Metropolitan John Zizioulas emphasized that the Church’s understanding of the person has its roots in Trinitarian faith and is applied through Christological and Pneumatological perspectives. In his work Being as Communion, he states, “The concept of the person with its absolute and ontological content was born historically from the endeavor of the Church to give ontological expression to its faith in the Triune God” (p. 36). He pointed out that the Cappadocian Fathers were instrumental in redefining “hypostasis” as “person.” This shift transformed the concept of personhood from being merely an adjunct or mask of a being to being itself. In this new understanding, the person is the foundational element of being—the “principle” or “cause” that constitutes beings.
Among the Greek Fathers the unity of God, the one God, and the ontological “principle” or “cause” of the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God but in the hypostasis, that is, the person of the Father. The one God is not the one substance but the Father, who is the “cause” both of the generation of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit. (Being as Communion, p. 44)
In the Holy Trinity, as Zizioulas elucidates, person is a positive and affirming concept, characterized by relational dynamics rather than negation. The distinctiveness of the three persons within the Trinity does not arise from isolation or separation but from their profound and inextricable interconnectedness. “The more inseparable the unity is, the more it begets and produces diversity [otherness].” (Illness and Healing, p. 45). Such inseparable unity provides ontological fullness and stability, the absence of death, and true life. In this context, “the other” is not an adversary; rather, it is a validation of one’s own identity and uniqueness: the You that makes me I, affirming that without the other, the I is non-existent and inconceivable.
This leads Zizioulas to emphasize the notion of freedom in God.
The manner in which God exercises His ontological freedom, that precisely which makes Him ontologically free, is the way in which He transcends and abolishes the ontological necessity of the substance by being God as Father, that is, as He who “begets” the Son and “brings forth” the Spirit. This ecstatic character of God, the fact that His being is identical with an act of communion, ensures the transcendence of the ontological necessity which His substance would have demanded—if the substance were the primary ontological predicate of God—and replaces this necessity with the free self-affirmation of divine existence. For this communion is a product of freedom as a result not of the substance of God but of a person, the Father—observe why this doctrinal detail is so important—who is Trinity not because the divine nature is ecstatic but because the Father as a person freely wills this communion. (Being as Communion, p. 44)
Zizioulas’ interpretation of the Filioque controversy sheds light on why he locates the substance and unity of God in the person of the Father. He posits that the distinctiveness of the persons within the immanent Trinity is not determined by individual attributes, but rather by their interrelationships. Accordingly, the Father is seen as the singular relational origin of both the Son and the Spirit. This understanding underlies the rejection of the Filioque, as it posits that both the Father and the Son cannot be coequal causes of the Spirit. Such a notion would imply multiple sources of unity or substance, inadvertently suggesting the existence of more than one God.
In Patristic teachings on the Holy Trinity, as expounded by John Zizioulas, the persons cannot be understood in isolation but only in unity with the others. This teaching posits that the removal of one person would negate the existence of the others, as each person's identity is affirmed in relation to the others. For example, the Father is defined as such because of His relationship with the Son, and vice versa.
Zizioulas further elucidates that in the Holy Trinity, personal otherness and uniqueness are grounded ontologically, rather than psychologically. The distinguishing properties of the three persons are purely ontological: each One is that which it is and nothing more. This perspective underscores that a person’s identity is not contingent on a personality, i.e., a collection of attributes or properties, such as height, beauty or ugliness, virtue or vice, intelligence or stupidity, etc. Instead, a person is seen as transcending these properties, not defined or judged by them, but recognized for their inherent and unique identity as a person. “The person is free of such properties and is not judged by them,” he said.
Orthodox dogmatic theology speaks of hypostatic—i.e., personal—properties that are of an ontological nature rather than a psychological one: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds. St. Augustine and some other Church fathers, tried to attribute psychological content to the hypostatic properties, identifying the Father with memory, the Son with knowledge, and the Spirit with love. According to Zizioulas, however, these are all “properties” of nature, i.e. common to all three persons, and not unique to any one. He emphasizes that the person is defined only by its ontological content, i.e., by the way it exists (unbegotton, begotten, proceeding), and not by any psychological properties. (Illness and Healing, p. 46)
In his theological framework, John Zizioulas differentiates his perspective from that of modern existentialism, despite some superficial similarities. Zizioulas acknowledges that while his theology and existentialist philosophy may occasionally converge in thought, their foundational premises diverge significantly. For Zizioulas, the central focus is on “God,” whereas existentialism primarily centers on “the human being.”
In addressing critiques that label his work as existentialist, Zizioulas clarifies the distinction between human and divine personhood. He references the use of the term “atomon” by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, which signifies a concrete individual. However, this term is not typically applied to divine persons and is relatively rare among patristic writers, as elaborated in his book Communion and Otherness (pp. 175–76). Zizioulas contends that his critics might be inadvertently projecting modern existentialist notions of personalism onto the Trinity. This projection involves the application of human qualities, such as individuality, to divine persons—a concept that patristic writers reserved primarily for human beings. This debate is further enriched by the essay “On the Criticism of Being as Communion in Anglophone Orthodox Theology” by A. Brown, found in the collection edited by D. Knight, The Theology of John Zizioulas (pp. 35–78). Brown’s essay offers a thorough examination and defense of Zizioulas' theological positions, particularly in the context of critiques from Anglophone Orthodox theology.
Zizioulas’ theological exploration of the Father within the Trinity particularly focuses on the concept of personhood, which intertwines with the notions of freedom, causality, communion, and nature. In his early studies, Zizioulas equated personhood with relation, asserting “personhood is a schesis.” Later, he clarified that persons “are not merely relations but concrete particulars in relation to each other,” thus moving away from Augustine’s interpretation. A critical aspect of his theology is the close association of the Father’s causality with the personal distinctions among the Trinity. The Father is often referred to as the “ultimate ontological principle of divine personhood.” To counter interpretations of a divine ousia initially held by the Father and subsequently passed on to the Son and Holy Spirit, Zizioulas denies any transfer of ousia in personal derivation, confining it to what differentiates the Three.
John Zizioulas emphasizes that the significance of Jesus Christ as the Savior is not primarily due to His imparting of a profound revelation or sublime teaching about personhood. Instead, Christ’s central role as Savior is rooted in His actualization of the reality of person within history. For Zizioulas, Jesus Christ embodies and establishes the very essence of personhood, making it the foundational and hypostatic reality for every person.
Christology consequently is the proclamation to man that his nature can be “assumed” and hypostasized in a manner free from the ontological necessity of his biological hypostasis, which, as we have seen, leads to the tragedy of individualism and death. Thanks to Christ man can henceforth himself “subsist,” can affirm his existence as personal not on the basis of the immutable laws of his nature, but on the basis of a relationship with God which is identified with what Christ in freedom and love possesses as Son of God with the Father. This adoption of man by God, the identification of his hypostasis with the hypostasis of the Son of God, is the essence of baptism. (Being as Communion, p. 56)
Aligning with the Cappadocians and Maximus, Zizioulas asserts that particularity is linked to the hypostatic level, while unity and commonality pertain to substance. The ontological principle uniting the particular and the common—the “principle of unity”—is hypostasis. Zizioulas notes that in the hypostasis of Christ, the distinctiveness of created hypostasis is brought forth, and communion between them and God is actualized. He contends that “via personhood, two or more Others can unite, as natures can unite only if they have a hypostasis,” an insight borrowed from Maximus. Thus, in Zizioulas’ view, the unity of natures, divine and human, like Christ’s divine and human natures, is ontologically founded on the person of Christ.
John Zizioulas, reflecting on anthropological concepts like personhood, communion, and otherness, observed a fundamental distortion due to the Fall. He argued that in our fallen state, separation becomes a corrupted version of otherness, leading the self and nature to assert ontological dominance over personhood. This condition is exacerbated by death's prevailing influence in our fallen existence. Drawing inspiration from Saint Maximus the Confessor, Zizioulas suggested that the Fall introduced a divide between person and nature, leading to the fragmentation of nature and the individualization of humans. In this state, identity is forged through contrast and opposition to others, turning difference into division and transforming persons into isolated individuals.
In his theological reflections, Metropolitan John highlighted a unique perspective on the nature of divine freedom and its application to human existence. “For God, the exercise of freedom does not take the form of a choice, but is exercised voluntarily, in the form of love, expressed in his trinitarian life” (Lectures in Christian Dogmatics, p. 74.) God’s freedom is manifested as an unconditional “yes”—an affirmation of love rooted in the Trinitarian life. Translating this divine attribute to human experience, Zizioulas suggested that true human freedom should not oscillate between “yes” and “no,” but should always be a resounding “yes.” This positive affirmation is not just an acceptance of one’s own existence but a recognition and affirmation of the existence and value of others. According to Zizioulas, the exercise of freedom is most authentically realized in love. Love, in this context, is not merely a sentiment or an emotion but an active affirmation and acceptance of beings other than oneself.
John Zizioulas also highlighted the role of biological procreation in this individualization process, where human nature, through birth, generates diversity characterized by division rather than unity. However, he proposed that Christ's incarnation and union of divine and human natures offer a restoration of true personhood. In this view, baptism, or the “new birth,” confers personhood by elevating nature to a hypostatic existence, reflecting the Father-Son relationship, and freeing it from the constraints of natural qualities. Despite this, Zizioulas concluded that the full realization of personhood remains elusive in this life, as long as death remains a governing force of nature.
“This ‘new birth’, which is the essence of Baptism, is nothing but the acquisition of an identity not dependant on the qualities of nature but freely raising nature to a hypostatic existence identical with that which emerges from the Father-Son relationship”. However, he concludes, personhood cannot be fully realized in this life as long as death acts as the law of nature. (Communion and Otherness, p. 109).
In Being as Communion, John Zizioulas articulates how “the transcendence of the ontological necessity and exclusiveness entailed by the biological hypostasis constitutes an experience which is offered by the Eucharist.” (p. 60). He explains that in the Church, this concept of personhood is realized through God’s love, as expressed in Christ’s unconditional love for enemies and sinners. In this space, persons are not judged by their abilities—this is what forgiveness, which takes place in baptism and repentance, means—but are embraced for their unique identities. This act of forgiveness and acceptance of people as persons, as unique and sui generis identities, central to baptism and repentance, is the cornerstone of the Church’s therapeutic approach.
“The Church heals not with what it says, but with what it is: a community of love, a love that is not sentimental, that we look for in the individual’s interior disposition, but a relationship, which requires co-existence and reception into a particular community, a community of love without exclusivity or conditions.” (Illness and Healing, p. 47)
The Church, through its unconditional and inclusive love, provides healing. As members of this community, people learn to love and be loved freely, fostering an environment where genuine love flourishes. Referencing Maximus the Confessor, Metropolitan John underscores the idea of perfect love as an equal and selfless love for all humanity, mirroring the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ for mankind. This concept of love does not divide human nature but unites it with a singular purpose. “Perfect love does not sunder the one human nature,… but with this constantly as its aim, loves all men equally. […] Because our Lord and God Jesus Christ, too, manifesting his love for us, suffered for all mankind […]” (Chapters on Love I, 71)
John Zizioulas raises a crucial and practical question regarding the nature of the Church: Is it truly a community of love where transformation from self-centeredness to other-centeredness, from spiritual ailment to health, occurs? Only to the extent the answer is affirmative can we speak of the Church as a Hospital. This transformation involves shifting from self-love, a state of individualism and isolation, to a love of others, reflecting the communal and relational essence of the Church. In this context, personhood is understood not in isolation but through relationships that form the community. Zizioulas emphasizes that the Church's role as a vessel of salvation (“Extra ecclesiam nulla salus”) is not just because it holds the means of salvation, but more profoundly, because it embodies the Trinitarian mystery. In the Church, the interpenetration of persons as seen in the Holy Trinity is mirrored.
John Zizioulas offers a critical perspective on the role of divine energies in modern Orthodox theology, particularly in relation to the works of Vladimir Lossky and Neopalamite theologians. He emphasizes a shift from a focus on divine energies to the centrality of the person of the Son in soteriology. Zizioulas, drawing on Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint Gregory Palamas, contends that the connection between God and creation through uncreated divine energies is realized specifically through the person of the Son. He states, “...the God-world relationship is hypostatic, that is, in and through one person of the Trinity, and not through one aspect of God’s being that belongs to all three of the Trinitarian Persons, such as the divine energies” (Communion and Otherness, p. 30). This viewpoint underlines the importance of the personal, hypostatic dimension in the relationship between God and creation, as opposed to a more generalized engagement through the divine energies. Furthermore, Zizioulas clarifies that theosis is not merely about participating in God’s glory and natural qualities “common to all persons of the Trinity”. Rather, theosis is primarily about incorporation “by nature” into the only-begotten Son, as elucidated in his work Communion and Otherness (p. 31). This incorporation signifies a deeper, more profound participation in the divine life, where believers become sons in the Son.
Metropolitan John Zizioulas viewed the Church as the true ark of salvation, emphasizing its role in maintaining the integrity of faith in a personal, Triune God, and in Christ's universal love, the Cross, and the Resurrection. He underlined the Church's identity as a genuine Eucharistic community, capable of transforming individuals into persons through loving relationships. “If we want to see the Church as a Hospital, then it is this faith and this synaxis and community that we have to genuinely and actively preserve.”
