Divine Dance or Perichoresis

The Term Divine Dance was used by Tim Keller in his book, Reason for God. This is an interesting phrase to explain the term perichoresis. In explaining Trinity, Tim Keller says,

“The life of the Trinity is characterized not by self-centeredness but by mutually self-giving love. When we delight and serve someone else, we enter into a dynamic orbit around him or her, we center on the interests and desires of the other. That creates a dance, particularly if there are three persons, each of whom moves around the other two. So it is, the Bible tells us. Each of the divine persons centers upon the others. None demands that the others revolve around him. Each voluntarily circles the other two, pouring love, delight, and adoration into them. Each person of the Trinity loves, adores, defers to, and rejoices in the others. That creates a dynamic pulsating dance of joy and love. The early leaders of the Greek church had a word for this—perichoresis. Notice the root of our word ‘choreography’ is within it. It means literally to ‘dance or flow around.’”

Keller gets the meaning “dance around” from the word perichoresis. Peri means around, and choresis means dance, so he interprets the word as dancing around. For Keller, in Trinity, each person of the Trinity “moves around the other two.” Keller bases the whole idea on the meaning of the word, perichoresis. Using the meaning of the word choresis he identifies that perichoresis is primarily a dance. Though early church fathers didn’t mean perichoresis as a dance (see below) Keller points out that perichoresis is about divine dance. In addition, this dance is a dance of a person of the Trinity around the other two persons of the Trinity. There is a fundamental problem in this interpretation. Understanding the word perichoresis as “dancing around” falls under root fallacy of D. A. Carson.

D. A Carson, the New Testament scholar, calls these kinds of fallacies as root fallacies. He says, “One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word.” For Carson, words must be understood in its context rather than just from the etymology of the words. A word’s etymological meaning only suggests meaning to a context. The meaning of the word must be determined by the context not just from the etymology. Carson writes about this in detail in this way:

In I Corinthians 4:1 Paul writes of himself, Cephas, Apollos, and other leaders in these terms: "So then, men ought to regard us as servants υπηρετας, hvperetas) of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God" (NIV). More than a century ago, R. C. Trench popularized the view that υπηρετας; (hyperetes) derives from the verb ερεσσω (eressο) "to row." The basic meaning of υπηρετας; (hyperetes), then, is "rower." Trench quite explicitly says a υπηρετας (hyperetes) "was originally the rower (from ερεσσω [eressο])." A. T. Robertson and J. B Hofmann went further and said υπηρετας (hyperetes) derives morphologically from υπο (hypo) and ερετες (eretes).' Now ερεσσω (eressο) means "rower" in Homer (eighth century B.c.!); and Hofmann draws the explicit connection with the morphology, concluding a υπηρετας (hyperetes) was basically an "under rower" or "assistant rower" or "subordinate rower." Trench had not gone so far: he did not detect in υπο (hvpo) any notion of subordination. Nevertheless Leon Morris concluded that a υπηρετας (hyperetes) was "a servant of 'a lowly kind";' and William Barclay plunged further and designated υπηρετας (hyperetes) as "a rower on the lower bank of a trireme."' Yet the fact remains that with only one possible exception-and it is merely possible, not certain υπηρετας (hyperetes) is never used for "rower" in classical literature, and it is certainly not used that way in the New Testament. The υπηρετας (hyperetes) in the New Testament is a servant, and often there is little if anything to distinguish him from a διακονος (diakonos). As Louw remarks, to derive the meaning of υπηρετας (hyperetes) from υπο (hypo) and ερετες (eretes) is no more intrinsically realistic than deriving the meaning of "butterfly" from "butter" and "fly," or the meaning of "pineapple" from "pine" and "apple.""

Therefore, interpreting perichoresis as dancing around (peri-around, choresis-dance) is not a good interpretation. The meaning of the word must be identified by the way it was used by the theologians. The word’s meaning must be understood in its context. We cannot take the word out of its theological context and attribute new meaning to it. Doing that would be eisegesis. It would distort the very purpose of the use of the word to explain certain aspects of theology. Perichoresis is a theological term. It was and it had been used throughout history to indicate certain theological ideas. Therefore, the interpreter must identify how the word had been used and see how it is used by other theologians and he/she must suggest the meaning of that word. Creating a new meaning for a theological word devoid if its context would only distort the meaning of the word. Therefore, let us see what the word means in its context.

Perichoresis:

Fourth century Eastern fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus and Didymus the Blind, taught the perichoresis. Even St. Augustine (354-430) wrote of the "mutual interpenetration and interdwelling" of the three Persons in the Trinity.” But John of Damascus is an important person for the development of the doctrine of Perichoresis. John of Damascus (675-753) is considered as the last of the great eastern fathers spends considerable space in writing about Trinity. He is termed as the one who gave the doctrine of perichoresis its space. Therefore, it is important to see how he had used the term and the concept in his writings to get more clarity.

John of Damascus:

John says the Son "ever abide[s] in the Father" (OF 1.8) and is "ever essentially present with" Him (OF 1.13). The Son is "in the bosom" of the Father (OF 3.1) and He became incarnate "without leaving the Father’s bosom" (OF 3.7). John says, "The holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son" (OF 1.13). John uses verbs such as cleaving (OF 1.8, 14), abiding (OF 1.8), dwelling (OF 1.8) and indwelling (OF 4.18) to describe the perichoresis of the Godhead. He says that there is no confusing, compounding, coalescing or mixing of the Persons in this most intimate union (OF 1.8, 14). The preposition of the perichoresis is not merely "with" but "in." For John this relationship shows the "unity and community" in the Holy Trinity (OF 1.8). John says in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

The abiding and resting of the persons in one another is not in such a manner that they coalesce or become confused, but, rather, so that they confused, but, rather, so that they adhere to one another, for they are without interval between them and inseparable and their mutual indwelling [en allais perichoresin] is without confusion. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit, and the Spirit is in the Father and the Son, and the Father is in the Son and the Spirit, and there is no merging or blending or confusion. And there is one surge and one movement of the three persons. It is impossible for this to be found in any created nature (OF 1.14).

We must notice the idea John says here of one person of the Trinity being IN the other person of the Trinity: the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit (OF 1.14). This being in the other person also involves movement: And there is one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three subsistences (OF 1.14). This being within and moving within is called perichoresis, for John of Damascus.

For John, perichoresis is not just a theological reflection but a scriptural doctrine. He says, "For the subsistences [the three Persons in the Trinity] dwell in one another ... according to the word of the Lord, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me [John 14:11]" (OF 1.8). He also writes, that the Scriptures "declare the indwelling of the subsistences in one another, as, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me [John 14:10]" (OF 4.18). Therefore, perichoiesis is one person of the trinity living in the other two person of the Trinity. Therefore, perichoresis is not about dancing around but interpenetrating each other. It is about being within one another in the Godhead.

Alister McGrath on Perichoresis:

Alister McGrath, one of the famous theologian in our contemporary world explains summarizes perichoresis this way:

“This Greek term, which is often found in either its Latin (circumincessio) or English (“mutual interpenetration”) translations, came into general use in the sixth century. It refers to the manner in which the three persons of the Trinity relate to one another. The concept of perichoresis allows the individuality of the persons to be maintained, while insisting that each person shares in the life of the other two. An image often used to express this idea is that of “a community of being,” in which each person, while maintaining its distinctive identity, penetrates the others and is penetrated by them.”

As McGrath demonstrates the term perichoresis is not about “dancing around” or not even moving around but “interpenetration.” The term indicates how one person of the Trinity interpenetrates the other two in the Godhead. In addition, it is imperative to see why perichoresis is an important doctrine to validate Trinity.

Perichoresis and Trinity:

The concept of perichoresis is an important concept in the Doctrine of Trinity. It was used to validate the Doctrine of Trinity because of certain theological issues. Understanding them is important so as to understand the meaning of the term.

Nicean Creed of 325 CE identified that the Son is homoousios as that of the Father (being of the same nature or essence or being as that of the Father). Nicean Creed also identified that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the three persons (persona) of the Trinity. This means though they share the same nature or essence they are three individuals or persons. The relationship among the three are explained by terms such as “Begotten,” “Breathed,” and “Flioque.” Because of the limitation of space we will not be dealing with these terms in details. If all three persons of the Trinity are of same essence and are different in persons how are they different from the Hindu concept of Trimoorthy?

Trimoorthies, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the three chief gods of Hinduism. While Brahma is considered as the creator, and Vishnu, the sustainer, Shiva is considered in Hinduism, as the savior (destroyer of evil). In one sense we can call the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as the Creator, the Savior, and the Sustainer, respectively. To avoid this confusion Christian Theology as two concepts, 1. Appropriation and 2. Perichoresis.

Appropriation:

McGrath says, “The doctrine of appropriation insists that the works of the Trinity are a unity; every person of the Trinity is involved in every outward action of the Godhead. Thus Father, Son, and Spirit are all involved in the work of creation, which is not to be viewed as the work of the Father alone. ” One of the main reasons for this doctrine is to show the unity of the Trinity. In Hindu concept of Trimoorthy, each god needs the other gods as they are limited. As Brahma is only a creator god, he is limited only to creation and thus he needs the other two persons of Trimoorthies so that they could save and sustain the humanity. If so, they are not one god, but they are three gods, as they are seen in Hinduism. However, as Christian theology considers God as one and that there is no polytheism in Christian Bible Trinity uses the concept of Appropriation to validate the importance of the involvement of each person of the Trinity in all the “outward actions” of the Godhead. This is validated even by Scriptures (See my other paper on Trinity). Therefore, through appropriation the Godhead is seen as one in unity as all the three persons of the Trinity are seen as being involved together in “every outward action of the Godhead” such as creation, sustenance, and salvation of the whole universe.

Perichoresis:

Similarly, perichoresis talks about the unity not just in the functioning aspect of Trinity but in their stative level. If all the persons of the Trinity are seen individuals separate and unique from each other how can one speak of them as one? The understanding Trinity as three persons seem to suggest polytheism again. Though through appropriation they could be seen as individuals acting in unity in functions of the Godhead there must be clarification given to identify their oneness in being. This is done so beautifully by perichoresis. In perichoresis, even according to John of Damascus, all three persons of the Trinity interpenetrate each other and allow themselves to be interpenetrated without blending, merging or confusion, (keeping their individually) so that they could be spoken of as one. This is not just a theological invention. Jesus says, “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You” (John 17:21). How could Jesus be in the Father and the Father could be in Jesus? Perichoresis explains this better. Therefore, by their “being” in each other and moving in to each other they live as a community in Trinity, which establishes the Godhead as one.

Therefore, perichoresis is an important part of the doctrine of Trinity to validate the oneness of the Godhead keeping the individuality and three different persona of the persons of the Godhead. Consequently, speaking of perichoresis as a “divine dance” where each person of the Trinity is dancing around each other distorts the very reason why the doctrine was formed. Apart from the lack of Scripture the “divine dance” concept distorts the very meaning of the word perichoresis and alters the very doctrine of Trinity considerably. Therefore, much clarity need to brought in to the understanding of Divine Dance concept so that the essentials of Christian Theology will not be distorted and altered. Soli Deo Gloria!

Plhroma Tou Nomou in Paul and Philo

John Martens in his dissertation called, “The Superfluity of the Law in Philo and Paul: A Study in the History of Religions” points out that Philonic and Pauline ideas of the Law must be understood in light of the Greco-Roman discussions of the ‘higher law’—the Law of Nature (nomos physeos), the Unwritten Law (agraphos nomos), and the Living Law (nomos empsychos). For Martens, “these forms of Greco-Roman Law implied a depreciation of the written or civil law” (Martens, iii). Martens suggests that Philo though adopting these concepts does not depreciate the Mosaic Law. However, he says, “Paul rejects the Law, because of his experience of Jesus Christ and the present eschatological reality in which he lived” (Martens, iv).

Interestingly, for Martens, in light of Greco-Roman view of the Law, where the Living Law, the King could trump the written Law, Paul held the view that Christ is enthroned as the King (293-296) and that he is the Living Law, then the Christian need not follow the Written Law. Martens seems to concentrate more on Rom 10:4, which says, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” He seems to avoid the verses where Paul talks about the fulfillment of the Law with the Spirit and Love.

In Rom 8:4, Paul says, one will fulfill the Law by walking “according to the Spirit.” Interestingly, Paul exhorts the people with ‘imperatival descriptives’ saying they must fulfill the Law through the help of the Spirit. This goes against the interpretation of Martens. For him, Paul “rejected” the Law because of the Living Law, Christ the King. However, According to Paul, in Rom 8:4, people must fulfill the Law through the Spirit.

Not only this, Paul says, in Rom 13:8-10, “For he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law.” Added to this he says, “For this, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” Therefore, Paul stresses that “Love is the fulfillment of the Law.” Loving one another is the fulfillment of the Law. It means, Christ did not fulfill the Law once and for all but exhorts his people to fulfill the Law by love. Therefore, Love becomes the means by which one fulfills the Law and the Spirit becomes the Agent for one to fulfill the Law. Paul reiterates these ideas in Galatians as follows: “For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (5:14) and “Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ” (6:2). By sharing one another’s burden with love one fulfills the Law of Christ. Therefore, Paul still exhorts his people to fulfill the Law, exemplified by Jesus Christ by the means of love and by the help of the Spirit.

Like Philo, Paul also reconceptualizes the concept of the obedience of the written Law. However, he also talks about Halakah similar to Philo and like any other rabbi for that matter, but obedience of the Law (or fulfillment of the Law) in a different way, i.e., with the help of the Spirit, with the means of Love, and with the goal to fulfill Law taught by Christ.

Therefore, Philo must be studied again in light of the Graeco-Roman concepts of the ‘higher law’ so that their differences and similarities will be brought out in a goal to understand Pauline idea of the fulfillment of the Law better.