“In ‘The Book of the Holy Hierotheos’, we confront a provocative truth: the possibility of Commingling, a transformative union that transcends separation and reveals a Divine Mystery.”
Beezone
***
Divine Boundaries: Rethinking the Archetypal Separation of Human and Divine
By Beeozne
Introduction: How This Essay Came About
This essay emerged through my engagement with ‘Invitation to Syriac Christianity’, an anthology edited by Michael Philip Penn, Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, Christine Shepardson, and Charles M. Stang, published by the University of California Press in 2022. In particular, Chapter 6 on ‘Mysticism and Prayer’ captured my attention, especially the section discussing ‘Stephen bar Sudhaili’ and ‘The Book of the Holy Hierotheos’. The focal point of my exploration is the Fourth Discourse, Chapter 21: That the Mind Abandons the Name of Godhead. This section introduced me to the profound and provocative idea of “commingling” as a mystical union that challenges entrenched theological boundaries and invites a rethinking of the human-divine relationship. The insights gleaned from this text inspired me to delve deeper into the interplay between mysticism and doctrinal orthodoxy, resulting in the reflections presented here.
***
Introduction: An Archetype of Fear
“When all the blasphemies contained…writings were made manifest, we marvelled at the long-suffering of God, that the tongue and mind which had framed such blasphemies were not immediately consumed by the divine fire; and we never would have suffered the reader of the aforenamed blasphemies to proceed, fearing [as we did] the indignation of God…such blasphemies stood in need of the confusion which would come upon them through their manifestation. So that all of us, moved with indignation by these blasphemies against God…broke forth into denunciations and anathematisms…we cried, not even devils have dared to utter such things against thee.”
Second Council (Fifth Ecumenical Council), of Constantinople (553 CE)
For centuries, Western theology has clung to an archetype—a belief deeply embedded into its psyche—that the human and divine cannot fully “commingle.” (A transformative union where boundaries between human and divine dissolve into a shared essence. It transcends individuality, suggesting a state of oneness that challenges traditional Creator-creation distinctions.) This insistence on separation, upheld with both reverence and fear, has shaped not only religious thought but also the cultural psyche of the West. The boundary between Creator and creation has been defended with a ferocity that suggests more than mere theological prudence; it reveals an underlying fear of what might be lost if these distinctions were dissolved.
Yet, hidden within the mystical traditions of Christianity is a thread of thought that dares to challenge this separation. The Book of the Holy Hierotheos, an enigmatic Syriac text attributed to Stephen bar Sudhaili, contains passages that point to a radically different vision. The Fourth Discourse, in particular, introduces the concept of “commingling,” (mishtawfiyutha) a mystical union that blurs the boundaries between the human and divine in ways that resonate more with Eastern traditions than with the dogmatic rigidity of Western orthodoxy.
What if the early Church fathers’ resistance to commingling was not about preserving divine integrity but about protecting their own authority? This essay invites you to pause and reconsider how the archetype of separation emerged, why it persists, and what might be gained if we allowed ourselves to explore the mystical depths of commingling.
The Archetypal Divide
The archetype of separation between human and divine did not arise in a vacuum. It was forged in the crucible of theological debates and doctrinal conflicts. From the Council of Nicaea to the controversies over Gnosticism, Western Christianity repeatedly reinforced the Creator-creation distinction as a way to guard against perceived heresies. The insistence on this separation became not only a theological cornerstone but a cultural identity.
This emphasis on individuality and relational theology is central to the Western tradition. The human soul is seen as a distinct creation, lovingly designed by God, whose ultimate purpose is not to dissolve into the divine but to be perfected through grace and remain in eternal communion with the Creator. This relational dynamic, while rich in its own right, left little room for the kind of radical unity suggested by mystical traditions.
In contrast, Eastern traditions, particularly Hinduism and Buddhism, readily embrace the idea that the self is an illusion and that ultimate liberation comes from dissolving into the divine. This fundamental difference in how the human-divine relationship is understood has profound implications for the development of religious and mystical thought.
The Book of the Holy Hierotheos: A Mystical Rebellion
Amid this Western framework, The Book of the Holy Hierotheos stands as a quiet but profound rebellion. The Fourth Discourse introduces the concept of commingling, a mystical union where the boundaries between human and divine dissolve into a shared essence. This is not a naive pantheism but a deeply experiential insight into the nature of divine reality.
The text suggests that the human soul, in its journey toward God, must abandon even the highest names and attributes of the divine. In this abandonment, the soul does not merely unify with God in a relational sense but enters into a state of transformative union that defies the Creator-creation divide. Such ideas were undoubtedly provocative, if not outright heretical, to the theological authorities of the time.
This tension is illustrated by figures like Hypatius of Ephesus, an influential bishop and defender of orthodoxy at the Second Council (Fifth Ecumenical Council), of Constantinople (553 CE). Hypatius vehemently criticized writings associated with Neoplatonism and Origenism, which blurred the distinction between Creator and creation. He condemned such texts, including those of Pseudo-Dionysius, for promoting ideas that seemed dangerously close to pantheism. By extension, Stephen bar Sudhaili’s mystical teachings, which emphasized “commingling,” would have faced similar opposition, reinforcing their marginalization.
Fear and Institutional Control
Why was commingling so fiercely resisted? At its core, the rejection of commingling reveals a fear—not only of theological error but of losing control. Theological boundaries served as bulwarks against chaos, ensuring that doctrine remained clear and authority unchallenged. To embrace commingling would have been to surrender these boundaries and risk the dissolution of the institutional structures that relied on them.
This fear manifested in centuries of religious and political conflict, where boundaries were defended with zeal. Yet, this insistence on separation may have done more to obscure than to reveal the divine mystery. The rejection of commingling can be seen as a failure to fully trust the transformative power of divine union, clinging instead to the safety of distinction.
Eastern Openness: A Contrast of Mystical Courage
In stark contrast, Eastern traditions approach the human-divine relationship with a mystical courage that Western traditions often lack. Advaita Vedanta, for example, teaches that the individual self (jivatman) is not separate from the ultimate reality (Brahman). Liberation comes from realizing this oneness, dissolving the illusion of individuality. Similarly, Buddhist notions of anatta (no-self) encourage the transcendence of ego and the embrace of unity.
Syriac mystics, including Stephen bar Sudhaili, seem to have glimpsed this Eastern openness. Their writings suggest a longing to articulate a vision of divine union that transcends Western boundaries. Yet, their insights were resisted, leaving a legacy of separation rather than unity.
A Call for Reconsideration
What might have been gained if early Church authorities had allowed for a fuller exploration of commingling? Could the Christian tradition have embraced a deeper understanding of human-divine unity, one that bridges the divide between East and West? These questions challenge us to reconsider not only our theological assumptions but the cultural fears that underlie them.
The concept of commingling invites us to move beyond egoic boundaries and institutional control. It calls us to embrace the mystery of divine union, not as a threat but as an invitation to transformation. Revisiting texts like The Book of the Holy Hierotheos offers a way forward, a path toward rediscovering the profound unity at the heart of all spiritual traditions.
Conclusion: Beyond Boundaries
Perhaps the greatest heresy is not the dissolution of boundaries but the refusal to imagine what lies beyond them. In clinging to separation, have we limited not only our theology but also our capacity to experience the divine?
It is not too late to reconsider. Mystical texts like The Book of the Holy Hierotheos beckon us to a profound union—not a compromise of integrity, but an embrace of mystery. By revisiting these insights, we may yet find a way to transcend fear and division, uncovering the shared truth that lies at the heart of the human and divine relationship.
Bibliography
- Penn, Michael Philip, Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, Christine Shepardson, and Charles M. Stang, eds.
Invitation to Syriac Christianity. University of California Press, 2022.- A foundational text that includes The Book of the Holy Hierotheos and explores key themes in Syriac mysticism and prayer.
- Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.
The Mystical Theology and The Divine Names. Translated by Colm Luibheid. Paulist Press, 1987.- Essential reading on apophatic theology and the ineffable nature of God.
- Stephen bar Sudhaili.
The Book of the Holy Hierotheos: Theosis and Mystical Union in Syriac Christianity. Edited by Sebastian Brock, translated by Syriac scholars.- A critical edition and analysis of the key text discussed in your essay.
- Turner, Denys.
The Darkness of God: Negativity in Christian Mysticism. Cambridge University Press, 1998.- Explores the apophatic tradition in Western mysticism, providing context for the rejection of “commingling.”
- Frothingham, Arthur L.
Stephen Bar Sudaili and the Book of Hierotheos. The American Journal of Theology, 1901.- A historical and theological analysis of Stephen bar Sudhaili’s work, providing early scholarly perspectives on his mystical insights.
- Eliot, Charles W.
Mysticism East and West. Princeton University Press, 1987.- A comparative study of Eastern and Western mystical traditions, highlighting their differing approaches to divine union.
- King, Richard.
Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought. Edinburgh University Press, 1999.- A helpful overview of non-dual traditions in Eastern philosophy for contrasting with Western theological frameworks.
- Wilber, Ken.
The Spectrum of Consciousness. Quest Books, 1996.- A modern exploration of how mystical traditions from East and West perceive the relationship between self and divine.
- Lossky, Vladimir.
The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1957.- A deep dive into Eastern Orthodox approaches to theosis, which contrasts with the concept of “commingling.”
- Chittick, William C.
The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-Arabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination. State University of New York Press, 1989.- An exploration of mystical unity in Sufism, providing a Middle Eastern parallel to themes in The Book of the Holy Hierotheos.