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.’”1

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.”2 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,

1 Tim Keller, Reason for God, 214-215.

2 D. A. Carson, Exegetirical Fallacies, 28.

 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.3 Even St. Augustine (354-430) wrote of the

3 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (USA: Harper San Francisco, rev. 1978), 264.
"mutual interpenetration and interdwelling" of the three Persons in the Trinity.”4
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).5

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

4 Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines, trans. Charles E. Hay (Grand

Rapids: Baker, 1954), vol. 1, 239.

5 Translation by Frederic H. Chase Jr., Saint John of Damascus: Writings, 202.

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 foremost 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.”6

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?

6 McGrath, Alister E. “Christian Theology.”

 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.

1. 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. ”7
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.

2. 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.

7 McGrath, Alister E. “Christian Theology.”

 Triskel image in Gothic window

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!