Deification from Nothing

And only by this primordial assent does humanity in its eternal “multi-hypostatic” reality— as the eternal Adam of the first creation— freely receive its being from its creator: and this even though that assent becomes, on the threshold between the heavenly Aeon and time, a recapitulation of the Fall, an individuating acceptance of entry into the world under the burden of sin, such that every soul is answerable for and somehow always remembers that original transgression. In that moment, the spiritual creature concurs in its own creation, and God hands the creature over to its own free self-determination. Here, naturally, the language of past and future can devolve all too easily into a mythology of individual guilt historically “prior” to any person’s actual life; but, of course, there was no fall “back then” in historical time, either for the race or for the individual. Rather, the Fall “happened” only as belonging to the temporal unfolding of that eternal assent. It “happened”— or, rather, is happening— only as the lingering resistance of nothingness to that final joyous confession, the diminishing residue of the creature’s emergence ex nihilo. For no creature can exist as spirit in God except under the condition of having arisen from nothingness in order to grow into his or her last end. That passage from nothingness into the infinite, which is always a free intentionality toward a final cause, is the very structure of created spiritual beings. They could not be spirit otherwise.
David Bentley Hart, You Are Gods (Kindle Locations 2269-2281). University of Notre Dame Press. Kindle Edition.

The above quote is dense. I had ChatGPT break it down for me…

1. Humanity’s “primordial assent”

All of humanity, seen as one great reality (called here the “eternal Adam”), says “yes” to God in a timeless, original way — that’s what allows us to receive our existence.
This assent is not something we’re forced into; it’s freely given.

2. Entry into the world as a re-enactment of the Fall

When each soul crosses from God’s eternal realm into time, that assent gets played out again.
This entry into earthly life also means accepting a world where sin and brokenness exist — a “burden” every soul bears.
Somehow, each person participates in and “remembers” the original turning away from God (the Fall), even though it’s not a literal memory of a past historical event.

3. Individual freedom at creation

In this moment of entering existence, the soul agrees to be created and is entrusted by God to its own freedom.
God hands each creature over to its own self-determination — we’re not puppets; we live by our own will.

4. The caution against misreading the Fall

It’s easy to turn this idea into a story of “individual guilt” for something that happened before we were born.
But the author says that’s a misunderstanding — the Fall wasn’t a single event in history, for either humanity as a whole or for each person individually.

5. The Fall as an ongoing reality

The Fall “happens” as part of the unfolding of that original assent in time.
It’s the ongoing resistance of nothingness — the fact that we came from nothing — to fully and joyfully uniting with God.
This resistance gradually diminishes as we grow toward God.

6. Why this resistance exists

A creature can only exist as a spiritual being in God if it has come from nothingness.
That means we must grow from nothingness toward our ultimate purpose — union with God — in a free, intentional way.
That journey from nothing to infinite life in God is the very structure of what it means to be a spiritual creature.

In short:
We each freely agree to exist, but entering the world means stepping into a condition where sin already burdens us — not as guilt for a past event, but as part of our starting point in nothingness. The Fall is not “back then,” but is the ongoing process of wrestling with the pull of nothingness as we freely move toward God, which is exactly what it means to be a spiritual being.

***

The Climb from the Hollow

In the beginning, there was no beginning.
Ermias opened his eyes in a vast, dim hollow. No sun, no stars; only a faint glow far above, like the hint of a dawn. He did not remember falling here; he simply found himself at the bottom, his feet in the dust.

He stood. Something inside him whispered: Up there is your home.
Not a command, but an invitation.

The climb was hard. The walls were steep in some places, treacherous in others, and the dust clung to him, weighing him down. It whispered, You come from me. Stay. It pulled at his ankles, reminding him how easy it would be to stop.

Ermias kept climbing.
Not because he was told to, not because he feared punishment, but because the faint light above called to him. The higher he climbed, the stronger the light, and the lighter his steps.

Still, the dust never let go. Even when he could see the edge of the hollow, its pull was there, a quiet ache in his legs and longing in his chest. It was part of him, just as much as the light.

He understood:
He had not been pushed into the hollow long ago. He had always been here, and his life was the climb — the slow, free, deliberate rising from the nothingness of the dust toward the fullness of the light.

***

If we view the fall in this way, how does the life of Jesus guide us from nothingness to God?

Complete Surrender to God’s Purpose and Freedom from Nothingness:
- Jesus embodies complete surrender to God’s purpose, demonstrating the free intentionality required to move from nothingness toward divine union. His prayer in Gethsemane, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42), illustrates this active, free choice to embrace his divine end.
- Unlike every other human being, Jesus’ freedom was never bent inward toward self-assertion. Every choice He made aligned perfectly with the will of the Father, overcoming the pull of nothingness.
Incarnation as the Bridge from Nothingness to Infinity:
- The doctrine of the Incarnation (God becoming human in Jesus – John 1:14) illustrates the journey from nothingness to divine fullness. As fully human, Jesus shares in the creaturely condition of originating ex nihilo, yet as fully divine, he embodies the infinite end toward which all creatures are called.
- Jesus entered the same condition we inhabit—born into the finitude and vulnerability of human life, subject to temptation, pain, and mortality. By living our condition without turning inward, He shows that the journey from nothingness to God can be completed within human limits.
Overcoming Temptation as Resistance to Nothingness:
- The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13) symbolizes the rejection of the “residue of nothingness.” Satan’s temptations—material gain, power, and self-preservation—represent ways the creature might cling to autonomy or finite desires, resisting divine intentionality. Jesus’ refusal of these temptations demonstrates how to prioritize God’s will over the allure of nothingness.
- His temptations in the wilderness are the archetypal moment where the pull of “nothingness” tries to assert itself—through comfort, power, and self-display. Jesus answers each one with trust in the Father, refusing the shortcuts that would anchor Him in self-will.
Teachings as a Guide for Intentionality:
- Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), outline a way of life that orients the soul toward God. His emphasis on love, humility, forgiveness, and trust in God offers a roadmap for aligning one’s intentions with divine purpose.
- Jesus describes His very sustenance as obedience to God’s purpose—“My food is to do the will of Him who sent me, and to finish His work” (John 4:34), showcasing the opposite of clinging to self-sufficiency.
Crucifixion as the Ultimate Surrender:
- Jesus’ death on the cross (Mark 15:33-39, John 19:30) represents the ultimate act of self-emptying (kenosis), where he freely embraces the finitude and suffering inherent in creaturely existence. By accepting death, Jesus confronts the nothingness at the heart of human mortality and transforms it through his trust in God’s redemptive power.
- On the cross, Jesus fully experiences the consequence of our condition: mortality, weakness, and even the feeling of God’s absence. But instead of yielding to despair, He entrusts Himself entirely into the Father’s hands, reversing the “Fall” by freely surrendering to Him in suffering.
Resurrection as the Fulfillment of Divine End:
- The resurrection (Matthew 28:1-10, John 20:1-18) is the definitive triumph over nothingness, demonstrating that the journey from ex nihilo to God culminates in eternal life. Jesus’ risen life shows that the creature’s free assent to God’s purpose leads to transformation beyond the limits of finitude.
- The resurrection is not just a miracle to prove divinity—it’s the completion of the passage from nothingness into the infinite. In Him, human life is lifted fully into God, body and soul, showing the destiny that awaits every spirit that freely assents.
Example for Practical Imitation:
- Jesus’ life provides concrete practices for moving toward God: prayer (e.g., the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew 6:9-13), service to others (John 13:1-17), and sacrificial love (John 15:13). These actions reflect a life oriented toward divine intentionality, showing how everyday choices can resist nothingness and grow toward God.
- Jesus’ whole life shows what it looks like when created spirit fully grows into its “last end”—unbroken union with God, serving as the pattern and pioneer of what it means for created spirit to complete the climb from the Hollow to the Summit.

The Natural and Gnomic Will

The following is a cleaned up transcript from the above video (starting at 25:51)…

Think of it this way: one way of understanding Jesus as the Incarnate Son of God, as Maximus says, is that in most human beings, there is the natural will. In all rational creatures, there’s the natural will, which spontaneously desires only God and chooses only God because that’s its true end. To the degree that we’re separate from God, we have a deliberative or gnomic will, the psychological will that can make errors, go in the wrong direction, and do sinful things. Jesus, according to Maximus, doesn’t have a gnomic will, not because He lacks the capacity for deliberation, but because He’s so perfectly, fully, truly one with the Father and is Himself the Son that there’s no division between who He is essentially and who He is psychologically and empirically. There’s no space of separation. Human beings are called to become like that, utterly transparent before Christ to the presence of Christ in them in the Holy Spirit. As Paul says in First Corinthians 15, God becomes all in all, not just all over all, but all in all.

Here is an expansion on what David Bentley Hart said…

1. The Natural Will in Rational Creatures

Hart begins by referencing Maximus’s concept of the natural will (Greek: thelema physikon). According to Maximus, the natural will is an inherent faculty in all rational creatures—humans, angels, and other spiritual beings—that spontaneously orients them toward their ultimate end: God. This will is not deliberative or subject to choice in the way we typically understand decision-making; it is an intrinsic, ontological drive toward the good, the true, and the beautiful, which Maximus (and Hart) identifies as God Himself. The natural will is rooted in the idea that rational creatures are created in the image of God (imago Dei), and their deepest desire, by nature, is to be united with their divine source.

Expansion: The natural will reflects Maximus’s broader metaphysical framework, where creation is inherently oriented toward God as its telos (purpose or end). This aligns with the Christian patristic tradition, particularly the Eastern emphasis on theosis (deification), where the purpose of human existence is to participate fully in the divine life. Hart emphasizes that this desire for God is not a conscious choice but a fundamental aspect of what it means to be a rational being. It’s why Augustine’s famous phrase, “Our hearts are restless till they rest in you,” resonates here (mentioned earlier in the video at 4:25–4:32). The natural will is the “restless heart” seeking its fulfillment in God.

2. The Gnomic Will and Human Separation

Hart contrasts the natural will with the gnomic will (Greek: thelema gnomikon), which Maximus describes as a deliberative or discursive mode of willing. The gnomic will arises because humans, in their fallen state, are separated from God. This separation introduces a psychological and empirical dimension to human willing, where choices are made through deliberation, often leading to errors or sin. The gnomic will is not inherently evil but is a consequence of human freedom in a state of estrangement from God, where individuals can choose against their natural end (God) due to ignorance, temptation, or misdirection.

Expansion: The concept of the gnomic will is central to Maximus’s Christology and anthropology. In Maximus’s view, the fall fractured human nature, introducing a tension between the natural will (which always desires God) and the gnomic will (which can choose otherwise). This is why humans can act against their own ultimate good, choosing lesser goods or sinful paths. Hart’s point is that the gnomic will is a temporary condition, a product of the “space of separation” between humans and God. This separation is not ontological in the sense of altering human nature’s essence but experiential, resulting from the fall and the limitations of human perception and freedom in this world.

3. Jesus and the Absence of the Gnomic Will

Hart explains that, according to Maximus, Jesus, as the Incarnate Son of God, does not possess a gnomic will. This is not because Jesus lacks the capacity for deliberation—He is fully human and thus capable of human reasoning and choice—but because His human nature is perfectly united with His divine nature. In Jesus, there is no division between who He is essentially (His divine and human natures united in the hypostatic union, as defined by Chalcedonian Christology) and who He is psychologically and empirically (His lived experience as a human being). Jesus’s human will is perfectly aligned with the divine will, so there is no need for a deliberative, gnomic process that could lead to error or sin.

Expansion: Maximus developed this idea in response to the Monothelite controversy (7th century), which debated whether Jesus had one will (divine) or two (divine and human). Maximus argued for dyothelitism—that Jesus has both a divine will and a human will, but the human will operates without the gnomic mode because it is perfectly attuned to the divine. This is critical for Maximus’s soteriology: Jesus’s perfect unity of wills demonstrates the possibility of human nature being restored to its intended state, where the natural will fully governs without the interference of a gnomic will prone to error. Hart’s reference to “no division” reflects the Chalcedonian principle of the hypostatic union, where Jesus’s two natures (divine and human) are united without confusion, change, division, or separation. In Jesus, the human will is “transparent” to the divine, embodying the goal of human deification.

4. Human Destiny: Becoming Transparent to Christ

Hart extends this Christological insight to human destiny, stating that humans are called to become like Jesus—utterly transparent to the presence of Christ within them through the Holy Spirit. This transparency means aligning the human will with the natural will’s orientation toward God, eliminating the gnomic will’s tendency to err. In this state, humans become fully united with God, participating in the divine life (theosis), where their individuality is not erased but fulfilled.

Expansion: This idea of “transparency” draws on Maximus’s theology of deification, where the human person, through grace and the work of the Holy Spirit, becomes a perfect reflection of the divine Logos (Christ). The term “transparent” suggests a state where the human self is no longer opaque or obstructive to God’s presence but allows the divine light to shine through fully. This aligns with the Eastern Christian emphasis on theosis as the fulfillment of human nature, not its annihilation. Hart’s earlier discussion in the video (around 22:24–25:00) about becoming “uncreated” clarifies that this does not mean annihilation but becoming fully united with the uncreated God, sharing in His nature while retaining personal identity. The analogy of a prism’s facets (27:33–28:24) illustrates this: each facet (individual person) remains distinct, but the light (God) shines through all, uniting them in one divine reality.

5. First Corinthians 15: God Becomes All in All

Hart concludes this section by referencing Paul’s statement in First Corinthians 15:28, where God becomes “all in all” (panta en pasin). This is the culmination of the apokatastasis (universal restoration), where all creation is reconciled to God, not merely ruled over (“all over all”) but fully indwelt by God. This underscores Hart’s broader argument in the video (e.g., 21:15–21:28, 27:26–27:33) that Christian eschatology points to universal salvation, where all rational beings are deified, becoming fully united with God’s presence.

Expansion: In First Corinthians 15, Paul describes the resurrection and the ultimate subjection of all things to Christ, who then subjects Himself to the Father, so that God may be “all in all.” For Maximus and Hart, this is not a coercive domination but a transformative union where every rational creature’s natural will is fully realized, free from the distortions of the gnomic will. This ties into Hart’s rejection of the Thomistic “two-tier” view (2:50–9:01), which posits a natural end for humans separate from the supernatural. Instead, Hart and Maximus see human nature as inherently oriented toward deification, with no ultimate separation between nature and grace. The phrase “all in all” suggests a cosmic restoration where every aspect of creation—mineral, vegetable, animal, and human (18:48–18:56)—is transfigured, participating in God’s eternal life. This is why Hart emphasizes universal salvation in That All Shall Be Saved (mentioned at 21:15–21:21), arguing it is the only logical outcome of Christian eschatology.

6. Context in the Video

This passage (around 25:57–27:33) is part of Hart’s broader discussion of deification and the rejection of a nature-supernature dichotomy. Earlier, he critiques the Thomistic view that separates natural and supernatural ends (2:50–9:01), arguing it creates a “psychotic picture of reality” (20:32) where grace is arbitrary and disconnected from human nature. He contrasts this with the Eastern patristic view, including Maximus, where nature and grace are continuous, and human destiny is to become “uncreated” by participating in God’s life (21:47–25:00). The discussion of Jesus’s will and human transparency to Christ builds on this, showing how Christ’s incarnation models the human calling to deification, where the natural will is fully realized in union with God.

7. Broader Implications

Hart’s exposition has several implications:

Christology and Anthropology: Jesus’s lack of a gnomic will demonstrates the potential for human nature to be restored to its original purpose. Humans are called to overcome the gnomic will’s errors through grace, becoming like Christ in their unity with God.
Universal Salvation: The reference to “all in all” supports Hart’s argument for universal salvation, where all rational creatures achieve this transparency, fulfilling their natural will’s desire for God.
Eastern vs. Western Theology: Hart aligns with Eastern Orthodox theology (Cappadocian Fathers, Maximus, Pseudo-Dionysius) over Western Thomistic distinctions, emphasizing a monistic metaphysics where God is the ground of all being (11:36–13:19).
Practical Spirituality: Becoming “transparent” to Christ suggests a spiritual path of aligning one’s will with God’s through prayer, contemplation, and participation in the life of the Holy Spirit, a theme resonant in Eastern Christian mysticism.

Conclusion

Hart, through Maximus, presents Jesus as the paradigm of human destiny: a being whose human will is perfectly aligned with the divine, free from the deliberative errors of the gnomic will. Humans are called to this same unity, becoming transparent to Christ’s presence within them, culminating in the eschatological vision of First Corinthians 15, where God becomes “all in all.” This reflects Hart’s broader theological project of rejecting artificial distinctions between nature and grace, advocating for a monistic metaphysics where all creation is destined for deification, supporting his case for universal salvation. The passage encapsulates a vision of human fulfillment not as annihilation but as a transformative union with God, retaining personal identity while fully participating in the divine life.