Bishop Ignatije Midić
University of Belgrade
Abstract: John Zizioulas approaches the pressing ontological issues of humanity and the world from a methodological perspective in his theological opus. This work begins by outlining the basic tenets of the Neo-Patristic synthesis, a methodological approach pioneered by Father Georges Florovsky. Building on this foundation, the study demonstrates how the Neo-Patristic synthesis is applied in Metropolitan’s theology, viewed as an evolution of this synthesis. The research navigates through the fundamental cosmological, Trinitarian, Christological, ecclesiological, and eschatological principles in Zizioulas’ theological work. Its primary focus is to answer the central question of how these elements reflect the authentic and consistent implementation of the Neo-Patristic synthesis. This synthesis, as defined by Florovsky, is reinterpreted and creatively applied in Metropolitan John of Pergamon’s theology.
Introduction
The theological work of the late Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon is rich, complex, and profound. His works address a multitude of theological issues, all intricately connected to the life of the Church, as well as to the life of every person and the world as a whole. While it is impossible to cover every aspect in this brief essay, a notable hallmark of Metropolitan John’s theology is his focus on addressing ontological problems. These are relevant not only to the Church and modern individuals but also to the world as a whole. The late Metropolitan John endeavors to demonstrate that the ontological problems of humanity and the world can only be resolved in Christ and through the Church, or more precisely, in Christ as the Church. This approach is grounded in the methods of Neo-Patristic synthesis, a fundamental aspect of the theology of the great ancient Church Fathers. The pressing question remains: What exactly is the Neo-Patristic synthesis in theology?
In the mid-20th century, the slogan “Back to the Fathers” emerged in Orthodox theological circles, predominantly among Russian theologians who lived and worked in the West and were engaged in Orthodox theology.[1] This movement arose as a response to Western theologians who, since the 19th century, had begun exploring the teachings of the ancient Holy Fathers. Orthodox theologians subsequently initiated studies on the theology of the Holy Fathers from the era of the undivided Church. This was part of an effort to free Orthodox theology from the influences of Roman Catholic scholasticism and Protestant theology, influences that were sometimes referred to as the “Babylonian captivity” of Orthodox theology. These studies, influenced by Western theologians’ historical approach to the ancient Holy Fathers, often involved extensive quoting and reiterating their teachings. This method, adopted by some Orthodox theologians, gave the impression that the works of the ancient Holy Fathers were akin to museum exhibits: treasures to be jealously guarded and repetitively echoed. This approach mirrored the practices in many large Orthodox monasteries and their brotherhoods during the post-Byzantine period under Ottoman rule.
This approach to ancient patristic theology led some Orthodox theologians, most notably Fr. George Florovsky, to advocate that contemporary theology should engage with the theology of the fathers, but within the context of current theological issues. Fr. Georges Florovsky emphasized a return to the teachings of the ancient fathers among Orthodox theologians, which he practiced himself.[2] However, he stressed that this should not be mere repetition, but rather, there was a need for a “Neo-Patristic synthesis” in modern theology. This term can be interpreted in various ways. According to Fr. Florovsky, the “Neo-Patristic synthesis” means studying and interpreting the theology of the ancient Church fathers as a source and model for addressing contemporary theological problems. This approach aims for the unity of Christ’s Church (including the unity of East and West) and the Christianization of the world in which we live. Just as the theology of the Holy Fathers was originally developed to combat heresy and promote Church unity, engaging with Hellenism and the Hellenic worldview to forge a Christian worldview represented by the Church and Byzantine culture, so too should modern theology engage with the world.[3] Additionally, the theology of the ancient fathers always addressed the ontological problems of humanity and the world, aiming to save people rather than merely define thoughts and beliefs. Based on Fr. Florovsky’s perspective, modern theology should speak to modern humans, addressing the aforementioned issues with the theology of the early Church fathers as its foundation. The question then arises: How does the theology of the late Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon align with the aforementioned “Neo-Patristic synthesis” in theology?
Interpreting the Teachings of the Ancient Church Fathers in the Theology of the Metropolitan of Pergamon and Relating It to the Ontological Problems of Humanity and the World
Metropolitan John of Pergamon, a student of Fr. Georges Florovsky, proudly acknowledged this influence and is one of the few contemporary theologians who embraced Florovsky’s direction, conceptualizing his theology as a “neo-Patristic synthesis.” He emphasized the theology of the ancient fathers as the foundation for addressing and solving contemporary theological issues within the Orthodox Church and the world at large. However, the essence of the late Metropolitan’s theology lies in his intensive engagement with the ontological problems of humanity and the world. In his studies, he advocated for a theology rooted in the teachings of the Holy Fathers, aimed at addressing the ontological challenges faced by modern individuals and society. Just as the ancient Holy Fathers, starting with the Apostles, addressed the concerns of their time, Metropolitan John believed that the primary purpose of theology, as well as its historical role, is to explore ontological questions concerning both humanity and the world at large. This approach is evident in the work of the great fathers of the ancient Church and is a path that he argued modern theology should continue to follow. What are the ontological problems of man and the world to which the metropolitan especially pays attention and responds? The ontological issues that the Metropolitan particularly focused on include, foremost, the problem of death, followed by freedom and personality, among other concerns. These questions also extend to the unity of the Church, both at local and universal levels, aiming to bridge the divide between the Eastern and Western Churches. For him, the disunity of the Church symbolizes death, representing the fragmentation of a once-whole organism.
Before discussing Metropolitan John’s specific engagement with the ontological issues mentioned earlier, it is important to highlight a unique aspect of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas)’s theology. In addressing the ontological problems of humanity and the world through the lens of the theology of the Holy Fathers, the Metropolitan showed a particular interest in the liturgical experience, or the liturgical perspective on human and worldly existence. He was inspired by Saint Maximus the Confessor’s assertion that the true existence of humans and the world is not defined by their past or present state but by their future state in the age to come.[4] According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, which the Metropolitan of Pergamon adhered to, the Liturgy serves as a revelation and icon of this future state of creation, that is, of the Kingdom of God.[5] Thus, for him, the Liturgy is the benchmark for the true way of life for both humans and the world in the present historical context. In other words, following in the footsteps of the Holy Fathers, such as Ignatius the God-bearer, he viewed the Liturgy as an event offering a “medicine for immortality,”[6] presenting a model of life for humanity across all ages, including the present. Through the Liturgy, humans can “become like God” and overcome death.
I also believe it’s important to note that Metropolitan John, distinctively among contemporary theologians, crafted a synthesis between theology and life. Hence, he was a vocal critic of scholastic theology, contrasting it with the patristic theology of the undivided Church era. He argued that scholastic theology is disconnected from the life and problems of both the Church and modern man,[7] a criticism not applicable to patristic theology. Unlike scholastic theology, which separates theology from life and reduces it to logical or rational thought, the Metropolitan championed a theology rooted in communion with God, emphasizing a personal encounter with Him. This encounter is founded not on reason but on freedom and love. Therefore, the foundation of his theology, beyond the teachings of the ancient Church Fathers and the Holy Eucharist, includes asceticism, a rare emphasis among theologians. Through this approach, the late Metropolitan emerged as a new teacher of the Church—a Holy Father—whose theology not only continues the legacy of the ancient fathers but is also innovative and relevant. It addresses the ontological issues of the modern world and humanity from an eschatological viewpoint.
At the same time, the Metropolitan engaged in debates grounded in the theology of the Holy Fathers, addressing various perspectives on the existence of the world and humanity. His discussions extended beyond theological visions to include philosophical ones, particularly in the realm of ontology. He focused notably on ancient Greek philosophy and its influence on modern thought, positing that contemporary philosophy shares much in common with the ancient Greek understanding of ontology, or existence.[8] Through this approach, the Metropolitan facilitated a dialogue between theology and science.
Therefore, the “neo-patristic synthesis,” which prominently features in the works of the лате Metropolitan of Pergamon, as we will demonstrate, is distinctively focused on the theology of the Holy Fathers within the context of the ontological problems of humanity and the world, providing insightful answers. This approach is, regrettably, not as prevalent in the theology of recent theologians. How does the former Metropolitan John perceive these problems? Where do they originate, and how can they be resolved? Let us begin with the problem of death. What is death, and how did it enter the world?
The Teachings of Metropolitan John of Pergamon on the Existence of the World and Humanity
What underpins the theology of the Holy Fathers, alongside teachings about Christ and God as the Holy Trinity, and what the Apostles and early Holy Fathers emphasized in their interactions with polytheists, particularly with the ancient Hellenistic worldview, is the doctrine concerning the existence of the world. Drawing from biblical testimony frequently cited by Metropolitan John, the Holy Fathers maintained that God created all beings from non-being, signifying that the world is not eternal but has an absolute beginning of existence. Only God is eternal, being uncreated. Before the creation of the world, there was nothing but God alone. Contrary to the ancient Greek belief in the world’s eternal and unchangeable existence, the biblical perspective on the world’s existence, which Metropolitan John also upholds, presents the world as the result of God’s freedom. The act of creating the world ex nihilo underscores that God exists independently from the world, that is, He exists freely and chose to create the world at a specific moment according to His will.
In this way, i.e., based on the biblical understanding of the existence of the world, Christian teachers separated the existence of God from the existence of the world. God and the world are two different realities. God is uncreated, eternal, while the world is created, i.e. before God created him, he did not exist. In contrast to the ancient Greek understanding that insisted that the world and God are one and the same reality and therefore the world is eternal because God is eternal, the Holy Fathers separated God and the world. This separation of God and the world is possible only if God is a free being in his existence. On the contrary, if God existed by the necessity of his nature, then, even when Christian teachers talk about God being the creator of the world (as was the case with Origen), the world would exist eternally and necessarily. He would be faithful to God, that is. God and the world would be one, because if God is a creator by nature, and is not free in his activity, then he is an eternal creator, and therefore his creation is also eternal, and in this way the world and God are inseparable, i.e. they are one. From the biblical teaching on the creation of the world, however, the first and basic conclusion is that God is absolutely different from the world and exists independently of the world. God and the world are not of the same nature.
Secondly, the world is a creation of God and the result of God’s freedom. The existence of the world depends entirely on God’s will and freedom. Creation does not exist independently; its very basis of existence is the freedom of God. Moreover, if the creation of the world ex nihilo is an act of God’s freedom, then it follows that the world’s existence is a gift from God. This implies that the world does not exist out of necessity, but from God’s free decision. Consequently, the world is subject to change; it can exist or not exist, all according to God’s will and freedom. Of course, after its creation, the existence of the world also depends on the freedom of creation itself, namely, humanity, but that discussion will come later. This perspective is derived from and is a conclusion of the biblical and patristic understanding of the world, which God created freely out of nothing
Building upon this doctrine, Metropolitan John first highlighted the implications of the world’s creation on its ontology, or existence, and then addressed these implications, thereby establishing his unique theological approach. What are the ontological consequences of the world being created ex nihilo for the world itself? What insights does Metropolitan John of Pergamon offer on this matter? Subsequently, we will explore how the world can exist eternally and to what extent the world’s existence depends not only on God but also on man.
The World is Mortal by Nature because It Was Created Out of Nothing
All created beings were brought into existence from nothing. God did not create beings from His own essence, nor from any pre-existing eternal substance. Instead, He created them ex nihilo. This results in the created world being inherently mortal. As St. Athanasius the Great stated, “the nature of created beings is the former non-being.”[9] Therefore, for the Holy Fathers, as well as for the Metropolitan,[10] death in nature is primarily a consequence of the creation of beings from non-being. From this, it follows that created beings are mortal, chiefly because they were created from nothing. In other words, the created world exists, meaning all created beings exist, but in a manner that leads them towards death, towards non-existence. For the created world, life and death are two facets of the same reality.
Based on the discussion, it follows that death represents the potential peril of returning created beings to the non-being from which they originated.[11] Unlike ancient Greek philosophy, which, along with much of modern philosophy and science, views the world as inherently eternal and thus interprets the death of individual beings merely as a transformation within nature, the Holy Fathers, as well as Metropolitan Zizioulas, perceive death as a threat of non-existence for both individual entities and the world at large. This perspective is vividly confirmed by the experience of losing a loved one. When we lose someone close to us, we are confronted with the stark reality of their absolute absence. It is through this experience that we grasp the full tragedy of death as a return to nothingness. According to Metropolitan John, all created beings and the world itself are inherently mortal, having been created ex nihilo, and face the risk of reverting to non-existence through death. However, God’s intention in creating beings was not for them to return to non-being or to perish. God created the world freely, out of love, intending for it to live rather than die. How, then, can the world transcend death despite its mortal nature? What insights did the late Metropolitan John offer on this matter?
Based on the creation narrative provided by the Holy Scriptures, at the conclusion of creation, God fashioned humanity in His own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26). The Holy Fathers associated the image of God in humanity with freedom. “God is a free being, and man, as an icon of God, is also a free being,” St. Gregory of Nyssa asserts. Within the framework of human creation, Metropolitan John emphasizes that humans were endowed with freedom to achieve a free union with God, thereby granting both humanity and all creation eternal life. This is because God, upon creating humanity, placed all creation under their authority (cf. Gen 1:26-28). Essentially, God created humans with freedom aiming for their union with Him, and through them, with all creation. In this union of freedom with God, humanity would become like God, as the Metropolitan of Pergamum explains; existing in a manner akin to God’s existence. Man would enter into the personal relationships of the Holy Trinity and become immortal, and through him, the entirety of nature would transcend death. Through man, the created world would surmount death and live eternally, despite its inherent mortality. In other words, in free communion with God, humanity and the entire world would conquer death, and the world would exist as a distinct and immortal personality, mirroring the existence of the Holy Trinity. However, to fully grasp this concept, we must explore what the Holy Fathers and Metropolitan John have articulated about the existence of God; for the teachings of the Holy Fathers about God, as followed by Metropolitan John, are pivotal for him, as these teachings provide solutions to the ontological issues of humanity, given that humanity is an icon of God. How does Metropolitan John interpret the Fathers’ teachings on the existence of God, and how does this teaching relate to overcoming the problem of death for both humanity and the world at large?
The Teachings of the Metropolitan of Pergamum on God as the Holy Trinity: An Ontology of Communion
The God we believe in, based on biblical testimony, is both One and the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This New Testament faith in God was revealed to us by the Lord Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament, prior to the coming of Christ—despite God not being explicitly described as the Holy Trinity—references to God frequently employ both singular and plural forms. Thus, the belief in God as both One and the Holy Trinity, though not explicitly clear, is present in the Old Testament. Consequently, while biblical faith in God is exclusively monotheistic, it never questions the existence and revelation of God as the Holy Trinity
However, what was quite normal for the first Jewish Christians—that God is both One and simultaneously the Holy Trinity—was nearly incomprehensible to the peoples to whom Christianity was later preached. For the ancient Greeks, as well as for other groups such as the Latins and others, the concepts of ‘one’ and ‘many’ did not belong in the same category. Something was either One or it was many. Consequently, these nations believed either in the existence of many gods or in a singular deity. The task of the later Church Fathers was precisely to elucidate the biblical faith in God to the Gentiles, explaining how God could be both One and at the same time the Holy Trinity. In essence, they needed to convey that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one God, not three separate gods. Metropolitan John regarded this clarification as crucial not only for understanding the nature of God’s existence but also for theology as a whole, particularly in grasping the ontology of the concept of human personality and its existential dilemmas, such as its existence or non-existence. How did the later Church Fathers approach this issue and make the biblical faith in the One God, who is also the Trinity, accessible to non-biblical peoples? What insights does Metropolitan John offer on this matter?
Metropolitan John’s teachings on the existence of God primarily draw upon biblical testimonies, particularly emphasizing the contributions of the Cappadocian Fathers—Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Saint Gregory of Nyssa. To elucidate the concept of God as both the Holy Trinity and simultaneously One, these Fathers, as highlighted by the Metropolitan, distinguished between hypostasis and nature in God. They identified the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as Hypostases in relation to nature. The Cappadocian Fathers conceived of God as the Holy Trinity, that is, as three distinct hypostases or beings sharing the same divine nature. God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are seen as three hypostases of one divine essence/nature. Contrary to ancient Greek philosophers, who perceived existence as impersonal nature, the Holy Fathers asserted that ‘nature never exists in isolation but always as a concrete being,’ as a specific hypostasis (St. Basil the Great). For instance, human nature is manifested exclusively through individual persons, such as Mark, John, Mary, etc., that is, as distinct human hypostases. Therefore, drawing from biblical depictions of God, these Fathers identified the singular God with specific hypostases—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who share one indivisible nature. However, this led to a pertinent question among those to whom the Holy Trinity was preached: How is God considered One if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each God?
In answering the question posed earlier, the Cappadocians advanced beyond their predecessors by identifying hypostasis with personhood, a distinction that Metropolitan John particularly emphasizes. Ancient Greek philosophers and the Latins discussed the existence of a person, but for them, a person was akin to a mask, a façade, or a role. It was associated with the role an individual plays in relation to others or the state, or with the mask actors wore in theater to conceal their identities from the gods and avoid punishment for mocking them during performances. In this context, the person in ancient Greek philosophy existed as a concept but lacked ontological significance. Thus, person was merely the mask or role one plays in relation to others, without implications for one’s actual existence.
However, the Cappadocian Fathers bestowed an ontological significance upon personality, identifying it with hypostasis and thereby grounding identity in the relationship with the other. A person, therefore, is a concrete being, a hypostasis, whose existence is predicated on a relationship with another. Saint Gregory the Theologian elucidates this when he queries: what does the name Father signify, essence or energy? His response is neither; it signifies the relationship and how it is defined with the Son. Consequently, if God the Father is a concrete hypostasis, His existence necessitates at least the Son and a relationship with Him. Without the Son, who would the Father be? Consequently, there would be no Father. The same principle applies to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The relationships among the persons of the Holy Trinity are not ancillary to their existence. It is not that the Father exists first and then begets the Son or enters into a relationship with Him. Rather, God the Father’s existence is inherently tied to His relationship with the Son He begets and the Spirit He sends. Similarly, the Son and the Spirit exist eternally, defined by their free relationship with the Father. In this manner, the Holy Fathers, as interpreted by Metropolitan John, equated the essence of God with relationship and communion.
Therefore, according to the Metropolitan, based on the existence of God as the Holy Trinity, a person is an existing, concrete, eternal, and unrepeatable being only in relation, in union with another person. No person within the Holy Trinity exists in isolation; the existence of one person is intrinsically linked to, and dependent upon, the existence and relationship, or union, with another. “A solitary person is tantamount to no person at all,” asserts the Metropolitan of Pergamon. It is from this relationship, from this communion, that a person derives its distinct and unique identity. God the Father is an eternally existing and concrete person—The Father—solely in relation, in union with the Son and the Spirit. The Son and the Spirit, in turn, are eternal and unrepeatable persons solely in relation, in free union with the Father.[12]
At the same time, the Holy Fathers emphasized that God the Father is the source of divinity and the guarantor of the unity of the Holy Trinity. They asserted that God the Father unites the Holy Trinity as One God. According to biblical testimonies and the teachings of the Church Fathers, God is primarily the Father, yet He is also the Trinity, encompassing both the Son and the Spirit. To articulate this, they posited the Father as the cause within the existence of God, the originating cause. The Metropolitan also strongly underscored this aspect, advocating that there is one God, who, based on biblical testimony, is God the Father. This is because nature cannot exist in isolation, or “naked.” While hypostasis cannot exist without nature, it is the hypostasis, or person, that actualizes nature’s existence. Why did this distinction hold such significance for Metropolitan John?
The teaching of the Church Fathers, as embraced by Metropolitan John, posits that the cause of God’s existence is the person of the Father, rather than the divine nature. This principle underscores that God’s mode of existence is fundamentally an existence in freedom. As Metropolitan John explains, it is the Father who begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit. The Son and the Spirit are not products of divine essence and its laws but are brought forth by the hypostasis, the person, of the Father. Thus, God the Father willingly begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit. Since the Father is never without the Son and the Spirit, this implies that God the Father freely begets the Son and proceeds the Spirit, thereby existing freely Himself.
This act of freely begetting the Son and proceeding the Spirit means that God the Father chooses to exist and manifests His freedom of existence through His relationship with the Son and the Spirit—as an act of love towards the Son and the Spirit. If the Father freely begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit, thereby existing eternally as the Father, then God’s existence is an expression of freedom. Similarly, the Son and the Spirit are freely in communion with the Father, thus existing eternally in their distinct identities: the Son and the Spirit. Conversely, if the Holy Trinity were a consequence of divine nature, then the divine persons would exist by a necessity of nature, devoid of freedom, which contradicts the essence of divinity. God epitomizes divinity by existing eternally and by being absolutely free in His existence, that is, His existence arises not from necessity but solely from His will.[13] Therefore, the One God as the Holy Trinity is is absolutely free and his freedom, and His freedom, manifested as a communion of persons, is synonymous with being and existence.
Similarly, Metropolitan John elucidates that God is love. The love of God is not a consequence of nature, nor is it a psychological concept or an emotion, but rather the very being of God, His mode of existence, without which He cannot exist. Out of love, God the Father begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit, thereby manifesting His freedom through the act of begetting the Son and proceeding the Spirit as an expression of love for the Son and the Spirit, and in this way, exists eternally. Likewise, the Son and the Spirit manifest their freedom through their love for the Father, thereby existing eternally. Thus, God is love, and this designation captures the very being of God, i.e., His mode of existence, which is a communion in freedom.
The existence of the persons of the Holy Trinity, grounded in their free and mutual relationship, reveals that they are both indivisible and inseparable. This illustrates that God is simultaneously One and Three. However, it is God the Father who unifies the Holy Trinity as One God, for without the Father, there would be neither Son nor Spirit. Concurrently, the persons of the Holy Trinity are distinct and concrete entities. The diversity and concrete existence of these persons stem from their relationships, from their communion with another person. Each person of the Holy Trinity exists and is defined by its communion with another person. The Father is eternally the Father in relation to the Son He begets and the Spirit He proceeds. This principle also applies to the Son and the Spirit. The Son and the Spirit are distinct persons precisely in their relation to the Father. The Son is the Son by virtue of being begotten by the Father, while the Spirit is a distinct person through procession from the Father. Thus, the Holy Trinity is One God, while still maintaining the distinct personhood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Based on the teachings of the Holy Fathers about God, who is the Holy Trinity—a doctrine elucidated by Metropolitan John—we understand that God’s existence is not contingent upon nature, which is perceived as eternal by many contemporary, especially Western theologians, but rather upon personhood. Unlike ancient Greek philosophers and many modern thinkers who regard nature as the sole reality, with persons being transient and lacking ontological significance, the Metropolitan asserts that existence cannot be separated from personhood; there is no impersonal nature.
Furthermore, in contrast to the current philosophical and to a great extent theological perspective that views personhood as an isolated and independent entity in relation to the existence of others, Metropolitan John emphasizes that personhood is defined through its relationship with another person. “Una persona, nulla persona.” Existence necessitates a relationship with another person, and such a relationship must be characterized by freedom—that is, the outcome of a voluntary union of one being with another. This communion not only affirms the reality of personhood but also preserves the distinctiveness of each person. The Father is eternally the Father through His relationship and union with the Son and the Spirit, while the Son and the Spirit, as distinct and unique persons, exist eternally in a free union with God the Father and with each other. Hence, existence is synonymous with a communion predicated on personhood, and it is this community, or rather a person, that makes nature exist.[14]
How does this theological understanding of God relate to the existence of humans and other created beings?
Creation Can Exist Only in the Union of Freedom with God
We have previously highlighted, and it bears repeating, that according to both the Cappadocian Fathers and Metropolitan John, existence is not derived from nature and its laws but from the freedom of the person, manifesting as a relationship with another. This perspective on existence contrasts with that found in the ontology of other theologies (especially those predominant in the West), where existence is fundamentally based on nature. Consequently, these theologies often argue that God created humans to be immortal by nature, primarily referencing the immortal soul, and base the eternal existence of humans on this, not on the person or the free union with God. According to these theologians, salvation for humans is not achieved through communion with God—thus, not affecting the very existence of a person. Rather, they view salvation as ethically based, treated as a reward or punishment from God, dependent on adherence to or deviation from divine or ethical standards.
The esteemed Metropolitan contested this type of ontology, which relies on the natural immortality of the soul, suggesting that such a belief implies God created another god by making man’s soul naturally immortal. God is immortal by nature because He is uncreated, and man is also immortal even though he is created!? This, we can agree, is paradoxical. Regarding the attainment of salvation through moral and divine commandments without communion with God, the Metropolitan referred to the Old Testament’s righteous. He pointed out that they could not be saved, that is, overcome death, before the arrival of the Messiah, Christ. This was because salvation was not possible until the Son of God descended into the world and united created nature with Himself, regardless of their righteousness or adherence to divine and ethical norms. The righteous of the Old Testament awaited Christ themselves, recognizing that without Him—without God’s descent into the world and union with humanity—eternal life was unattainable. This illustrates that the immortality of existence stems from the union of created nature with God, not merely from fulfilling God’s commandments or ethical standards. Therefore, overcoming death and achieving eternal life for created beings is possible when humans, as free being, express their freedom through union with God, as love for God.
At the same time, through union with God, all of creation would overcome death and exist eternally, yet remain distinct from God. Created nature would not become uncreated but would continue as created, living eternally in union with God. This is grounded in the understanding from the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, which state that man is naturally connected to all of creation, having been formed from the earth (cf. Genesis 1:25)—the same source from which all other beings were created. This indicates that man was created not solely for his own sake but for the eternal existence of the entire creation. Had the first man, Adam, adhered to God’s commandments, manifesting his freedom through union with God, the entire created world would have been united with God through man, thereby overcoming death. Therefore, although man and the world were created ex nihilo and are thus mortal by nature, they could overcome death and achieve eternal life if man sought and attained free communion with God. As we have already highlighted, existence is not a consequence of nature and its laws but of personhood—that is, of freedom expressed through union with another person, as love, and most importantly, with God, in the context of created nature.
Saint Maximus the Confessor, whose teachings are faithfully echoed by the Metropolitan of Pergamum, elucidates that all creation is made in Christ and for Christ. For Saint Maximus, the mystery of Christ—the union of creation with the Son of God through humanity—represents the deliberate purpose (the “premeditated goal”) behind God’s act of creation. In other words, the communion between the Son of God and humanity had to happen (had Adam not erred) because created nature is inherently unable to exist without union with God. Had the first man, Adam, succeeded in achieving communion with God, he would have become Christ. This profound truth was both revealed to us and fulfilled in Christ, the Son of God who became a man, as we shall explore further.
The Metropolitan emphasized that the union of humanity with God could not be realized solely through human effort but fundamentally required the descent of God, that is, the Son of God, to humanity. Man, being limited, was incapable of uniting with God until God Himself chose to reveal His presence and enter the world, a union that became impossible for humanity to achieve on its own after the fall. However, it was imperative for humanity to accept this divine offer freely, as was later exemplified during the Incarnation of Christ, a topic we will delve into subsequently. The first man, Adam, failed to meet God’s will and expectation. Instead of seeking union with God, who Himself desired it for humanity and all of creation to achieve union with Him and overcome death, Adam turned away, opting instead to align with the created world. As a result, death emerged as the prevailing reality of creation. Through Adam’s decision, humanity and the world deviated from the path of overcoming death and achieving immortality, heading toward non-being. Nevertheless, God, in His refusal to let His creation, which was made out of love, succumb to nothingness, devised a new strategy to fulfill His original plan, though the ultimate goal remained the same: for all creation to unite with God and attain eternal life. What, then, is the new method through which God’s plan for creation is realized? And what insights does Metropolitan John of Pergamon provide on this matter?
The Mystery of Christ and the Problem of Death
We have already emphasized, but it should be emphasized here once again, that existence, both for the Cappadocian Holy Fathers and for Metropolitan John, is not the fruit of nature and its laws, but the freedom of the person that manifests itself as a relationship with another. In the context of overcoming the problem of death and eternal life for created nature, this can be achieved if man as a free being manifests his freedom as a union with God, as love for God. Since man is in union with all of created nature, this union of man with God would result in immortal life for the entire created world.
And after the refusal of the first man Adam to unite with God, God did not give up his original plan that his creation live forever through the union of man with Him. He found a new way of realizing the plan, which is the incarnation of the Son of God, Christ. When the fullness of time was fulfilled, God sent his Son into the world who united with creation and became a man - the God-man. The very descent of the Son of God into the world and his incarnation, i.e. union with creation is primarily the work of God; because man alone could not rise to God and unite with Him. However, it could not have happened without man and his free consent. Just as God wanted it to happen when He created the first man free. This is also indicated by his conception by the Virgin Mary, that is, the Mother of God’s previous conversation with the messenger of God. God asks the Mother of God if she wants to give birth to the Son of God, the savior of the world (see Lk 1:38). The Holy Virgin freely consents to give birth to the Son of God as a man and to realize in this way the original idea of God the Father, i.e. Holy Trinity, that God (Son of God) descends and that creation freely unites with Him through man and lives forever.
Through the incarnation of the Son of God, God’s original desire was realized for created nature to unite with Him through man and thus overcome death. Christ became the New Adam without ceasing to be God, i.e. he became a God-man and a mediator between the created world and God. In this way, God, according to the words of Saint Maximus, as well as Metropolitan John, achieved the originally conceived goal of creation, that created nature in union with God, with the Son of God, and through man, although mortal, overcomes death and lives forever; which was also shown by the resurrection of Christ from the dead. However, to free us from death, Christ died. Why was it necessary for Christ to die to free us from death? What did Metropolitan Jovan say about this?
The union of divine with human nature was realized in the person of the Son of God. Two natures, divine and human, united in one person of the Son of God “inseparable, but also inseparable”. There are two natures in Christ, but there is one person, the Person of the Son of God. Christ became a perfect man, just as he remained a perfect God — the Son of God even after his incarnation, because in him there is one personality, the personality of the Son of God; because human nature, which was given to Christ by the Blessed Virgin Mary, was personalized, enhypostasized into the person of the Son of God.[15] The divine and human natures in Christ were united in the person of the Son of God through the Holy Spirit, so that even after the union they preserved their natural properties. All properties, both divine and human, were manifested in one person and through one person of the Son of God, i.e. in Christ. However, the fall of the first man led to the fact that the death of created nature, and therefore of humans, became a reality as a potency. This had as a consequence according to the Mystery of Christ that now the Son of God - Christ had to die to save us from death; for by taking created nature into his person, he thereby took death, since death after the fall of Adam became a reality of created nature, which otherwise would not have happened if there had been no fall. If Adam had united with God, there would be no death. The Lord Christ performed miracles and thereby showed his divinity, but he also wept and starved and in the end experienced death, which is a characteristic of human nature in him.
However, even though Christ took mortal human nature into his person and became mortal like all men, he willingly died. Christ could not have died as He could and could not have been born as a man. However, by becoming incarnate, by suffering terrible suffering and finally death, Christ, both as the Son of God and as a man, and not only as the Son of God, showed his boundless love both for God the Father and for us humans and the whole the world, confirming that love with death. Christ showed that the most important thing for him is communion with God the Father, and then with creation, even at the cost of death. In other words, Christ died out of love for the Father, as well as for us, i.e. fulfilling the will of the Father who wanted to save us from death. Also, God the Father showed love for Christ, and therefore for man in Christ, by raising him from the dead with the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2, 24; 13, 30-34) and in this way created nature overcame death in Christ. Christ died to free us from death due to the fall of the first man, that is, because of his refusal to achieve communion with God, which otherwise would not have happened to Christ if the first Adam had not refused communion with God, i.e. that he didn’t fall. The mystery of Christ would have been realized independently of the fall of the first man, because it is the unity of creation with God through man, without which creation could not live, but if there had been no fall, there would have been no suffering of Christ.
Since the mediator between the world and God has now become Christ the God-man as the “New Adam” and the only source of immortality, the only way to overcome death for each person, as well as for the world as a whole, is its union, i.e. communion with Christ as the new Adam. How can this be achieved?
Baptism and Liturgy as the Unity of Man with God in Christ
As we have seen, the Son of God united with creation through the mediation of the Holy Spirit, as well as with the free consent of man (the Virgin Mary). Every person can also unite with God in Christ and thus overcome death through the Holy Spirit if they themselves freely choose to do so. This is realized through the Sacrament of Baptism. In Baptism, a person is united with Christ through the Holy Spirit to the extent of identification with Christ, thereby overcoming death.
Through baptism, i.e., the union of persons with Christ, the Holy Spirit forms a community of many within Christ and establishes the Church. More precisely, it creates a liturgical community. Baptism doesn’t merely create individual Christians; instead, it forges a community of many within Christ. Without this community realized in the Liturgy, there can be no Christians in the Church. Through baptism, a person first and foremost becomes a member of the Church.
In this manner, the Lord Christ becomes identified with the liturgical community of many, constituting the Body of Christ. While Christ is one, He has many members (cf. 1 Cor 12). That’s why baptism, as the union of persons with Christ, is intricately linked to the Eucharist, along with all other events aimed at the salvation of persons and the world – their liberation from death through Christ and in Christ.
Consequently, when the newly baptized enters into personal communion with Christ, mediated by the Holy Spirit, they simultaneously enter into communion with numerous concrete persons. In doing so, they express their freedom of existence as love, as a union with Christ and with others. Through baptism and the Liturgy, i.e., as a member of the Liturgy, man become distinct and unique person. In other words, living in a liturgical manner, i.e., within the community of freedom with God in Christ and with other people, highlights that human existence is inseparable from freedom, which is, in turn, expressed divinely (θεοπρεπῶς)—as a community and as love for one another.
Since many people attain a free, loving union with Christ through Baptism, and this union of every newly baptized person with Christ invariably includes love for others who are with Christ, human existence in the Liturgy becomes existence in love. This is evident both in Christ’s words addressed to all of us, emphasizing that salvation hinges on love for our neighbors, and in the words of the Holy Apostle Paul, who equates the Eucharistic community with love (cf. 1 Cor 13). Therefore, the loving union of persons with Christ through the Holy Spirit, and through Christ with God the Father, can only be fully realized within the Church, i.e., in the context of the Liturgy and as an integral part of it. At the same time, the members of the Holy Liturgy, coming to the Liturgy, bring with them gifts of nature: bread, wine, oil, etc., without which there is no Liturgy, and hand them over to the head of the liturgical gathering. Hence, the Liturgy is at the same time an offering of the entire created world to God the Father by Christ through the Holy Spirit. This is expressed through the offering of liturgical gifts, which are representations of nature, by the head of the Liturgy. In this way, in the Liturgy as a union of Christ and God the Father, through the Holy Spirit, the entire creation, not only man, enters into union with God in Christ and becomes the Body of Christ and overcomes death. Men become sons of God as the world becomes God’s world. In a word, the world becomes a “Cosmic Liturgy.”
Eucharistic Way of Human Existence and the Problem of Freedom
We have already emphasized that man not only desires to overcome death and live eternally but also seeks to express his freedom through his existence and to become a unique and unrepeatable person. What is the relationship between the Liturgy and this human aspiration for a free existence as a unique person?
The ancient Greek philosophical understanding did not view freedom as ontological but rather as political or ethical. Greek philosophers regarded existence as a given and considered freedom as something expressed later in life, as man first exists and then demonstrates his freedom. Hence, they did not recognize ontological freedom but only freedom of choice. However, the primary concern for humans, closely related to their quest for free existence, is ontological freedom. Humans wish for their being to be contingent on their freedom. If a person’s existence is predetermined, it implies a lack of ontological freedom. In other words, if a person’s being is a given, it does not reflect their freedom but rather necessity, a concept that humans strongly oppose. This is a significant concern for persons, often expressed in their questioning of their parents, such as when a young person asks, “Why did you bring me into this world without my consent?” Every person desires their existence to signify their freedom.
So, how can a person be ontologically free when they are created? Does the act of creation not imply that one is not ontologically free? The answer lies in the fact that humans were created ex nihilo, as we have previously discussed, and are therefore naturally mortal. God did not create humans as inherently immortal beings. Had He done so, human existence would be a necessity rather than a choice. Despite being created, humans do not possess true, immortal existence. Instead, their existence hinges on their freedom, more precisely, on their voluntary consent and communion with God.
As we have emphasized before, existence, including human existence, is an expression of one’s free union with God. Consequently, even though humans were created and received their existence from God, they can attain ontological freedom by choosing to commune with God. In this scenario, human existence becomes a reflection of their freedom, not merely God’s. However, the first human exercised his freedom by rejecting God, thereby asserting his independence and individuality. Even today, human freedom often manifests as a desire for autonomy from others, resulting in the negation of others. As we have seen, the consequence of this expression of human freedom is death.
The question then arises: How can freedom lead to eternal life for humans?
This is primarily achieved through baptism, which can be likened to a second birth. Baptism signifies the union of man with God in Christ, primarily expressing the persons’ freedom. In baptism, a person is reborn by the Holy Spirit into eternal life, and this occurs willingly. It’s important to note that man’s existence doesn’t precede the union of freedom with God and with others; rather, it’s freedom that gives rise to man’s existence. In this manner, man attains ontological freedom, where his existence becomes an embodiment of his freedom. This freedom is expressed as a community, as love for others, or as communion with God. In essence, the newly baptized exists in a manner resembling God’s existence. Simultaneously, through baptism, every person enters into a personal and free communion with Christ. More precisely, they exercise their freedom by uniting with God in Christ, thereby becoming a unique personality and a child of God through grace. In other words, their existence becomes worthy of divine existence through their own existence.
Through baptism, when a person unites with God, they also unite with all others who have previously united with God. Human freedom, in this context, reveals itself as ontological, contributing to the formation of the Church as a community and the realization of the future Kingdom of God. Consequently, existence in Christ signifies an existence in freedom directed towards the future, rather than being rooted in the past. This emphasizes the eschaton as the authentic state of existence for both humanity and creation.
The Eschaton: The Second Coming of Christ, General Resurrection, and the Ultimate Overcoming of Death – The True Existence of the World and Humanity
Unlike ancient Greek philosophers, who believed that the truth of being resided in the past, the biblical perspective on the truth of both the world and humanity places it at the end of history. When Christ returns in power and glory, He will gather all nations, leading to a general resurrection of the dead and the final judgment. These events will bring about the realization of the Kingdom of God, signifying the true existence of creation. Until then, the Church, embodied in the Holy Liturgy as the gathering of many around the bishop, serves as an icon of the future Kingdom.
The truth of the existence of creation or the Kingdom of God is primarily the work of God, not humans. Metropolitan of Pergamon particularly emphasized that the future Kingdom is revealed to us through God’s activity. This is crucial because many mistakenly attribute the realization of the Future Kingdom to human efforts and activity, resembling Aristotle’s entelechy. Some believe that by adhering to all of God’s moral laws, they can overcome death and create a Paradise on Earth, which, of course, is impossible. The Kingdom of God is a divine work unveiled in history through the events of the Old and New Testaments, and following Christ’s ascension, through the Church, specifically, the Eucharist. Its complete realization will occur when Christ returns in power and glory. Therefore, it is fundamentally the work of God, not humans. Why is it important to emphasize this, and how does it relate to humanity’s quest for ontological freedom and eternal existence?
Of course, the eschaton, as the true and immortal existence of both humanity and the entire creation, tied to the end of history, is directly related to the earlier-discussed problem of human existence—the freedom of one’s existence as a person and overcoming death. In the context of the eschaton, which is the ultimate truth of existence, the fact that the immortal existence of humanity depends on freedom, realized through communion with God, fellow humans, and nature in Christ, becomes evident. If immortality were bestowed upon humans at the beginning of creation as a natural trait, existence would be imposed and necessary for both humans and the rest of creation. In such a scenario, humans would not possess ontological freedom. This raises the question: Can a human truly be a human and an icon of God without ontological freedom? If freedom lacks an ontological basis, it becomes non-existent, and consequently, human existence becomes questionable. However, within the Church, humans achieve ontological freedom, desire to exist, and express their existence through baptism as a union with God and fellow humans in Christ.
The liturgical community, which reveals Christ as its head, representing Him as the head of a diverse assembly of people and nature, is, according to the teachings of the Metropolitan of Pergamon and the Holy Fathers, including Saint Maximus the Confessor (cf. Mystagogy), not the actual Kingdom of God itself but an icon and a foretaste of the future immortal existence of the entire creation.[16] This distinction is crucial, particularly in discussions about human freedom, as one’s genuine freedom is exhibited when they become a member of the Eucharistic community. This expression of freedom is demonstrated through faith, equating it with love for God and neighbors (cf. 1 Corinthians 13).
If Christ and the Kingdom of God were fully present here and now, who could refuse to become a member of that Kingdom? However, such membership would lack sincerity. By becoming a member of a future Kingdom that has yet to arrive, basing it solely on faith (cf. Hebrews 11) and the promise, persons genuinely express their freedom. They do so by becoming immortal beings and personalities. This truth is exemplified by the Holy Martyrs of Christ, who willingly sacrifice everything for communion with Christ, expressing their freedom as love for God in Christ. In this way, they attain immortality and become members of the Kingdom.”
Conclusion
The theological work of the late Metropolitan John is intricate and profound, making it impossible to cover comprehensively in a brief report like ours. Therefore, we have chosen to focus on specific aspects of the metropolitan’s neo-Patristic synthesis, particularly those related to ontology. Metropolitan John’s theology primarily addresses ontological issues concerning humanity, including modern humans, and the entire creation. These themes encompass questions about the nature of personhood, freedom, and the conquest of death.
As we have observed, his theology draws inspiration from the teachings of the ancient Church Fathers and is rooted in the liturgical experience. For the late Metropolitan John, the Holy Liturgy serves as a revelation of the future Kingdom of God, representing the ultimate truth of creation’s existence. It also serves as the exclusive model for the way of life for both humans and the world, within the context of their eternal existence. This interpretation is framed by considerations of personality, freedom, and the existence of all creation. These topics hold a special significance within the Church and contemporary society.
In contrast to contemporary philosophical and, to a large extent, theological perspectives, particularly those of Western theologians, who often view human personhood as an individual, the Metropolitan of Pergamon regards it as a communion with others. The consequences of individualizing one’s personality often result in its fulfillment through the negation of the other, ultimately leading to its destruction. This perspective echoes the words of existentialist philosophers who proclaim “the other is my Hell” or nihilistic philosophies that posit human freedom, if absolute, as a path towards non-being (cf. F. Dostoevsky’s Demons). In contrast, the concept of personality as a community necessitates the presence of the other and a communion with them for its existence. As the late Metropolitan would affirm, ‘The other is my Paradise, and I do not exist without it.’ A specific “I” never truly exists without a “You” and the union with it. The diversity and uniqueness of personhood stem from communion; a person is only fully realized in union with another person.
Another essential aspect for a person’s existence is immortality. Therefore, to fully realize oneself as a person, communion with God is indispensable. A person can be a true person in union with another person. However, this union ends with death, leading to the dissolution of one’s personality. This underscores the significance of communion with Christ within the Church, specifically the liturgical way of existence. Through it, we attain simultaneous communion with God and another human being, without which the realization of man as a free and unique personality would be incomplete.
Metropolitan John’s ontological approach to theology is highly valid, given that the apostles and later great fathers and teachers of the Church approached theology in a similar manner. Therefore, the central events in the apostles’ teachings, as well as those of later Holy Fathers, revolve around the death and resurrection of Christ, all within the context of liberating every human being from death. This theme is pervasive throughout the entire Gospel. For instance, the Holy Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, emphasizes Christ’s death and resurrection on the third day, becoming the “firstborn from the dead” among those who have died. When Christ returns in power and glory, there will be a general resurrection, and “the last enemy, death,” will be abolished. While the theology of the Apostles and subsequent Holy Fathers addresses other aspects of human existence, it is evident that the fundamental problem addressed in Christian theology and faith is the liberation of humanity and the world from death, along with the prospect of a general resurrection and eternal existence for all of creation. Consequently, the apostles’ preaching is considered good news (Gospel) for people because it heralds liberation from death, viewed as the greatest adversary of all living beings, especially mankind, who perceives it as the ultimate tragedy. It anticipates eternal life with Christ and in Christ. Otherwise, if the dead do not rise, as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:1-32, the attitude would be, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we will die.” In other words, apostolic and ancient fathers’ theology, as continued by Metropolitan John of Pergamon, was established and evolved in the context of ontological issues related to humanity and the world. Without addressing the problem of death, which is fundamentally ontological, and its eradication, as well as the eternal life of persons and the world as a whole, theology would serve no purpose.
Summary
The research’s objective is manifested in its methodological perspective and its approach to the theological works of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon concerning the significant ontological issues related to humanity and the world. In this context, the study’s trajectory commences with an exposition of the fundamental tenets of the neo-Patristic synthesis, a methodological approach primarily inaugurated in the writings of Archpriest Georges Florovsky. Building upon this foundation, the paper offers specific instances illustrating the application of the neo-Patristic synthesis within the theological framework of Metropolitan John Zizioulas, conceptualized as a neo-Patristic synthesis. Consequently, spanning from the core cosmological, Trinitarian, Christological, ecclesiological, to eschatological assumptions underpinning Zizioulas’ theological body of work, the research’s focal point revolves around providing solutions to its central inquiry. All facets of the research endeavor collectively underscore the authentic and coherent application of the neo-Patristic synthesis, as delineated by Florovsky’s work, in a novel and inventive manner within the theological oeuvre of Metropolitan John of Pergamon.
Translated from Serbian by Maxim Vasiljević
[1] See Georges Florovsky, “Europe, the Holy Fathers and the Inner Memory of the Church”, Theological Views 1–4 (1991) 103–107. [In Serbian]
[2] See Florovsky, The Eastern Fathers of the Fourth Century (Belmont, MA: Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987); also Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Sixth to Eighth Century (Belmont, MA: Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987).
[3] See John Zizioulas, “Π. Γεώργιος Φλωρόφσκυ ό οικουμενικός διδάσκαλος”, Σύναξη 64 (1997) 13–26.
[4] See St. Maximus the Confessor, PG 4:137.
[5] See Зизијулас, The Eucharist and the Kingdom of God, ed. Maxim Vasiljević (Los Angeles: Sebastian Press, 2022).
[6] St Ignatius of Antioch, Eph., 20.
[7] In connection with scholastic theology, he staunchly opposed its division of theology into separate parts (cosmology, triadology, Christology, pneumatology, etc.), emphasizing that these divisions lacked meaningful points of connection. He argued that their unity was essential for comprehending the theology of the ancient fathers and for reconciling Eastern and Western theological traditions, with the overarching goal of restoring the Church’s unity as it existed before the Great Schism. He stressed that the divine Economy is indivisible, and no theological problem can be understood or resolved in isolation from others. His scholarly contributions served to correct and augment both Orthodox and non-Orthodox theological positions, guided by the principle of the indivisibility of the divine economy of salvation. For instance, he frequently underscored the unity of Christology and pneumatology, elucidating the far-reaching implications of this unity for ecclesiology.
[8] See Ζηζιουλας, Ἐλευθερία καὶ ὕπαρξη. Ἡ μετάβαση ἀπὸ τὸν ἀρχαῖο στὸν χριστιανικὸ Ἑλληνισμό (Πέντε μαθήματα στὸ Ἴδρυμα Γουλανδρῆ-Χόρν 1983 (Athens: ἐκδ. Δόμος 2018).
[9] See St. Athanasius the Great, On Incarnation.
[10] Zizioulas, Ἐλευθερία καὶ ὕπαρξη.
[11] Cf. St. Maximus the Confessor, Amb. 9.
[12] See Zizioulas, “From Mask to Personhood”, in Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985) pp. 27-65.
[13] The importance of freedom for existence was vividly illustrated by the metropolitan through the example of a young man who questioned his parents, asking why they brought him into the world without his consent?
[14] See Zizioulas, “Π. Γεώργιος Φλωρόφσκυ ὁ οικουμενικὸς διδάσκαλος”. Also, “The Diachronic Significance of Fr. Georges Florovsky’s Theological Contribution”, in eds. J. Chryssavgis and B. Galaher, The Theological Legacy of Georges Florovsky (London: T&T Clark, 2021), 37-50.
[15] See Zizioulas, “Christology and Existence: The Dialectic of Created and Uncreated and the dogma of Chalcedon”, Transl. from Greek Elizabeth Theokritoff, Synaxis: An Anthology…, vol. 1: Anthropology—Environment—Creation (Montreal: Alexander Press, 2006), 23-35.
[16] Cf. Zizioulas, The Eucharist and the Kingdom of God.
