THE USE AND ABUSE

OF P
1N RECENT nmoCo~
~ lio~ls
by Randall E. Otto

P
ERICHO
. RESIS (peridwresis,
ci rcumincessio) is a theol
te nn w hi ch d es cr ib es .
th e 'n ecessary being-in-o
o r ci rc u m in ce ss io n of ne-a:!lhcal
th e th re e divine Persons
T ri ni ty be ca us e of th of th~
e si ng le di vi ne esse nc
ce ss io n of th e So n fr e, the eternal pro-
om th e Fa th e r an d of
Fa th er an d {t hr ou gh the Spirit from the
) th e So n , a nd th e fa
Pe rson s ar c di~li ngt1i~ ct that the three
hcd so lely by th e re latio
be twee n th em : • T hi ns of opposition
s term was p o pu la ri
ce nt u ry by J oh n of D ze d in the eighth
am as cu s wh o, in his De
th e th re e Pe rs on s of fide orthodoxa, said
th e T ri ni ty 'a re m ad e
co m m in gle. bu t so as on e not so as to
to cl eave to ea ch ot he
th ei r be in g in ea ch o th r, and they have
e r [kai ten en allelais pe
an y co al esce nc e or co richoresin] with?ut
m m in gl in g. ' 2 T hi s im
te rm , w hi ch Karl B ar th po rt an t theological
ri gh tly re ga rd ed 'a s th
fo rm of th e di al ec tic re e on e important
qu ir ed to co m pl et e th
in -o ne ne ss ' 'fr om th e e conceptof'three~
si de of th e un ity of th
an d 'fr om th e si de of e divine essenc~
th e or ig in al re la tio ns 3
so m e re ce nt th eo lo gy ' has suffered Ul
l . a1· fr om its ap pr op ri ~t io
r~ a_uon tty ap ar t fr om n to descri~e
m ut ua lly sh ar ed be in g. I m
his infl~ential social do Fo
ct ri ne of th e Tr in ity , Ju r examp e,
emphasizes th e 're la tio rg en Molon~n
s na l, perichoretica11y co
processe ' of th e th re e ns um m at ed life
re du. ce d to th Pe rs on s w ho 'c an no t
an d must not be
subject , whosere e m o d es of be in g of on e
' · '
unity an d th e same d"1v·in e
ca nn ot an d m us t no t be
se en in a genera l
I 'P .
e n c h o r esi s '
Yo rg rim l e1·; N e w Yo D · , ·
2 Jo h 11 f D r/c ~~ n m y oj d
0
a m as . I oss roa . Tl h98 eol ogy (2 nd e dn ; e
7 ) 37 7 d. Ka rl Ra hn e r H
3·K arl Ba nh , Chi~;~~; D er b ert
D: ~ de _? rth od oxa l•:8, · •
PG 9 4 .8 29A
'lfl tat ics 1/ 1 (E din
bu r g h : T& T Cl ar k,
19 36 ), 42 5- 6.
36 6
 I Ht CS E AND AB U
SE OF'p
IN REcE.r-..,- Tln:o~CliC)l)"
0Gy ''t~l~
by Raodait E. Otto

P
tfU< J ''°J!fJ. , , ~ ( pni.£hnrt~u..
rim ,,,. · •
-~ ~ h d
term .-u1 c ex.nl>es the ·nece~~'"~
• ~ . arv ,..._.•o). is. 'a th eo\01),
.. '-K:'tng-m~n ~ ta\
, . . . ' " , ,r, um1n<"'~~Q_ n of lh_e _thre e divin; Perso~nother
J nnaty be, -tJU ~ o f the •tn fle dn-.ne es....~ nce tt, .~of the
. • e eternal
c·c~~ '"" ol the Son fr om tht' f dth cr .1nd of the
Fa1h r-t ;rnd ( 1hr out h) the S(on .•u,d th<' fact tha:
Prt ~,n~ ;,1" ,h 1n11ru,~t1, d 't()fc h ~ ch(' rcl;u
l:~~~'
Spir't f Pro.

jons of opposit' e
l )rtw~r" t,1 Jcm ~ • •t't...n•• cen t• -~ pt1p I .
u .,r11 cd in the eightionh
, rttU U) ' b) Jc1h11 ,Jf f ,~~~-.«u• "hu . ,n tu,1
/Jr f1tlt1 orthodoxa, said
the- ch trr l' <"f ~on~ m ~hr J no, t) ·~,~ nmdt one
not so as to \
,--011un•nJiitlt', but w:, .u u, , ll' :t,-c Iv ~ .ar h uth t r'. and
they have
1hci1 bci ni 01 ,~~ch uth ,t f i1,.Vh / ,eh ~m 11/11/ui, /H"riduwe.f
inl without
tlU )' < d .t1c~ rn, c ut I u 1nn uog lu11'· ·; ' flai
, i,np,,rta nt theological
l<'11U . which ~, t lltn h n1t uJ) rcg ard
td 'a" the one important
f(ll'l U llf du~<1i.tlN u1. ,cq uit cd 10 com
plt:tc the concept of 'thrce-
in-.._lnt'nrss · ·rrclnl 1hc \.Ide of du: unity of the divine
e~scnc~'
~u1d ·fr"Ont dlc side l)( tbe urig inaJ relations,,:, has
suJfore<l. in
son1e r~t"e-111 the-olo g) fro m iu app rop riat ion to
dcsc n~e
•~lation,tli~•apa n from murually sha red being. For
example, in
his infl uen tial social doc trin e of the Tri nity ,Jur gen
Moltma~n
etnph~tsizes the ·rel atio nal perichoreticaJJy con
summated hf~
proce-s..~s' of the three Persons wh o 'can not and
mu.st n~t-be
red uce d to thre e mo des of being of one and
the .same dwine
s· ub·~ect, · w h ose uni ty &can not and mu st not · age·neraJ
be see n Jn

\'o • -~er icho ~.sis..: Dictionary of Tlarol,ogJ ( 2nd

~ mler ; ~ e"· \ o rt Cros sroa d. 1987) :n- edn ; ed. Karl R.ahn er, f fttt,c r r
1
: J ? hn of D:in uscu _, Dr faJ., mtAodaz.a j
h:lrl &nh Chu p·c nA ~ ~
-8 • 7"1.,.0 ~"Jn..
• Tdt Dog .aba I J ( E.dio bur~ h : T&T 0;.r
l. 1'f~ J !t~ ,
366
 D ABUSE OF PER
os£. AN lCHORE.SlS
,r\-\f. c
3" 7
' 4 Wh
f •11 e sub stance. a t c a n p e n.ch o re si
di V1 . basis in o n d. • s me':ln a · .
,1t O
:11 it s e 1vine essence? " u it
,t:er d 1
i:-01 i-ce fro. us t' \\ ar e o t e r
h
..J,,,o ·e ct1n°_ . hs hi e sp , re c e n t u se s o f th e t
~ ,(01 . whi ea ks o f a m u tu a l p er e rm by
• , 1111111 • c
~\o ·tv an d unf1e ,ec ip
\01\,\ , 't h e
ro ca
.
l se
h
lf -d l
•
p e n c o re tl c c o n
c e p
ic h o re si s b"
t o f sp ace' "
'tw
ee n
,
\
ci1\\ i ce o r
t-l :i \ spa th ev e o p m e n as
t, ' a n d th . the
~1 f G od a n d e ld . '
w o r 1n m u tu a
~ eu·aU 011 o·m p \e m l peric:he inte
· r-
. f
f'\ nn's i en ta 'L'
u o n o i:.rnst B lo ,
or . ,.
~to\nll" . which Slu · 1 · c h s ontology esf1s . :i
1 b 3 ec t 1s n o t y e t i- lr edn r O t e
h
No
1 t-Yet, ~ as yet b u t ic at e1 m ea n s th
,\.,ing is ' o n ly will be in th
th e noetic-e~chatol
tlo-u~. ht'ich) fu tu
re, e p ro 3. ec te d . atl
~f5 chic i
ontic-histoncal th • 'h ' . l.') b k . w h ic h stands beyo ad
' istonsc,~ ' ehc. oh
e n d og 1c
n
u,e ti n hope o f n1ng tr an sf o rm at io
resell e p ro ~ u se w ic n of the
P ·t becolfie th e de d . c a n n o t b e finally re
\est i a , stat.le ep1p any . h alized
. ag . h ' hM l th in k in g of prese '
being ainst w ic l o tm a n n everywh er e . . nt
Mo\unann ac~ow_ e d " 1n veighs.0 Although
ges, ~~ the o~to_l .
esent is,' h e 1ns1sts og 1C
o n giving p n o n ty al sense, only what is
~ot yet,' believin_g to th e future which
th a t th is 'n o ~ -B ~ 'is
higher ontologically in g ,~ as 'potentialit
th a n re ah ty . ' T h y must be
\s non-ontological
stance
'M o\ tm an n, The Tr
inity anti th , Kingdo
17~. So also C o\ in E. m tSan Fr an ci sc o:
G un to n . w ho n\ ~\in H ar pe r & Row , 1981),
:ity
,. some se ns e "s ub
of G od's in te r- re
ed n· f. di nb ur gh :T
st an ce '" w hi \e ~
\a ti om an d ac tio
ta in s th at C od sh
•tt ad vo ca tin g
ou \d no t be un de rs
th e im po rt of peric
ns (. Th t Promise of ho res is
to od as
to the
& T C \a rk , \ 9971 Trinitarian Theology
. \ 98 (2nd
; M o\ un an n, The
Coming of God (.M in) .
ne ap ol is , MN: Fo
301,327, re sp ec tiv el rtr es s Press, 1996)
, 295,
y. .
6 ln hi st or y
(Hi.sl0 11 e) th e pa st ,s . d an d repr
te rm.m at.m g th e • d \1 · ob se rv ab le , she~-co~~1~Gee;chichte oducible,
pr on us e of th e ) which as
eschato\ogical is
no et ic an d ph en on
on 1. . al 1s to nc ,
'F ts ar e ne '
se \f- en do se d ev en om en ~l o? 'c · ve r experienced as
· h
ts , w h\ C h av e h d th ei r nm e, ac ments in the proces
\he h1. storv of pr om . a bu.t as m o s of
· , ,s . th ar
e. T ha t \S , ey e no t ex pe ne nc e d as "facts,, or "ma uers. of
.
fact, " be ca us e in
th es e ex pr es s,· on Greer,. -. co ne ep t of be in g 1s employe d ' ag ainst
. •se
which th e th in ki ng s a . e ra ge s. .. . "o fp 1o
Only in the ho nz m
of th e hi st or y of
prolmis_th Abstra : y become1 a•
and [u \f i.\ hn en t ar e . · ts ct ed fro m lh
h1 st on c. ev en de a t W \ · at, de
co \\e ct io n of de ad 'V er ku nd ig un g as 1 Problem : Ex '
egeses,·
fac.ts' (.Molunan
lnt , A••Jsiitz.e (M un Ka ise r, 1968). 11 -\) .
Pmpwt(iutn <kt· Th . G£ ,samm e e ic h: fCbh ~n - g 1
T he ve iv us e of tol.ogre: .. ,, "' of
to e1 ' ab.so\u1 enes~, ~d
th e im pl ie s a concepin ho pe
-, te rm fa~t .. . fu ed with pron~ . ,u
im m ut ab ili ty an .d fi na \ll. )', h1 ch re ses to be comb Hope lN ew 1sek· \-farpt·r &
fu tu re an d th er w .th "'h is to ry"' l Tl log y of '\:0 1_ .cl in " ..
,w t
ef or e ah o v.' l ieo ' keeps. the ho . g in1n .. .
•
Row l9c.'71 l 10 h e ot he r b1 11 N\ 01 t1n ;11 11,· _
s ,•1'.",
). Pr oi ni·se , on ·t ha nd ,, r·1bid ., \0 2)
, " , • ,-,n e· 'fil
ye t" w hi ch tr an sc e nd . al \ e) (.p en en ce an d hi s.tory , 'fi le Co I ,J op · e Tr
· i111t,11l~ t
s £. O tto , i <> • A n er in ,. l ~l) l) '·
.
of h1 st or y an d e~-c l,a to \o g) ', se e R an da \\ . Univ ersity p, ·es s iil • · ·
1L an ha n ,
1 M D-
\Ta.sion of Ju-rg~n ~, f ltt na tl II '
~
11'7 an d pa.ssun. • d 98
.r Go , - !l-7 ·
-; }, A o\ un an n, Th r c 0111 ir1g 01
 368 SC OT TIS H JO CR ~A L OF Tl-{
v Eotoc
up roo ts the ide a of pe ric ho res is
from .
be ing an d ren de rs the ter m meaningl
es.5 p •~ basis i
an on to logical basis for rel ati on s if the
. r~ . enc.horesis: shatt,1
me rely conceptual re la non 1...:
sllJ p. 1s to be em \I
a real a an11s
11d"••Ot
Th e Origin of Pe ric ho res is as a Theol
ogica1
. . Concept
Th e no un pen cho ren s an d the ve rb
perichoreo d .
PericJwrei,n, a wo rd lin ked to the Stoic con cept of m· erive from
di'holon, which me an s a co mp let e n1u ixture k
tuaJ interpene tra ~ 'a.sis
two substances tha t preserYes the ide nti
ty and properties in of
int act 8 In th e Sto ic ,·oc abuJarY. cho mn
' was often used to doe e~ch
thi s kind of mixing, so wh en Gr eg ory . .
Na~t~ ze n first usedscribthee
verb in th e fou rth cen tur y to ex pres.s
the 1numate communio
of the two nat ures of Ch ris t (Epistl, I
01). he probably used th~
compoun d form peri du, rri11 to express
the com/1/eteness of this
mutual interp ene tra tio n ."
In Gregory'$ EputJr, JOI. he uses pc
ri ch ore sis to describe
how the divine and htunan narur~s are
un ite d in Christ: 'Just
as th e na tu res art9 niix<!d (k, r,u n,,t 'no
n), so also th e names
pass reciproca lly (f1"1rl10ro11io11) int o t-:ac
h o th er by the principle
of this coalescence (r11 ,11pl1111as). ·•" This
inte rch ange is 'grounded
ont olo gic ally in the mu tua l in ter pe
ne tra tio n of natures.' 11
Perichoresis tl1 us sig nifies the attri bu
tio n of on e nature's pre-
~o?atives to the oth er, subseq ue ntl
y te rm ed communicatio
idiomatum, by virtue of the int erp
mingling, of the se nat ure s.
e n e tra tio n bu t not com-
'
8
Aug ust Den effe
term inol ogis che Unt er, ' Pe · h .
h nc ?re~ is, circ . . . . . . . .
um mc ess io, circ um inse ssJO. Ewe
532. Den effe also di· ..; sue . uhng, 7.eit
• schrift for katl wlis cM TMokJuie 47 (192
mut ual in-d well ing ·,Sun fr
gtus es a Stat i . 3), 497-
. c view of per ich ~- ' Of
d
~e ieval Wes t in th L . • om a dyn am · •· o resi s as ' co inh eren ce
ci~ . Jc mte rpe net • .
rau on ' a view refl ec ted in th e ·
sio; Mic haeleSchatm term s th
.
cum . .
Accor inces
din h" • e stat ,
ic circumi nses sio and the d ynam .
cent u g_to Im , circumi ncess.mau s, how eve r d . . ic
• a mits n o dtff
';1
Franki~h th _the spel ling cha n~: dw: eren ce betw een the terff l 5·
~uo rl in _~on ave ntu ra in the thir
9 Pete
r mSpire. ( KaLholische Dou--m,,, .kY[M e ~om te enth
B . ternrn er •p . t.·•~ 11
imc ans to circuminses.# o afte r the
e~ff sgeschich te (i Unt ch· M H
27 9 83enc h o rese . Zur C e sch · ax ~ub er, 196 0], 1:49
6).
11
PC 37.1 s1 c. L 9 -55 . ich te em es Beg riffs ,' Archiv/
_
Verna lia . ur
Quarterly 35 ( rnso n, 'Per icho r .
POrt ion • 1991 ) , 55. Ha .
0 . · e~Is In the Gre ek F ,
f this discussio n rnso n s artic l e
has pr ~dthers, St. Vladimir 's Tlun
. ovi ed th b . l=nt al
~£,·
e a, is for th e patm tics
 EJllCltORf.SlS
v sEof P
.,JO i\B ""~ the"°" " poirltrtt-r,~
vs£ J\P - th first to ~
·"s
.
chn~tolo~\c,,l
,(# ~dlrwcl5 e . G~n
• tlte Coote~ ~ ressing ~-~-
agai-0 ~~r
th
interp enetrates e
d'
·
~
,,,ne
.,ir1lvS ttilo1°gr, uinan nature r nfusio n ... ,~ ~laxim u~
~•~:c p ,tbe h . ed withou t an} co - -
~tfls~risc, . iS uoJ~ f the word include
to the energt es
;,;[ ,~ to wbif ~ (be
3
"SI:; .terpenetrate the belie,ser till he
,'.111:,, bf0 e\,ogos whi . : rgy which constit utes the deifica-
1
i0~iJlc~:origin by '.'° engoes on to say that this deification
of~st ~ts-'~ Maxund~e ~u re . co1nbi ning rest and tUOVt.~
0
re 0f t}le th (lllle an -o • - . tl d. ,
oo ds bO . appare ntl)' penetr at1ng 1nto \e 1vine
0
~se:t bcrea ~~~use of the hypostatic union, Christ's
tJle;~ action of ~not be though t to peneu-ate into God
b~ hutlla~ na~: Maximus, the differe nce is probably that in
0 ·th c•--a as uu·
'""'R'"'' ~ ,, 'blc,
Jes.s •"an th ··is an identil)1 of .
this.· r. a:s poss1
u~
the sa10 ~ ~~~t the natu m actualh- coinht re in ench other. '
14

wh~:=us elscw~ere ~k., or a union of opposites in the

os and especially ,n the hun,Jn lx1dy whose parts ,are
cosm . h h. . f'
reserved in umty l roUK .tn u1tcrpc nctr.,u on o opposites
fow each other in .tcuud \\1th th~ nuxturc · ( ltm 1011 akro·n hata
tenkrasin eis nJJ1ln /Wtth11, n.w ) , ._ llu~ ·,uQc~t~ n parnllt: l between
the mutual intcrpcncu1u, un bu,h into the stru cture of the
created natural world ;ind th~ n\utual interpenetrati on betwee n
God and di\~niie d r.reation dtat occurJ throug h grace, ' with 'the
effects of the hn><>static union· in Chri.~t extend ing throughout
the universe. h,
Anysuch mutual interpe netrati on of God and creatio n must
be ~ , howeve r. in the coinhe rence of the three persons of
ch~ Tnmty. Pseudo-C)m appear s to have been the first to extend
lhts christological termin ology to the trinitar ian relation ships,
~und 650, though adumb rations of this use are certainly found
tn ~e gospel of John, as well as Athana sius and Hilary, am<?ng
earlier patristic writers,i; all of whom emphasize 'the doctnne

: A~auon. c• Libn- 112h. PG 9 1.1053. . -B

3 ·
ei,.~
h u .
.. n..inm,il:S
'<"' "I-
Cnt.l ffl0f'1UR unluria 4. 19, PG 90.l l 2A
, , g
t~ n .unsou . 'Perichor esis in the Greek Fathen, :> •
A-.biguonu11 1..ibt.T 190a. PG 9 l.1 2:28C--D · . • g .
~ Harrison. 'Pcrichor csis in the Greek ~athe~, 5~ ; Gregory the Theologia n,
t, John p. i:- ,_..,. 'To",ard T rinitarian Pm<Jwr_esi .
3
s. (
9Sai I 994 ) 83--93, con tends th~t
(Ora · ~~• rJual ·.r,a1 R,euirw • n s in which there as
tlon ) 31.H, Gnd ()rthodox ~ re e in terconne.cte d _s~ . erich ore.sis.
m natanan p
,.., .,.,....,...,.,,_,.l' s allusion there. to. ces Pse u do-CynTs
~ ." i, ~ . . - .
~ "1\glt" imcm.u.n gling o f light anoapa
 370 SCOTTISH JOURNAL
0
FTI-IE:oto
of the identity of the divine ousia
After stressing th at the hypostases
as cv
:xp .re sse d in ea h
lller on Iy m
d:cr . th . . .
err on gm , Pseudo-Cyri e identi I c })
co inh ere nc e in ea ch ot he r' ( ten l ca in e erslJl\,
en alkla ~dds. that th~e~ce a.~~
without confusion or division 19
is Penchoresin y P1Jsse (l
It was Pseudo-Cyn•l ,s use• of ech<iu ss
perich .
Damascus too k over m . h" D SQi ),
1s efide ortliodoxa Iores1s th
B at Joh
the idea of perichoresis, howe 8
. ver, Jo hn ~c · efore he apn _(}f
of God 10 essence, divm . .
ity , power, will, encents th e onepn1les
. d . .
au th onty, omm1on, an d soverei.
gnty, a onenerg es
y, be . eSs
th ~1nning
known in three perfect subsisten
ces which are ~n. at is mad~
confus!on an d di ~d ed without sep
the unity of God 1s, therefore, ba
aration. John's
sed on the identity s1
::dJ:tho~
s on
1
and ensured by the perichoresis
of the three persons e~ence
on e no t so as to comm1n . l b
g e, ut so as to cleave to each, oth tnade
and they have the ir be ing in each
oth er without any coalescener,
or comminglin g.' Wh ile it is tru e
that without the presuppositiie
of the 'th ree ness' of the perso ns
meaningless and co uld add no thi
'th eir coinherence would
ng to the identity of essence, 20
b:
it is equally trUc that without the pr 1

esupp os ition of their identity

of essence pt!richo n:sis wo uld be
me aningless and could add
nothing to the pn:~uppos ition of
the thr ee ness of the persons.
This is wh at Barth emph asized wh
en he spoke of perichoresis as
'th e one im portant form of the dia
lec tic required to complete
the co ncept of 'th ree-in-oneness' ,
'fr om the side of the unity of
the divine essence ' and 'fro m the
sid e of the original relations. '
In the history of theology, then, pe
richoresis was first applied
to the unity of the two narures in the
person ofJesus Christ and
only later to the relations of the thr
ee persons within the Trinity.
In each of these uses, perichores
is serves as the basis for
preserving the un ity of the pe
rso
characteristics, uniting in the one n-al amidst diversity of
person of Jesus Christ the

th
. ~
~" anH~ius and Hilary; cf. G. L. Pre
111 stige, God in Patrist ic Tho ugh
tam
Tor ran ce em em ann
Tl 8 Ch . '. 1936) •.284 -5 t (Lo ndon:
. and the fin e classical fo und atio
Clark, 1996) : 8-";~; n Doctnn 0
16 e 1 God, One Bei ng Three Per
n in Th omas F.
18 • • sons (Ed inb urg h: T& T
•~Presog~, God i1~ Pat ristic Tho
ugh t, 284 .
w Ps.-Crn1 , De Tm iita te.
Har nso n •p · h 10, PC 77. 114 4B
• enc ores1s . . ·
m the Cre ek Fat hers, • 60.
 )ii
Of pERICHORtSlS
ND ,\BlJSE _.
vs£~ . mutual interpenetr~non Ml
~ _•.,.llfl nal.llfC ~ a 01 taken awcw b\'" the u_nrut,
eb
·tb tb . Jl of na
nu-es isdn.... niting in one d'1,,ne
\JV'" . ,
e~~ll~
,"1 ..;11cUO 45} ) an u.u.a. •
&'~~~e &svv aicedon, .' - _ in a mutual interpenetnu1on
iJt \J0caof~!ins of ~e
1
~:u"ieir identi~'lng p«ttliaritie~
(CP t1tree P 0 ot (1110-1f 1rrl,.;c inteT""Oenetrative union resul~ in
(lie does th rs) - 11.1-W .. r - . . .
rbicb d 0·an fa e · d to the hun1ai1 u1 the chnstolot~1cal
~ ao · ·bute ~
(GaP~ ·ne being att11 (e g Acts 20:28. God purchased tht
d1\1l :1 · natum · .,
tbe ,nunicatio ~w~wn blood') and the particuli:\r work of one
cornburch 'with his . . attributable to the others (O/)tt'(l ,1d ,xttv,
C f the rnn1ty . . T. . '
oerson ° )
r- d·... ca sunt ' so
that the works of the econotu.tc runty nt'e
l k f I
non '""' f ne pe·rson exdusi\-e~-. but a '''-"~ wor ·s o t lC
r works o o . • ..
neve . asawho1e.'1~Thus. while the trnutarmn npp 1cnt1011
1· .
· horesis is 'refin ed and chan~e d' f ron\ Hs
Divine Being · · l
· · ong1nn
of penc . . . th
christologica\ usage, it is not dear. a, Ton-nnct' nuunta111s, at
'this had the effect of definin)\ u 1n ,uc h a way that it nrny not be
applied to the hypostatic un,on of dh;nc+ .,nd hunmn nntures in
Christ, without seriou~ d;im.,~r tu tht tlo( ldnt of Christ. •ll~ ,
Whereas in christolog)\ pcnchur~,i, ~rvcd tu co1nplctc the two-
in-oneness of the pcr~un uf j~u,, ChriM. ~u in trinitarian ism it
se~~d to complett-. the threc--in~n~nei, or Father. Son, and Holy
Sp1~t. T~e te~m functions to preserve the unity of the person-al
armdst_ d1vers1ty of characteristics in each application, though
ther differ as to the nu1nber of natures involved, i.e., two in
christology, one in trinitarianism.
d' !he mutual interpenetration of the three persons in the one
ivme nature was encapsulated and accentuated by the Council
?I 'P
the t\\•oerson-al' ~s used here a<h,isedl)', since 'per5<m' is required for the un~ty of
theuu- natures mJesus Christ, whereas 'person' is less fortunate for the umty ?f
one ee pe.~ns ~n God, since it sets up the awkward assertion of 'thr~e_penoru :~
say J:rson. ln Vlew of the fact that there are three persons in God, it is better .
r~God is personal than to speak. of Him as a Person· (L. Serkhof, SySlemallc
?t lbi!Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans, 1941). 85) .
ts ., 89. .
Torra . . , h hristolog1cal appro•
Pllati' nee suggests that '\\'lthout quahficauon, t e c . t'onalising and
on of n.- · h .
depr . . r--nc. oresis 'has resulted .m some "iorm of doceuc ra 1 •
. .rcO<J 102 ) •a Eutych1an
con eet~ti.ng of the humanity of Christ' ( Chri.stia_n Doctnne 0J ni ' coal~sces into the
di _ceptionofChrist' s humanity' ( 170n.) in which tbe hum~ 1n trinitarianism to
._:~e. Peric.horesis, however• functions in christolohgy asTw:_aasnce can rightly speak
-a.int-,.;_ . · r · L us ofo,the
distinctions without such intenning ~g ,
'-'U..ll
• · h
three Persons in t _e
~f~e inter-relations of the two natures i~ C~nst anl~,PoJta.Jis (160, 171) , which is
f\nit)• in terms of subsistence within u01on. ,.e. , m
e ~ by pc_richoresis.
\ 372
SCOTTISH JO
. . URNAL
o f Florence m OFt
God n o t th r 1442, when it said· 'Th u t o t a
e e G o d s , bec Cy
essence, o n e ause th. . e
n a tu r e , o n e d . . th re e p
where th e r e . ivmity ey s.h. are ers()h
is n o opp ,
osition o f rela m One
1 m
o n e s b •ls a.t
th e F a th e r is ti o e u st t t
. e ntirely in the n sity, one al\tt tt\t
Son is entr.re 1y m . th Son, enti nl · _
e Father, enti re yinBec
1
ause ()ftv~tnb;t
Holy Sp i· n·t · · th this t\i ·
is e n tr r e ly · re\ . tJ
e 11.
0\
in the 1J y s"P.1t~l\ih,
Although th e tn the Fath
er enY t1· . i.o\y ST\· .1t tb,,,t
• • christological , re1y in
of pe . h the S t'1r1t
1
1shed sm ce th e early c u se
to de n o te the . h u r c h , the trin
24 n c ores· on. tbt 1
,

mtercommun . it a ria n 18
d1. V.me esse . 1 o n of
h
o f the three pe peas. dir,,•1•,1l\.
u se
nce persis ts among class . _flch()re~
theologians in 1c a l an d class rs on s in th &
to this century
o r th o d o x C h . While others ic U 1. e ()l\e
r is ti a n conce havea/· nfottried
in te r pe netrati ptualization
on o f the o n e of God a~sured
without using th d iv ine nature and the
e tmn periclwre the thre:;u11ia1
use th e te rm sis. some have
p rec
om divim nalurrm dwrr.s is without the mutual inte ently be~l'Sons
of tlU! dtm pmo
11s.
rpenetration i::
Pericho resis in
Recent Theolo
In th e fi rs t ·vo lu gy
me o f h is Clm
th e misuse o f rc
th e te n n pe ri l1Dogm1 ati cs , Karl Barth warned
as th e vanguard chore of
o f th eologians s is. r,Jurgen Moltmann stands
invokin g p e ri c wh o have enga
h oresis while ged in such mis
nature . d e nying its b use,
asis in the on
e divine

Perichoresis in
For Moltmann the Trinity
, 'T h e unity o f th
Holy Spirit li e F a th e r with
es in th e ir p the Son and .the
c o m m o n div e rs o n a l com
ine s u b s ta n c munity rathe
absolute, divin e or r than m a
e subjectivity 26 in th e identification of
. ' T h e unity one,
~i. Wh ·1 o f th e pe rsons of the
1e the_ ch .
R o m an C at h n st o lo g ic
o b c a n d R ef al u se re m ai n s a p a n o
!~) 7~J:Ieinri~h Hepp~, ~
o rm ed ch u rc
fo rm
h es (cf. S ch
f th e d ogmat
m
ic tr d . .
au s, Kalholu a 1uon5.
of the
'. n is p ar u cu la rl y ed Dogmatics ch t Dogmatik 212,
w tt h m th e L [G ra
m u m ~ te d o
ce nt ra bi v C m n ip re se n ce o f C u th er an C h u n d R a p im , Ml: Baker ,
rc h , 1978 re
f h
1951 ) , 2-,:1· 23 ·• e .g., Fra n ci· p · ri st , th at perichqresis re
w it h iu u n iq
u e view o f the p .],
-2 14 . s ie p er , Chn. ta corn-
stum Doumn.Ji in s a special christof ogjc.tl
: B ar th , Chu
rch D o ·· - cs (S t L o u u M
o lt m an n an d ogmatics 1/ 1, 4 5 6 .
O : Co n co rw ..1:,.
Pre-ssM, 19 84 ). Eli b et h M
• a,
88 _ sa OI
tm an n -We n
de l, H un um it
y in Cod (L o
n d o n : SC• I}
 D _ABUSE OF PERICHORESIS 37 3
'fI-1£ vs£ ~ . .
bstantial nor numencal, but 1s rather the
. is Jle1 nal love. But wh at 1s
·tber su . 'love ' o_r 'fe11owship' and
f~o•tYf coJll.Jll.U ted apart from substantial being? As the
·tr o
i1111 re the
y re 1d.-ick
a 'th .
Hart observes, ere 1s no such thing as
,.; a J-{en p f h" h 11
~0·10s0Pher . _a: called relatum, o w ic a of reality is made '
()111 't\,7 or stU11 .
r ellu .., h b .
tile . . everyw·here but as no separate emg. Everywhere
.0 nsh1p is f h l . '
Relau . have the character o t e re aung realities. Without
.onsh1ps h' h . .
relall ents between or among w IC relauons exist, there would
\ations. To say that a11 th'mgs relate 1s
th0 se eletn . simply
. to say in a very
be no rea that all that 1s · th ere, 1s · th ere acuve
· ly, d oing something
open herw yin
concert. Rea1·1ty 1s. _someth"mg (re-a11ty· 1s
. thing-like) and
toge t .
real1
·cy is work-hke (wi•r1t-1,ic
,. h) 2 ,
.

something m~st exist, it must be , in order to stand in relation.

This is disputed by som e as an outdated metaphysic.
'Postmodern thinkers reject foundation ontologies of all types,'
including ousia, esse, and essentw't 'since one cannot "freeze the
flux".' 28 A changed cosmology is no longer thought to admit
relations as something that takes place between substances prior
to them. Instead , with contemporary physics urging the dynamic
structure of fi elds offorcc in mutually constitutive relations, it is
contended that n o distinction should be made between the
energies and being of God. Instead, it is contended, God should
be viewed as a dynamic of persons in relation which constitutes
his being similar to the •character of the universe as a perichoresis
of interrelated dynainic systems.' 29
The metaphysical inferences from this cosmology ar_e
dubious, however. Quantum theory describes how ener~ is
exchanged on the subatomic level between the smalleSt paru~l~s,
•· f h universe and quar s m
Ph otons in the present conditions O t e Th ry notion
temperatures artificially induced in accele~ator~ vi;t:: of their
of particles, even if somewhat metaphorical that substantially
. mething there . ero·v
wave-l1ke behavior, assumes s_o . n which elicits en . 0 ~,
exists admittedly in dynamic relatio_ , the "illogical reality
' le Granung
when they collide, for examp · .
,10· U11ivers1ty
ntology (Lanham , I\ . '
[d · A11 Jntegral O ical Issues,
!i Hart, Undmt.andir1g our W~r . . Fi dame ntal Theolog
Press of America, 1984) , 209-1 d ernity and five in . 150 -
~ Thomas Guarino, ' Pos~~6. 137-57 (quote oil P·
I'htol. . l Studus 57 (1996~,. ·0 11 Theol.ogy,
-Ogtro . o,f Tn111tan
~ Gunron. p,.o,n.J.Se
 THEOLOGY
S74 SCOTTISH JOURNAL OF
co nd en se d form, ph ys1.c1s .
th at m at te r is en er gy in its , tG
1 d er s if th er e [is ] . erald
th e es s w on .
Sc hr oe de r no ne
th . . re a1 su bstance ah e_ntific
po
sc1
.
su gg es tio n 1o r a
r 1n, no nc or d 1n . a thirtee t hat is the
;, ' . c
as 1s 1o un . nt ~ ~
so ur ce of all m at te r. , th e op en mg of Ge ne sis .-~ p ~ury
Kabbalist co m m en ta ry on icist
oc ke ha s sa id , 'th e cu rr en t scientific pe rsphys ec f1
Ar th ur Pe ac ph ilo s h' ve
t su bs ta nt ia lly a1te r th e na tu re of the op ica J
does no . . 1aim . , Th
e qu an tu m fi ld ,.
th th e1sac c .
de ba te or th e status of e ng at all". ,j, Indeed, 'i; is~;
ng , sim pl y "n ot hi
not, stricdy speaki in
of th e pe rs_ on al no t on ly to be capable of hav
th e na tu re se td ed characteristics, bu~
, re fe m ng to sta bl e,
static pr ed ic at es rience
pr ed ic at es of a dy na m ic ki nd , since the flow of expe
also of that
on . ' !\ It is fo r this reason
2
ss en tia l to be in g a pe rs
is quinte }.
es we ll to em ph as iz e th at th e 'Persons are sul
To rra nc e do , ' af te r Athanasius, who
' or 'o nt o- re la tio ns
stantive relations d
'th e Ac tiv ity of Go d in he rin g in th e very Being of Go
spoke of
as enousios rmergaia. ,:u ai nt ains that the relationality
on th e or .h er ha nd , m
Molunann , is,
th e pe rso ns of th e Tr in ity in co mmunity, i.e., perichores
of ucture
ou gh t co a ne vl le\ lel by H egel. :H Th e Hegelian str
was br l
nn 's th ou gh t is ce nt ra l to un de rs ta nd in g it. 'It is Hege
of Moltma (o r on to lo gy ) to questions
qu es tio ns of be ing
who reduced all
m an ex pe rie nc e' presented
res an d fo rm s of hu
about the structu a century
ns cio us ne ss in a ph en om en ol og ic al ep oc he
to co being,
Hu sse rl. In He ge l, th e Absolute, th e co nc ep t of
before !ls
es s of be -c om in g in se1f-
ing th ou gh t in th e pr oc
is s~lf-t~ink 's 'es ch at ol og y' retains the
e th ru st of M ol tm an n
realiz~t1on. Th ' as Zu -k un ft, ad -ventus. 36
ng -to be
Hegehan p~ocessive 'co mi n str uc tu re , if no t content,'
no te s 'th e He ge lia
Thompson nghtly g' in God
's do ctr in e, wh ic h 'in vo lve s a 'b ec om in ·
?f ~o ltm an n
cro ss · h · d cr ea tio n' in 'an evolving
m time ' on the , m uman 1ty an 'th e
tw ee n th re e di vi ne su bj ec ts an d th e wo rld ' wherein
event be
Sch roe d er, The Scienee 0,r God (N ew York: Broadway' 19 97 ) ' J 77.
30
31
Peacocke ' •s c1e • nce an d C 0 d h C (19 93 ), 473.
3•
. t e rea tor ,' Zygon 28
~: Ibid., 477
To rrance Cl • . 149
31 Mo ltm an~ ;,rz_
sL~an, Doctrine of God, 157
3-6 ,' 198 .·
35 Robert C. Sol nn,ty an d Kingdom, 17
Sp · · tmology
of Sp· · om on In ti,
iv:;::tyofPHegel: A Study B- ofG. W F Hegel's Phnum
(NO ew Yor k: Ox f~r d U~ ), 9
3fjz~ ~ ress, 1983 ·
tto , God 0'Jr 1'-fope 93 -11 7· 1'd ·
em ' 'Th e E sc h ato log 1ca l Na tur e of
H ·
,vio ltm ann ' Th . ,
s eology ' ' u, '
,,,,estmmster The o/,o •
92 ), 11 5-3 3.
'gl cal fou ma /54 (19
 rHE USE AND ABUSE OF PERICHORE.s1s
375
1
.
r_f\d 1s no t complet.
e unt il the end .' 37 Despite th , .
. . h' . .
0
. ,re vv
1\l 0 nto
logi cal d1m
. ens1 on 1n 1s trinitarian forme serio .
us
ell of an ather curiously accuses Mo ltm ann of u 1atio ns ,
\l\ . son r f 11 trithe· '
'1"}lolllP. that does not o ow from h'1s own anal
?
11
'coJlC
l~ n ysis ism .
,-, a
.
u d h
xistence of three go s w en h e has just stated'~ ~n
th .
irrants t~e ~ ontological basis for any god\ Moltmann
e,- ffic1en f h ' s d er~ 18
illsu d n Bloch's On to1ogy o t e Not-Yet, so octnne
base o that the
ibs no God until the endd, wh'1chf there h re
£ can never finally be, can lest
e d lose the tran sce n enc e o t e utu re as his
conditio
~ (Seinsbeschaffen) and bec om e pre sen t as the monoth n of
being • t·
. hanY god of Par men i'des an d Aris .
totle whi ch he
e1s 1c
epip mai nta·
been inco rpo rate d into
. d' .
tra itlo na
1
Christian theism. Godms•
haS 'bl G
. tead a 'possi e o d' (Gott-mog .. z·ich) , com
ing from the futurelS
;~m the non-Bein.g of pot ent iali ~ which, for Mo
ltmann, 'mus~
be higher ontologically tha n reahty.' 39
Speaking of 'the possible' as having 'being' of any
actual kind
is, however ab~urd. 'Th e ide a of being is the repr
esentation,
conceptualizauon, or the ade qua te though confuse
d conceptual
transposition, of the con cret e thing. It signifies all
the elements
of the con cret e dat um formally and actually, and
not merely
virtually and pot ent iall y.' 40 Since possibles 'are
objects of
metaphysics in the mea sure in which they are prec
ontained in
the real causes whi ch cou ld give them existence,'
and 'nothing
more tha n an ine pt reification of the causal pote
ntialities of
existents' 41 the 'com ing God' in Moltmann's thou
ght is best
understood as a Kan tian regulative idea, an ontologi
cal Nothing,
intended to spu r the transformation of human socie
ty into future
community .42

37 John .
Tho mps on, Modem Trinitarian Perspective 'i! k· Oxfo rd University
s (New or . .
Press , 1994) , 34, 51.
38 . r:
Ibid ., 51. . 87 The phrase 'Gott-'l'.1 0~z·ich' derive s ir:on1
. tive11, 186.
M Mol tman n, The Coming of G?d
} hristliche n Theo logie_, pr,,~ ersicaires.
Molt man n, 'Die Kate gorie Novum 10 ~~!~
(Louv ain: Publi cauons
w Fern and Van Stee nber ghen , On gy
1970) , 50.
n Molun ann 'lean; d
-it Ibid. , 64-5 .
-12 Jn her fine study of Bloc h , ~97~i
arxistatheistfro1~;:. ~ hr. Kaise r, go~i
the ~, Ernst Bloch [M~1n1 . .e the non--ex1sce1 gthe
theo logy ' (Mo ltma nn, J,n Gesrm-ach mi •
•By transcending_us lll Ul11 • • fluence on
Geet ruid a M. van Aspe ren says, cess, thus exeru its direc tive ' .1 aw·ac tion is
ngxert an end1u·u1ie process to
of the pro ·scent can e
beco mes the tend ency That the non-e";'s failure to appear cause s t
cour se of the proc ess.
. abse nce, The goal
due prec isely to its
r
376 SCOTTISH JOURNAL OF Tl-IEOto
GV
Perichoresis demands an ontological basis if th
to be real and not merely logical 'Every relation \~elations
1
.. ..--n1c. In real relationship it is nece.~un, th·s P sup~clre
two ~• ,u_, ·ca1 I . bo ---, at at I l"'"~s
be real, in Jogi re anons th terms are east ()
tenn . h . . cl . conce ne
M Junann's use of penc oreSIS 1s early conce . Ptuai_,13
oord with the Hegelian thrust of his thought Pntuaith,. for, in
acC . ·ca1 an d uncompletable end.' o in
being till the non-histon Th· _g has
.
of human beings, 1Uut,
c1...
-=,n God , an
d th. an , is is t,-..
mgs. In histo "'ue
messianic becoming-human of the human being r ry, ~e
,...,. erna1ns
incomplete and uncomp Ietabl e.
Over against any such ontology of present reality Moltrn
places Hegel's process1ve · on nc · be
. ~ommg · ~f humanity towards ann
the noetically-idealized eschatologicaJ conung of God in human
community, symbolized in the eYent of th e cross and resurrec-
tion of Jesus Christ 'The one person of J esus Christ is not a
matter of two metaph ysicall>· differe nt ·•natures". It is an
expression of his exdu~in~tdation~hip to the Father, by reason
of his origin , and hi~ indU\1\--c rcl.11ion~hip of fellowship to his
many brothers and .tisten. ' I< '- ·n1c unary of the Son with the Father
is one of purpose and will. nor ,1.uurc. based o n his role as the
1

anticipator of the furure of God. his righteousness and the

freedom of man,' as ·rhc: provitionaJ representative of the
absent God. ' 46 'If we Jook from the present to the future
(Zukun.ft), we mus1say 1hat God has not ide ntified himself with
J~sus through his nature, bur through his will. God has given
hims~lf up for him, God has raised him. '" 7 The incarnation of
Gob_d 10 Jesus is symbolized by the resurrection in which new
emg and God, fi '
H . . . s uture (Zukunft) are historically opened.
owever, lt 1s important ' . .
to note the resurrection ofJesus from

continue. In other
front of th words, the insuffici
by th e process, an in5 .. cc • ency of what has been realized at the very
e Standards . 1.1.1.uc1ency which be d
movement' (il of the not-yet e:xistin comes apparent only when measu~e
[Utrecht: Free opt!_and_ History.- A Criti g goaJ, . act$ as the motor of the ongoing
:: Van Steen~;1:V~:s •ty Press, 1973) . ~ Inquiry ink) 1/u Philosophy of Em.st Bloch
Moltmann Gg . n, Onto/oU\J 86 .
15 M , od in C OJ• •
16 M<>ltrnann, Trinit reation. (San Franci
-i1 Molltrnann, Thi! c!rua,ifi1d /(jngdom., 120. 5eo: Harper & Row, 1985), 227 .
.. b O trnann , a ed God (N
u er die 'Th • . Antwon auf . ew York; H
Munich: Cheologu dl!T Horr, die Kritik der Tharper & Row 1974) 2•:::6,
r Rai 'JJnung' eoJ · • , ,;,
. ser, 1967) 225 von Jiirgn, Mou ogie der H offnung • l>i.,hJmlffJ
. . mann (ed •
· Wolf-Dieter }fariKh,
 f\\\\ HW, t )If l'Y.,U( :1
, 1 ~\I'. ,\Nil U >~Y.~U~ '!,7i
I\ \1, \
,
. \ t \ nt~M 110 , M\H1 a~. t.Lw .. , ao~ua~t oi h«
,\ \IYn,11 , o\ h\\lh ~u,c\ ·1Jt
, , l>' t
hop,,, th a1 \~, th t ia , ,J
,,,.,, \'''"''''~ 1 ,\, r ,.,1Murr n~ua~,~of
1\I'' ,, I,~11 ' \ '\11_\I \M t~''' \on wd \ ~ the
,~r , \( ,,, r. , I \ 1hr.rd n, art n, a~ o t tu,~tor1
ton comit,ar t
' ca \ on
11
1 ,1n11 P \
,o t , to \oujr ,' l
an t\ d pa u o u 1• h . \\ t.. .. ,a
f\\ \\ 1)1\ Y ' <> a w a t wt "c ira tht · ">'n,..n
11 \ ·~ \)111
,,M {\\ '
\ cu~a~r. m t.,t 1 l _
11
\ .~1,:,, r~d 1111t".,.~
1 proctf't~ <n.£ ref'turrecuon ,, ,.
at\on in Chr'1f'tt an< ,
\Ill \\ t'.W (. •
\" 1\\t.' ·\ . nt we\c1ncn • h l th ro u~ h Ch ri ~t wi.ll
II '\\\ C \ \t t ,n t c proclamau.on
110,,~,, \l in hi!\ antt' ci. pat d
c . rc~urrcct1o . f o f.Je~-m and
11(:w dc,n~~ ,1 eschat n rom the dead
o\ogica\ ve rification
,\s po\ldits or\d" th e resu " .'"'J 'l n thi3 .. un~
,,ne w rr ec ti o n of Chri~t
t\ec , , ·\to\og
i\S esCi'h ica\ ven.fi cau.on thro h h i~ ~ti\\ dependent
u g t e new cr ea
l •!'10 ti on of
,w or \o .
cpcrichoresis ca n n b ·
?t e 1n k d h 'l
vo e w . 1 e ye t de
. . \ numerica\ un it y nying th e ru lr
\\\\Uc\ o f G o d as dass1caUy un
d de
an.y have fo\\owe . Mo ltm an n 1n
. . so d . rs to od , though
d 01 ng . A. -
~ ha s a lr ~ k be
a n q u a1·1t1e
ted above, re \a uo ns .
:in an existing on to lo gi s ar e m
ca l ba si s. O nt ol og
er
y
el y co
'-U!U J
ncepts apan
is th e 'beginning
en

s we\\ as th e en d o f
th e T ri n it ar ia n lo
eaning\ess to sp ea k gi c of relations.'51 It is
o f tr in it ar ia n re la
ave no be in g ye t, b u ti on s w he n the pers
t ar e on ly in a proc ons
eft to hu m an h an d s.52 es si ve 'becoming unity'
A social d o ct ri n e
o f th e T ri ni ty su
suggested may b e m ch as Molunann ha
ai n ta in ed us in g 'p s
tural axis' w it hi n th erichoresis as the sr
e o rt h o d o x re qu ir ruc-
divine na tu re , as L eo em en t for the unicy of
n ar d o Boff, fo r exam the
use of pe ri ch or es is ap ple, has shown.3S Any
ar t fr om th e essentia
is vacuous. l unity of divine narure

Perichoresis in th e
Image of God
With th e classical . e
co nc ep tu al iz au·on f God as one in es..~·ncd
and m ad e k n o w n in
th re e perfect stlbsistenc
es which are unite °
8
~ M o\ tm an n CruciJi
• '.l'
ed God, 173. 99()) <r13,
t~ lb id ., rCollins, 1 •
182. · - ·o· tt;.ir r-,><" y ~:
!\OM o\ tm an n The Wa ·11 (S<ll\ franCl~C ' ·. ·n 1111 - r ~
o,J ofJesus Ch11: J<11lil» rh· TS.:T CJ
ark,
51
Jo hn H . Th• om as , J • • Logi c an d on 1o Sc
l<>~?b·el· Edi11bllfS
h" '" · · .
'T rin ity , d Christo
Essa\ls on Divine . ph
Being and Act (e · d
' ") 5--1:\, an 65-
J
1995) • 78. bi·s 19 ~ " '
52 M o\ tm an
. Go d, 333. . (M,111'k11oll N \ ': O r ., . ~
n, Comm~ . nd so :sical dl1gn1auc•.
" Le on ar do
1 ~ Tn 11 1l'Y a e1e'Y wi th c1as:
Bo u, I1 ere nce
99, w he re he de m on su-ate s his co
 ~
S( ,O lT TS HJ OC R."'AL Of il{
378 l:
OL~ , :
_c..~51· on an d d i'\; d e d ~; th
.th O ut CO JU ou t ~
WI
1,,1
r ,; e~ ; ng th e im ag e of Go - Para .
follow s fo . d tiora , a '
. bo re uc mu cu al- ind we lli ng of hu ~n alo o,; g~ ~
pe ~c is in ma rri ag e an d th e ch urma n,t y . (:,•fQQ, ~- ,,
ch h •n C() ~ ¾ ;
Penci;;re;or the mu tu al ind we lli
m£laP ~ r e , as opp<>sed to th e ~u tu ng of in;~
futitti~ll~i; ,; ,
,, ,,

al inch-.-et .Ua}s it\ t\~ ~ ~ ti"

hu ma :s of the T rinilY in o ne sJK
Dfic an d si9t/>k :~ Of lli~ "i, \,,
persoTh 1.ational "ie w of ma le an d fem
er e ale as the ~e t~~~~
. ch was fo ste re d b ~r Ka_rl Barth al llllab... t~
\'
~
wh• Ba rth 's ut ih za no n of l'eq uir -es 0~~ ()f ('..:_.
~i ar nn Bu be r· n~()\~~ \
su pp ':i isn l forbade an analogia ml
is. which in &~~~al~i~
persola . im pli ed th e possibili~·
reve non of a rig ht rel ati on to ~:~t~ ~t
from his Word. H °"·e\ ~- th e m ~~ .. f B be (\ a
o~ th o 1 u ~r·~ 1-TV\J h()u \~t\
to the very pr ob lem ~ ~ a
u ;u wt t \~ '~""lo~ria tntis_ ~t~~
• 1...,,. .. u» 'whe n Th ou
1s ,~c a"' °"' u ~p ok en . th e sp e.l ke r has
he has ind ee d nothin@ . Bu l he ldl • _" I· 110 •'-·h\s
'es n~ ~ta•~d tn ·
t~latiot\
""\\tt•
.'~ lh~
I-Thou relation ~ no t e~pcnenc
t' of an,-uung from which o,,e
ain s kn CJWl<'dgc ~ fut &he r~fl(:ricn c.c
~ no t ~u·t of the world bt\\
~athcr 'in him . ~ 11 'e ,u tu ra l ww
ld . hu n,.1n txh\l(, or ~plrh\li\\
beinK that b(.-c om",. a ·T hu tf ._, nu
l e~ fk ri" llt t'd nnd i~ t\ot i\
naturt' to be de 1'n bc'd. bt,1 '"'
he r a '" '"d on dmt f\\\~ the
hcavcn N. beyond 1hr .., ,.l° "t• fflt ' cu
tu,nu,un or 1- 1t rchulon8,
Rclad on.titl)' ~~ bl'~uttK- 1ti.- pu :d
on u, ..,o t lntc rt 8l in lhc
,,t
discussion 1hr: tt" -~t' QI Gad,) .ap ifl
frt u11 th e ,,u e11 tion of who
is rclatr-d 10 "h ~I 4tl d h«lk "l o ,.:w
lutuluu .t11y untoloj(lcal tr~,~
for tllt' imag1> inf il\tW uf "-'' c»tteiu
wh.,, h f WK auloM ical f'uu clion
is not onl)' unbabh al btu cd hr alJ )
uu po tc u l, ·~~ Bcrkouwcr hM
said. ·one c,u1n o1. m tu, upi,uon ~
a~inst tbe old ~r ,uup.~i.J m ,u. a.,
pb ct an """'"K'''
1eltJli1mi., over
Ba nh wi,h e, u, do ,' 1incc it
wlll lea~ to the- •fabe di lcu uu a· of
the onnc ~lnlc n~ or h n dt tr W:eking dw irna~c in
·
seeking the in . ~ ~marul\,, Le :,, re •
a~ n or per'-',nah,ty, or cn~
not deal .th ~ ~ sunp le relau
.m wi a rel an on • b ,,n . th1,u gh 'Scripture dot~
and thr o oh ..1.. •~
..:...1.
ut ~ lU t a. re lat i,, , 'l ''"
ug we reali ry of sa h~ on n Of tJ, btvAntf vu, i~
.•½
~Martin
~ b'"S.. Bttbc.-. 1Cl.ltd 1 - •!a d
~c..c.. n" ~e non. o .~ ~ S as -\ . " .
\()() ._} "n.. ~~.
h rt : ~n ..><J:"t' ~
ib · '-UC tt:n5ioas inlf.a:- T L,_
_..ar · ~ Grand lbpim_ )ff - fa; ..1l'
'-{C
~; , i
_,..,__..... If~ ~ 1~
-17 c ~ ,,,, ( C,r an, j · " - .,~
of&ntb•&rui.s ~of ~~ Ml . f,.r,,tffl i. . tr~' ~
,
, ~~ ~ ,,~~ oCP~~~
bc i: ng ~~ ~ ~ -.
~t wt UC w. -C A. r,f kd tl,,
·~tt r.ti n-,, E'I. ~~J t:t~ ~•J tw -.1 ,ru Jl ,t lrt,O~
'=-.n:n!?1..'"'\ , ~~ , to ~ -
C>..1µff: ~ ff i 1W
f;rl ;,,.,:c .,-,r · ! I -?fJ",,..
f?) ,-,U•'m~
 7
D }\BUSE OF PERICHORESIS 379
ff-IE uSE AN . . .
hasis is on relauo nahty based in a comm on
Biblical eillP comm on father hood. Encou nter is neithe r
·f11 \ 5uing froI11. a in the triune God, the archet ype of which
1ire i l tiona. 1ity . h .ty. Rath er, a comm on
11 ;1t to re a ·.,.,age nor in umani
· his ti~• . .
rrt·orfleeted lfl ce forms the basts
' .
for the trinita rian rela-
. l essens the Father would not b e wh o he is . without
1s. re010 g1ca
11 57 st no human
~ ~ality-' Juth aSpirit withou t the Father and Son, so . .
uo or e shared relatio n m being
tbe son, n being apart from the
is rruly huma:on that entails having God as Father in a vertical
n a re1sea and Adam as f:a th er 1n . a h onzon. tal creative sense.
huma. '
. h' G d
ereauve . sen Dei thus involves a re lauons tp to o and humanity
irnag0in these res~ecuve · veruca· l ~nd h ?nzon . · ·
~1 ongins of
The unded
fo. 'Humanity by its very nature 1s social and 1s meant to
being. · f 1 . (p . h . ) 'th' th
reflect the commu°:ity o re anons m_c ore~is wt in . e triune
God.'ss Seeing the image of God as m1rro nng the penchoretic
'tri-personal being- in-com munio n' of God has becom e a
prevalent theme ~n recen~ study of the church , marriage, and
human community and 1s useful as an analogy, provided it
maintains the ontolo gical basis and necessary distinctions of the
19
persons involved.=

Cosmic Perichoresis
Moltmann's eschat ologic al vision culmin ates in 'the all-
interpenetrating presen ce of God, and of the perichoresis which

personal recognit ion of God's love which elicits human love for God stin 10 return.
Thus, 'Barth offers us a theologi cally grounde d (i.e. trinitaria n and c~ri ? gical)
relational (non-sub stantial) ontology of personal being' (220), albeit~imp ~ ml~~y
. f 1 · and his tClt
the tensions that persist within his doctrine o
0f _ e ecuon
um~ersalism. r aJ rheological
0/ th eEvange ic
~7 Randall E. Otto, 'The Imago Dei as Familitas,' Journal

Socitty 35 (1992), 510. . . · as above.

~ Ibid., 511, with allusion to Moltman n a nd cnui',1~ople in a Holy Place: The
:,9 Gordon J. Thomas , •A Holy God amo~g;
.f:J, Theology (eds Kent E. Brot r
19?7), ~9;,L:;:.:J:
Enduring E.scbatological Hope,' EschatoloK! m t:rVarsity Press,
and Mark W. Elliott· Downers Grove, _IL. InOld Theological W111esk1h1~ , f eg
·p . ' . al w·111 e in an h churc , C ., •• ,
enchores is: New Theolog ic hurch· as applied tot _\ (Grand Rapids,
applies the term to marriage aocl th!h \ch as the Image of th e Tn~i 'Y the necessary
Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The ~oltman n in n~gle~ung56-82; Todd H.
MI: Eerdma ns, 1998) who [ollo;:omise of Trinit~nan, ~:::ei~fjournal of Theology
ontologi cal basis; so also Gunton,o f Persons in Society,
Speidell, 'A Trinitar ian Ontology
47 (1994) , 283-300 .
 scoTTJSH JOURNAL OF THEO Locy
380 ated beings but full-fills thern ,60
does not destroy ~:;ed earlier by Maximu~ based ~n t 1\Jth<>u
·s idea was_ sugflg wing out of the hypostattc union i" he Shar&h
th1 ies o diffi t . ' !vto}t....... eq
. ·ne en erg . here is very eren ' inasmuch .~llatih•
d1VI . hores1s h . . as it f: . ·• ~
use of penc . h
• 1n t a t necessary ypostattc union. Ash as. ala11s t()
. .
e its basis Moltmann env1s1ons an esch read
hav d above, ' ·11 b ' ato}o . Y
been note e 'coining' but stt a sent and only, g~cai
erification of th nsformation of the world on the ss1h1e t 0

~d' through the trad promise. While the concept of ~~s ()f
the idea of hope an e stands in opposition to MoltrnVOd's
eschatological presenc the mode of God's being, his noti ann•s
on future as .. d ons of
insistence . h sis between eternlty an time , ,
th
'a mutual penc oref space' as 'the social space of rectpr e
tic concept o . fG oca1
peric hore , d the in terpenetratton o od and wo id
self-developmen~, ha:esis, have spurred much discussio; 61
O
in 'mutual penc clearly shares this idea of cosmic int~
Although M?ltmha::ntext of elucidating the Hegelian vision~;
pen etration. . Ill t eprions have been m1sse · d b y many mterpreters
· '
its ide~h~uc assumd Molunann here speaks of cosmology whe~
Thus ' It IS .assume,. ·ng pheno menolog1ca . )) y to ac h"1eve a ,social
in fact he 1s spea~ 1 .. • · · I
. . 1 ·nterpreuujon · of Chnsuan te rm1no ogy. r,:,i·
and po IInca 1 . f • d
Although Molunann 's eJ_a~rate view o ttme ~~n s ?eyon~
the scope of this ~tu d)'· . H as necessa ry t~ d1sungms~ his
henomenological vtew of ume from the sc1e nufic arrow ofhnear
~me he terms 'the modern myth of rjrnc.' Fo r Moltmann, linear
time only grasps the simple course of events, what may become
in the Futurum from the past. Contrariwise, the 'transcending
future, which remembers e\'erything, experienced everything,
and still exp~riences present is what we call eschatological future
: l"'k:unft). ,~ 1s not understood as future history, but as the future
if hi st0 ry. Although the eschatological Zukunft cannot be
: Moltmann, Coming of God, 3 I 8 .
. Moltmann, Coming of God, 295
Particularly in Richard Bauckb , 310, 327, respectively. Docwsion ~ found
Mo~~:~Edinburg~: T&T CJ~e~~ Will &All in A ll: TluEschatowgyo/fargtn
63 Th ai_in, °!mmg of God, 326-7 ·
e SOc1oloa-.ca1 . ·
Expenme11t H o· . USe of Christian . . ~
ph~nomenol~e (Philadelphia: Fortress :munoJ°?Y JS fo und in }fohmann , 1111
.,. Moltman~· -~e Ono, God of Hope, ~ s . 19 7 :1), l 7.3; on ~foJunann '1 we of
ungen Und B • ershran kte 2e· 1
233.
217. egrenzungen d Hen der Gescbi b T • • •
es Geschich tsbegrifu .c te: N on-1end1ge 01£krc1Yil.ff•
, Evangeli.u lv. TJ,,oiogu 44 f 1984),
 ~ ~ uuSE OF Pf.RICHORF..StS
vsE tu,-,Jl)
JUJ'
~ l
rtt£ C11111bols 'kingid om o f God' ' ' eternal 1a· ,
•tbe .,, - this ---.-.'- ue and
uied, f describin g c~uato\o gical goal of God'
d~~ are wars ~,,.nientally, 'Jrtt;tlom as the process of \i""~rau· s
(f G:> fun~ h l ·ca1 uc on
,gto~tiofl·'. tiaJl hope the esc . ato ogi goal of the new creation
ere rCbfP ~is freedom is commu nal and co1nprehe d
,s GOd. . ·oe over explo1tanon · · h n .s
. fo ,66 1 .1.-1-
f · c ntSO
, uman transforma•;
. . uOn
oJJll J~ 4Cclon, human solidarity over hwnan est.rang· OVer
0
00
ec . _,.., 0 ppr\:.,;: ,.7• . ·a1 d . ement,
,,otiUOJJ.th nature over mdustn estrucuo n, and hope ag .
r ewi th •
peac athYconcerning tru m ~~n al living. .
. ainst
we~o 3
P .. «1':lnn has noted that his ontological theory of ti
1u•-· \in . £ . . me
fr om every ear v1ew o tune 1n that it does not s
differs .ee
· and past as homogeneous (so they cannot be plotted
future . )b .
g a single hne Ul percel\~es •'- . .
u ,eu quahtative difference' ·in
a\on . d
an existenual an ph e~ome~ o\ogl~ . . .
n,anner, following s0 ren
Kjerkegaar~ and ~arun H e,degge.r . · .
The ' pmrh ,,u!f!< <'iltu1_1: r1/ ~tM« d~M:nbe s the reciprocal in-
existence of ~rcauon ,n (;.od and C«\ u~creation in an ecological
sense wherein cJrh h,,11~ th,n\\ h.1, \t) uwn space to develop
while simult..atlt'O\l:M~' ·~"'l \,,th,n ~nutht r.· 'The perichoretic
space ronrcp, l\l tn: ,ptnc :d ,n~•i~u:nct corresponds on the
creaturely \~d tu thr nuu cpt uf the tternal inner-trinitarian
indwcl\in~ ut th~ t\l\ U\ ~ t•~'""'~: Le .• 'in a community [in
which) wr t~\kr o,--C'r t c-sputlsibi\ity for others' in reciprocal self-
develop1n ~nt.()" Thi~ nse of penchoreJis seems to indicate little
more th~\n tbC' cxtcnsion of "lohmann·s emphasis on community
to the n\utu~ , l d~vdop1ue1u of all things. Here again, Moltmann's
use of perichoresis is de\-oid of an ontological basis, for he h~s
already reiterated that the · trinitaria n fellowship ~nd. their
.
\UUnue
. . Reina
d1v1ne . . rPn\llTe
. . no o ther Being in which 1t can
, 0 --, ,oo
e~ist-tlOl e ,·ei1 a common divine substan ce: . n's
. haracten suc of Mo1tman
ln3Slnuch as the categon es c . . 10 with the Trinity
thought are con1munity and pencbor es1.S,
"' . -- ds Martin Hengel and
~ ~ (\\tnl3.lU\. God -i a ~ ~- . Hr:vlL von C.011 reden (e .
~ ~..~\tn\~\n. 'Gott und FJrihe.t~ R,aiseT 1977), 77. . , God Will Be All in
Rud~''{ n , h-~ "---;. ... ~ -aid: Chr
~ ~ttn ;uut: u,1 u.a.•_
.• • d the Theologian,
the uegete. an
'' Moltn,am, . ·Tot- Sible·
.\ ?!_ ~ ~. ll/ C,,od.. 299-3() l. , God Will Be All in All,
M~ tm~ . ~ · . -n.. eor,ring of God,
~ n__..;l ~ o}n13'1" 10 J ltc
,Olo. .~ -- ·£.scl t-'11 U'b.,.
,,_ ~~rd ~ UC'kh3.lU·
\ ~l~
 382 SCOTTTSH JOLtl.,A L OF 11-t
. . toto cy
sen ing as a leum otif for esch atol ogic ai
ther e will be a mut ual indl,·elling of the cornrnunih, .
f.l ·
in the world an d a mu rual parn.apa . "~<>rld in <'_:_1, ,n , \..
tion in th 1 .,..1 1
'V\J(1 '" 'i t~ ~ .
othe r it ma}1 be infe rred that God as the ~~,.i.. e attribu~nd ~
,
con clus ion of a tran Mo ...c.
rme d wor ld Stands
~,at o\o< ri s()f 1\.. 1,
/t ,
()•tall)"ve , \tie 1 /
king dom whi ch can De\---er be stati c or fttlly as the h()~
present b ,1-f()r 1 {,'.
• • i..
~td
• •
always be filled Will i. ~n~ pan ~n of what can
•
1
Thus Mol una no en,1S1ons a reciprocal perkhore . be ~t1nmust
Still +/~
, . I th S\s of th
\()ve /1
already exp erie nce d her e m ove: e person who ab· d ~t kind )/ , . •
abid es in God, and G«l in him ( 1 Joh n 4: 16). ,,, v~ es 1
.n\()ve 1/
indwellin g in loYe ~fo ltm ann e1n isio ns as finally ~t
. _,s here ~ \1
inte rpen etraUon of God an d t I1e ,,or . Id .
10 a mutual peric e1ng th
. . h. h ~ 1\~
and ~ cosmic ,:ommnnuot,~,d10111~1•~"' tn ~v tc I1 Go~ , the hoped ores,s ~
. (i
for kingdom , and hum an1t Y p.'trU c apate •.n the attnbutes of
the ~
othe r in a a111u1A#tlhr1 ~ utan,m that ~ubluuates each to a
higher
unity while porpor«, ni to prc~c n ·c thei r own characteristics,
after
the H~c lian m,f:, ¾c-1,o•
The ,o~mac pctu :hu r~i , of divi n t ,u,d human attributes,
of
time and etcn uf\• uuu cccrtt.d dnu:. whe rein 'the temporal
creation will then bctu ntc dtt cttrnal crt,uion' and the spatia 1
l
creation will then bcc umtt an om nip rtsc nl creation' 72 is
not
cosm ological. bu1 ph~ nom eno log ical and existential.
This
must ~ ~ because ·erem.ity in time is a category, not of t~e
extensive bfe. bu( of lhe inte niivc life. The presenc
e of eternity
com~s. about in the who lly and enti rely live d moment
nd through
~ •Vlded pres enc e in the pre sen t. ' 7:~ Alth oug
h Richa rd
auc~ ,am
he re 1s comhas rightly note d that Mo ltm ann 's use of 'moment'
para bl -
o/Hope,'74 h e with that of the idea of pro mise in Theo lo~
is dist inct ; nonetbe~ess believes Mo ltrn ann 's use
0 of the concept
Particuiar1y ~ an exis tent ial use. This doe s not seem
th·18 give to follow ,
conc ept in Kin the eXIs · ·
ten lla) basis Moltmann admits · 1'or
'
has note d in M elrk egaa rd and Hei deg ger. Chr isto
to Pro · 0
tma nn' phe r Morse
"ann ourn ise! in that th s th oug ht 'tha t age ncy
is attribute d
nee, nind ,,, " ey are said to do suc h thin
0 gs as
Pen up ,, "'
1 1 "~

7
,v1oltrn inau gur ate, " "o btain, an d
'
,,,
~ Moltr nann,
lb· . ann
'lbe w
7! Cnn Orld .
1-11\ td., 291_' in.go fr-•~ God or r-_ _ _. .
auckh ~UQ, 29,4 "UCl in th , . . ,
alll, 'l'i ~- e "' 0 rldi
Ille ¾d •
' ibid ., 41 .
E:.te.-...·
. ·••ty,.
C<Jdwi"&
~,, i-tlf\1 /, 14~
 ABUSE OF PERIC HORE SIS 383
vsEJ\ND
f1IE . . ative ability of the word of a God who
,,, , •Given
7
6.. ) , ·lt ·ts
thlS· ere, but only ' poss1"ble ' (Gott-mo-.n1•ch
~ reate• arin is 'not: ~e indee d be any actua lity behin d the
;r M01 ~e to ask if de If langu age can be said to funct ion
· the th ough t o f the later
wored· of divini·ty 1n
·vit\l of the
,easofla Mo l tman n' s
eatl ~, ·thout ne
er \dY wi a d1vin1 . . . ty is surely not neces sary to
reatt . that Molu nann' s
c •degger, , •ther It would seem , then, . .
f{e• vent e1 ·
·iaoguag e e sis for the mom ent of etern ity that impacts the
f richore . .
use O P~ a further instance of his effort to stren gthen the impetus
presentt~ rmation with the langu age of hope and promise.
for trans ~osest cosmologiail mode l to ~loltm ann' s vision would
The ~o be that of Frank Tiple r, who advocates an evolving
:;:: the Omeg ~ Point by way of an indef inite conti nuati on of
life in a closed unive rse.
Jflife evolves in all of th e many univer ses in a quant um cosmology,
and if life contin ues to cxi~t in all o f th ese univer ses, then all of
these universes, which includ e nil pO-.\Sib lt histori es among them,
will approa ch th e Omeg a Puint. At the instan t the Omeg a Point is
reached , life will have ~..lined contro l o f "" matter and forces not
only in a single uni,·en e . bm m ,tll univer ses whose existen ce is
logically possibl e; life will h,\\'C spread into all spatial region s in all
universes which could logically c>tist. and will have stored an infinite
amount of inform ation, includ ing all. bits of knowl edge which it is
76
logically possibl e to know. And this is the end.

Although Tiple r sugge sts the mode m theolo gian might wish
to say that life at the Omeg a Point is omni poten t, omnipresent,
and omnis cient, his Ome ga Point God devolves int?th'an
eschatological panth eism in which the universe (along Wl all
lhat is, was, and will be in it) becom es God' and entails a severe
materialistic reduc tionis m of all in the universe to t~e
th
accumulated totalit y of inform ation that is ga ered from t ~
l" h st0 d on a super
tg t waves of the physical which is then re · on with
. 't compans
computer.77 While Tiple r's mode l may mvi e, 11 in all' (1 Cor.
Moltmann's emph asis that God will become a
. hia · Fortress Press,
. , Theology (Ph1lade lp ·
Promise in Moltma nn s . . l Principle (Oxford:
i5 Morse, T~ Logic of
h Anthrop ic Cosmolog1ca d Contemporary
1979) • 54.
76 John Barrow and Frank Tipler. /~,/ Worthin g, God, Creation an
17
Clarend on, 1986), 676f.,c itedin~ :~ress·. 1996), ~· 1 72.
Physics (Minne apolis: Augs~u rg~d eonte1nporarJ PhySics,
a
,,,orth'1ng, God • Creauon
n \u
 JfU SC O TT IS H JO C& ~A l OF
-- .. TIO:
J:,;?S), 1t u ba se d on a do se
d cosmologi
otacv
&ystetD M ol tm an n am-o
caces. is highly cal •lll~e.t,
re se m bl an ce co bi bl ic al th not th
eo l~. a n :i atn>e an d 0
~ ~n
On the ot he r hand, th e op
w ou ld appear co ac h· or
en _universe 00:
at e is th e more pe 0
~ • or CSCbato~tU,

en tro py de m on st ra te d ~ t!'at Moltrn~·

by th e second law ofssuthn1stic, . -.i,n
leading from orde r to diso With the
rder, ho t to co ld , highennodyna
sipative eq ui lib ri um an d tnics
certain. )
y no t th e opnm
th e e\-
. 1s. . - -•-=
t1 c
en ru
-
al he
.
at death 0 ;;ergy ~o dis-
.. \.UUJllJ 1atmg Sa bbath and kiunl'lerse
e
that M. o )tmann emu1 ons. ngdom
1

C:Ondusion
Perichoresis has played an
important ro.le in th e Church s
understanding of th e re latio 1

n of th e divine na tu re within itse

in tri ni tarianism and tu the ~
hun1 an nature in christology.
th e ch risto logicaJ use of Wh
peri churesis has decreased in ile
th eo logy, th e use of pericho recent
resi, in trin ita riani sm has i~creas<:
but of te n with out th e nece d,
Moltm an n 's use
ssary on to lo gical basis. W!1ile
of th e te rn1 as a m od el
fo r social relau
has pr oven he lpful as an
analogy of th e co mmunity of o~
na tu re th at hw na ni l), is an gene~c
d sh o ul d re cognize itself
use of pe richo resis is base to b~, his
d on an analogi,a relationis 01
the_ requisite anal.ogia entis
. M ol tm an n uses perichores
de~ of ?
soa?logical, ph en om en ol og !s l.ll a
ic al , an d existential fashion,
7quivalent to th e H eg el ia ~y
n aufgehoben, to sublimat
nto ~ e hoped-for co m m un e all th:~
al G od said to be coming, th0
rhequ1nng eschatological on
toloo-ical verification. Peric •\
ere emasculat d f . hores1sd1
Moltm , e O its essential basis an
d is wrong Ye mploy
I e.
~A

classicaan
l n s social in
· te h the
use of perich re st s
. . may be m ai nt ai ne
d throug
· .
ores1s m an on to lo gy of presen t 1-.D1ng-
L"'
RANoAL L E. O n o
W es tG ro ve p
13 9 W. Ev ~r es by ter ian
Ch ur ch
West Gr green Street
USA ove, FA 19 39 0