicurus, Heraclitus, the Stoics), and most of all at the end of
this, Plato. Even in his discussion of the other philosophers (all of whom are seen to agree
with Clement!), Plato is the one to whom all the others answer (Str. 2.4). At one other
point, in Str. 2.20, he has Basilides and Valentinus (whom Clement almost always puts in
agreement with one another) being in agreement with Pythagoras over the idea of humans
having two souls. On a larger scale, Clement, especially in Str. 1-2, devotes much time
to demonstrate that what is more ancient in this case Pythagoreanism is superior; all
that follows (in this case Valentinianism) is derivative. (Str. 7.17 is also taken up with the
idea that heresies are chronologically secondary to ancient Christianity and thus
inferior.) I do not intend these to be definitive proofs, but instead put them forward as
hints that Clement is combating Valentinianism on this level also.
10