Proto-Heresies: Clement of Alexandria on Psalm 82:6

Reading Clement of Alexandria is a challenge. Wading through issues of Platonism and Neo-Platonism along with other ideas like the eternal humanity of the LOGOS. Reading: M. David Litwa "You are Gods": Deification in the Naassene Writer and Clement of Alexandria," Harvard Theological Review, 110:1 (2017): 125-48.

For the Naassene author, the mediate deity is Human and serves as the archetype
of humanity (Ref. 5.7.7). For Clement, the Logos became human (ἄνθρωπος
γενόμενος) not only in his incarnation, but “in the Beginning” (ἐν Ἀρχῇ) (Exc.
19.1 [SC 23:92]). Thus—although the primal God is not called Human—there is
fundamental agreement on the mediate god’s eternal humanity.

For Clement, the Logos becomes historically human in his incarnation (e.g.,
Paed. [VCSup 61:16.1–2]). The incarnation is not an ontological, but a
pedagogical necessity: “The Logos of God became human so that you also may
learn from a human being how on earth a human may become a god” (Protr. 8.4
[VCSup 34:15.30–32]; cf. Paed. Clement is referring to Jesus as a model
of asceticism and of the deified (i.e., passionless) life. The Logos, by assuming
flesh, instructed it in the condition of passionlessness (Strom.; cf.
For the Naassene writer, the Logos also meets humanity in the fleshly Jesus, son
of Mary. All three forms of the mediate deity inhabit Jesus, although the nature of
this inhabitation is not entirely clear (Ref. 5.6.7). Litwa, page 13 in PDF

If your willing to overlook the Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels (Walter Bauer) point of view M. David Litwa is somewhat helpful.
Last edited:
Let us take a look at the primary sources to see if Clement of Alexandria actually held the view that the Logos was eternally human.

19 “And the Logos became flesh” not only by becoming man at his Advent [on earth], but also “at the beginning” the essential Logos became a son by circumscription and not in essence. And again he became flesh when he acted through the prophets. And the Saviour is called an offspring of the essential Logos; therefore, “in the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God” and “that which came into existence in him was life” and life is the Lord. And when Paul says, “Put on the new man created according to God” it is as if he said, Believe on him who was “created” by God, “according to God,” that is, the Logos in God. And “created according to God” can refer to the end of advance which man will reach, as does. . . he rejected the end for which he was created. And in other passages he speaks still more plainly and distinctly: “Who is an image of the invisible God”; then he goes on, “First-Born of all creation.” For he calls the Logos of the essential Logos “an image of the invisible God,” but “First-Born of all creation.” Having been begotten without passion he became the creator and progenitor of all creation and substance, for by him the Father made all things. Wherefore it is also said that he “received the form of a servant,” which refers not only to his flesh at the advent, but also to his substance, which he derived from its underlying reality, for substance is a slave, inasmuch as it is passive and subordinate to the active and dominating, cause.

Excerpta ex Theodoto (from the writings of Clement of Alexadria)

"Extracts from the Works of Theodotus and the So-Called Oriental Teachings at the Time of Valentinus"

This is the English text of the Greek-English version of the Excerpta Ex Theodoto prepared by Robert Pierce Casey, The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria (Studies and Documents 1; London: Christophers, 1934), 40-91. (The text was initial transcribed for the internet by Andrew Criddle; further minor corrections were made to this transcription by Lance Owens in October 2013.)
1 »Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο«, οὐ κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν μόνον ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ ἐν ταὐτότητι λόγος, κατὰ περιγραφὴν καὶ οὐ κατ οὐσίαν γενόμενος [ὁ] υἱός. 2 καὶ πάλιν σὰρξ ἐγένετο διὰ προφητῶν ἐνεργήσας· τέκνον δὲ τοῦ ἐν ταὐτότητι λόγου ὁ σωτὴρ εἴρηται· διὰ τοῦτο »ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν· 3 ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ, ζωή ἐστιν«· ζωὴ δὲ ὁ κύριος. καὶ ὁ Παῦλος »ἔνδυσαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα«. οἷον εἰς αὐτὸν πίστευσον τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ »κατὰ θεόν«, τὸν ἐν θεῷ λόγον, κτισθέντα. δύναται δὲ τὸ »κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα« τὸ εἰς ὃ μέλλει τέλος προκοπῆς φθάνειν ὁ ἄνθρωπος μηνύειν ἐπ ἴσης τῷ »ἀπόλαβε τὸ εἰς ὃ ἐκτίσθης τέλος«· 4 καὶ ἔτι σαφέστερον καὶ διαρρήδην ἐν ἄλλοις λέγει· »ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου·« εἶτα ἐπιφέρει· »πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως.« »ἀοράτου« μὲν γὰρ »θεοῦ εἰκόνα« τὸν υἱὸν λέγει τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἐν ταὐτότητι, »πρωτότοκον δὲ πάσης κτίσεως«, ὅτι γεννηθεὶς ἀπαθῶς, κτίστης καὶ γενεσιάρχης τῆς ὅλης ἐγένετο κτίσεώς τε καὶ οὐσίας. ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν. 5 ὅθεν καὶ »μορφὴν δούλου λαβεῖν« εἴρηται, οὐ μόνον τὴν σάρκα κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ἐκ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου, δούλη δὲ ἡ οὐσία, ὡς ἂν παθητὴ καὶ ὑποκειμένη τῇ δραστηρίῳ καὶ κυριωτάτῃ αἰτίᾳ.
Last edited:
Having survived five undergrad courses in philosophy in the late '60s doesn't qualify you to talk about Plato or Neo-Platonism. Clement of Alexandria is saying something about the Logos here which will be misconstrued by the uninitiated. Perhaps he is claiming the Logos is the archetype of Humanity. If that doesn't make sense to you, then you're in good company. The great christological controversy wasn't up to speed when Clement was writing. This project turned out to be a rabbit trail that didn't need to be explored. Everything I found on eternal humanity pointed to a period down stream of Clement.
Clement appears to be addressing his critics who don't approve of his engagement with pagan philosophy. He claims that Jesus used logic and semantics against the Devil when he was being tested in the desert. Clement follows with some reflection on the Holy Spirit, knowledge and reason argument with regard to the prophets and apostolic authors.

Clemens Alexandrinus Stromata 1.9.44-45

And how necessary is it for him who desires to be partaker of the power of God, to treat of intellectual subjects by philosophising! And how serviceable is it to distinguish expressions which are ambiguous, and which in the Testaments are used synonymously! For the Lord, at the time of His temptation, skilfully matched the devil by an ambiguous expression. And I do not yet, in this connection, see how in the world the inventor of philosophy and dialectics, as some suppose, is seduced through being deceived by the form of speech which consists in ambiguity.

And if the prophets and apostles knew not the arts by which the exercises of philosophy are exhibited, yet the mind of the prophetic and instructive spirit, uttered secretly, because all have not an intelligent ear, demands skilful modes of teaching in order to clear exposition. For the prophets and disciples of the Spirit knew infallibly their mind. For they knew it by faith, in a way which others could not easily, as the Spirit has said. But it is not possible for those who have not learned to receive it thus. Write, it is said, the commandments doubly, in counsel and knowledge, that you may answer the words of truth to them who send unto you. What, then, is the knowledge of answering? Or what that of asking? It is dialectics. What then? Is not speaking our business, and does not action proceed from the Word? For if we act not for the Word, we shall act against reason. But a rational work is accomplished through God. And nothing, it is said, was made without Him— the Word of God. John 1:3

Πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον περὶ νοητῶν φιλοσοφοῦντα διαλαβεῖν τὸν ἐπιποθοῦντα τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως ἐπήβολον γενέσθαι; πῶς δὲ οὐχὶ καὶ διαιρεῖσθαι χρήσιμον τάς τε ἀμφιβόλους φωνὰς τάς τε ὁμωνύμως ἐκφερομένας κατὰ τὰς διαθήκας; παρ´ ἀμφιβολίαν γὰρ ὁ κύριος τὸν διάβολον κατὰ τὸν τοῦ πειρασμοῦ σοφίζεται χρόνον, καὶ οὐκέτι ἔγωγε ἐνταῦθα συνορῶ, ὅπως ποτὲ ὁ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ τῆς διαλεκτικῆς εὑρετής, ὥς τινες ὑπολαμβάνουσιν, παράγεται τῷ κατ´ ἀμφιβολίαν ἀπατώμενος τρόπῳ.

Εἰ δὲ οἱ προφῆται καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι οὐ τὰς τέχνας ἐγνώκεσαν, δι´ ὧν τὰ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν ἐμφαίνεται γυμνάσματα, ἀλλ´ ὁ νοῦς γε τοῦ προφητικοῦ καὶ τοῦ διδασκαλικοῦ πνεύματος ἐπικεκρυμμένως λαλούμενος διὰ τὸ μὴ πάντων εἶναι τὴν συνιεῖσαν ἀκοήν, τὰς ἐντέχνους ἀπαιτεῖ πρὸς σαφήνειαν διδασκαλίας. Ἀσφαλῶς γὰρ ἐγνώκεσαν τὸν νοῦν ἐκεῖνον οἱ προφῆται καὶ οἱ τοῦ πνεύματος μαθηταί· ἐκ γὰρ πίστεως καὶ ὡς οὐχ οἷόν τε ῥᾳδίως γνῶναι τὸ πνεῦμα εἴρηκεν, ἀλλ´ οὐχ οὕτως 〈ὡς〉 ἐκδέξασθαι μὴ μεμαθηκότας. « Τὰς δὲ ἐντολάς», φησίν, «ἀπόγραψαι δισσῶς βουλήσει καὶ γνώσει τοῦ ἀποκρίνασθαι λόγους ἀληθείας τοῖς προβαλλομένοις σοι.» Τίς οὖν ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ ἀποκρίνασθαι; ἥτις καὶ τοῦ ἐρωτᾶν· εἴη δ´ ἂν αὕτη διαλεκτική. Τί δ´; οὐχὶ καὶ τὸ λέγειν ἔργον ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ ποιεῖν ἐκ τοῦ λόγου γίνεται; εἰ γὰρ μὴ λόγῳ πράττοιμεν, ἀλόγως ποιοῖμεν ἄν. Τὸ λογικὸν δὲ ἔργον κατὰ θεὸν ἐκτελεῖται· « Καὶ οὐδὲν χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,» φησί, τοῦ λόγου τοῦ θεοῦ. Source