Perichoresis and Personhood

God, Christ, and Salvation in John of Damascus

Twombly

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781630879075
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Perichoresis (mutual indwelling) is a concept used extensively in the so-called Trinitarian revival; and yet no book-length study in English exists probing how the term actually developed in the "classical period" of Christian doctrine and how it was carefully deployed in relation to Christian dogma. Consequently, perichoresis is often used in imprecise and even careless ways.This path-breaking study aims at placing our understanding of the term on firmer footing, clarifying its actual usage in relation to doctrines of God, Christ, and salvation in the thought of John of Damascus, the eighth-century theologian, monk, and hymn writer who gave it its historically influential application.Since John summed up a whole theological tradition, this work provides not only an introduction to his theological vision but also to the key themes of Greek patristic thought generally and thereby lays an essential foundation for those who would dig deeper into the present-day usefulness of perichoresis.

1

Introduction

This study attempts a close examination of how a key theological term, perichoresis, functions in the thought of John of Damascus (c. 675–c. 749). Perichoresis, which has variously been rendered in English as “interpenetration,” “coinherence,” “mutual indwelling,” and “mutual immanence,” gained classical expression in John’s writings, especially his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Ekdosis Akribas tas Orthodoxou Pisteos), frequently referred to by its Latin name, De Fides Orthodoxa. Since the eighth century, it has exercised an almost continous influence on both Trinitarian and christological discussion and, in our day, has played a crucial role in the theologies of Karl Barth and Jürgen Moltmann.1

Ironically, given both the persistent use of perichoresis in doctrinal discussion and the frequent appeal to John of Damascus as a primary source for the word, few scholars have attempted to probe the language of mutual indwelling in terms of its historical usages. More surprising, given John’s ongoing importance as a shaper of theological traditions, is the virtual absence of full-scale studies of his particular employment of perichoresis.2

It might be asked at the outset why the term has persisted. Our concluding chapter will offer a few brief suggestions by way of an answer to that question, but the bulk of the present work has the weightier task of carefully tracking the various ways perichoresis works in the overall pattern of the thought of John Damascene to illuminate his understanding of God, Christ, and salvation. All three of these loci, at least in their classical patristic forms, entail notions of mutual indwelling. An exacting study of John’s use of perichoresis should not only help us gain clarity about the term itself but should aid us in grasping in more penetrating ways his manner of setting forth three crucial doctrines.

But why study John of Damascus? The question does not automatically answer itself since assessments of John have varied widely.3 Nearly all, however, acknowledge the important role he plays in theological history. His monumental work, The Fount of Knowledge (Paga Gnoseos or Fons Scientiae), of which The Orthodox Faith forms the third and most important part, is one of the few efforts at systematization in the Christian East in patristic times. Not only did it establish a model for a kind of scholastic articulation of doctrine, in both the East and the West, but it also summed up the Chalcedonian tradition as it developed in the nearly three centuries after the Fourth Council.

This harvesting of one strand of ancient Christian thought is important for at least three reasons. First of all, it helps to place the earlier christological controversies in truer perspective. It is a common mistake to see the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) as the end of the debates about Christ’s person, but it obviously settled very little.4 The ensuing centuries saw the Chalcedonian majority within the Byzantine Empire, along with various emperors, struggling to bring monophysites back into communion with the Empire and the Great Church.5 Out of those struggles came terminological developments that offered solutions to problems left over from earlier councils. John lays these solutions out in clear and comprehensive ways, thereby greatly aiding those who would assess their worth.

John Damascene’s achievement deserves continuing study for a second reason. Very little is known of the details of his life, but what can be established reveals a person whose thought developed in the midst of momentous historical circumstances.6 John was part of a Christian family, the Mansurs, highly placed in the service of the Muslim Caliph of Damascus only a few generations after the death of Muhammed and the relations between Christians and Muslims were not intensely hostile, if not entirely cordial. He seems to have inherited his father’s position but, at some point, renounced the world to enter the famous Palestinian monastery of St Sabas (Mar Saba), where Cosmas the Elder, his spiritual father, had preceded him.

There, John poured out a stream of writings, all of which are of continuing interest. Polemics against Islam (and Muhammed in particular), monophysites, and iconoclasts stand next to homilies on the Theotokos and liturgical hymns marked by richness and depth. These, along with The Fount of Knowledge, reveal a man working in a context of tremendous religious and theological pluralism. They also manifest the ascetical and liturgical mileau of the last decades of John’s life. This background of pluralism and prayer needs to inform the approach of those who would interpret the seemingly formal and “scholastic” Fount. To read the Fount with this context in mind is to allow oneself to be caught up in the urgency and excitement, both historical and personal, of John’s time. More importantly, the bewildering complexity of John’s historical moment is, in many ways, like our own, so much so that John’s life and work can perhaps offer an instructive model for our own groping attempts to find a stable vision in the midst of our pluralistic world.

A third reason for giving close attention to John’s achievement is that depth and precision are so often lacking in the way classical doctrinal concepts are appropriated in contemporary theological discussion. All too frequently, traditional words and formulae are invoked in a manner that betrays little understanding of how they actually developed. John’s own precision enables us not only to grasp his thought but enter more deeply into his theological tradition as well. As regards perichoresis, the careful student can lay claim to a truer and stronger sense of its character in the context of classical doctrine.

The Fount of Knowledge provides the primary locus for the study that follows. In the Fount, one finds a whole universe of discourse mapped out and applied. The Philosophical Chapters (Dialectica), which make up the first of three parts, lay out the categories of being and its various sub-forms in obvious dependence upon Aristotle and his later commentators.7 Along with precise delineations of words such as substance, accidence, genus, species, we find discussions of such terms as nature, hypostasis, and union, which continued into the eighth century and beyond to have christological import both in Chalcedonian and in other churches, whether monophysite or Nestorian. John’s explication of these words lays the groundwork for his exposition of The Orthodox Faith in the third part of the Fount.

Between the first and last parts of The Fount of Knowledge lies a catalogue, On Heresies (Liber de Haersibus), that, like much of the work as a whole, represents borrowings from earlier sources.8 What might appear almost as plagiarism to later generations was, for John and his contemporaries, a clear way of standing in continuity with the tradition that had been handed over by faithful teachers from one generation to the next. At least as far back as Cyril of Alexandria, three centuries earlier, pronouncements of recognized guides began to be compiled and used on behalf of controverted viewpoints.9 John’s aim, here as elsewhere, was rarely if ever that of originality.

The list of heresies reveals several interesting things. First, it gives graphic illustration of the pluralism spoken of above. Over a hundred heterodox groups are described, perhaps most of whom still had living embodiment in existing religious communities and were not, therefore, mere repetitions of ancient catalogues.10 Secondly, it gives clues as to which groups were of most pressing concern to John of Damascus. He provides only terse description to most of the heresies, but three receive extended comment: the Messalians or Euchites; the monophysites, whom he calls Egyptians and Schematics; and the Muslims, whom he refers to as Saracens and Ishmaelites.11 These latter groups represent some of the most notable aspects of John’s spiritual topography and give the student a glimpse of the character of the eastern Mediterranean world of the eighth century. Thirdly, the list provides an important prelude to John’s positive exposition of the faith by pointing out the quagmires and pitfalls he believes lie in wait for those who fail to heed the true tradi...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Perichoresis and the Trinity
• Chapter 3: Perichoresis and Christ
• Chapter 4: Perichoresis and Salvation
• Epilogue
• Bibliography