Elements of Perichoretic Anthropology in Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer. Philological-theological Analysis and Its Humanistic Echo in Postmodernity

Trajna sklonost i potreba čovjeka da se s drugim poveže u savršeno jedno teologija prepoznaje kao posljedicu stvorenosti na sliku Boga koji je u sebi trojstveno zajedništvo. Na međusobno prožimanje i suživljenje različitih koji ne gube vlastitosti a postaju savršeno jedno (kao osobe u Trojstvu), ukazuje drevni, u suvremenoj trinitarnoj teologiji oživljeni, pojam perihoreza. U prvom poglavlju ovoga rada donosi se kratak povijesno-teološki razvoj toga pojma te se ukazuje na njegovu aktualnost i primjenjivost unutar suvremene antropologije koju se, jer promatra čovjeka kao osobu sposobnu za zajedništvo po uzoru na trojstveno perihoretsko zajedništvo, naziva i perihoretskom antropologijom. U drugom dijelu rada elementi takve antropologije prepoznaju se i filološki iščitavaju u tekstu Isusove velikosvećeničke molitve (Iv 17,1-26), izvlače se i uočavaju zanimljive teološke premise i stvaraju orisi za perihoretsku teologiju ovoga teksta. Prepoznaje se kako ivanovska teološka uporaba grčkoga perfekta upućuje na bezvremensku i nadegzistencijsku dimenziju te molitve, a gramatička igra »perihoretskih« pasivâ (kenotički i eshatološki) i»perihoretskih« mediopasivâ (ontološki i ekumenski) izražava međusobno prožimanje trinitarne i antropološke perihoreze u Isusovu govoru o proslavi (teologija »kenotičke proslave«), punini radosti božanskih i ljudskih osoba, Očevu posvećivanju Sina i ljudî te, naposljetku, o uzajamnoj trinitarnoj i antropološkoj aktivnosti u nastojanju da bude savršeno jedinstvo među ljudima, a zatim i ljudî sa savršeno jednim Bogom. Uz to, razlučuje se i otkriva kako su Očevo ime i Očeva osoba teološki sinonimi, pa se teološkom sinonimizacijom pojmova ime i osoba pokušava definirati osobu kao kategoriju perihoretskih zakonitosti (biti osoba kao odjekivati u drugome). U sadržaju velikosvećeničke molitve razotkriva se i snažna teološka poruka glagola didōmi (predati, dati), koji najsnažnije opisuje perihoretski odnos unutar Trojstva, kao odnos predanja jedne božanske osobe drugoj, a zatim i ljudima u događaju križa (teologija predanja). U trećem se dijelu nastoji suvremenu humanističku misao sagledati u svjetlu perihoretske antropologije, i to na način da se teološki glagol didōmi (predati, dati), suprotstavlja suvremenoj neohumanističkoj etici emotivizma, a tri teološko-antropološka motiva (život, istina i ljubav), razabrana kao teološka poruka Isusove velikosvećeničke molitve, ovdje se prepoznaju kao ključni za cjelovit antropološki govor, osobito kao govor o eklezijalnoj perihorezi i koncilskoj ekleziologiji zajedništva po uzoru na trinitarni communio.The contemporary world reveals, perhaps more than ever, a constant need of the human being for the other. This need for the other and for going beyond oneself in order to be related to something that is different from oneself (in order to be perfect) is identified in theology as a consequence of our being created in the image of God, who is, in himself, a communion of three persons. There is an ancient, but in the contemporary Trinitarian theology revived, term that comes from Stoic philosophy, which designates this communion, understood as mutual permeation and co-existence of those who are different and who, while not losing their specificity, become the perfect one – perichoresis. In the first chapter of this article the author presents a short historical-theological development of this term and its meaning in the contemporary Trinitarian theology, while also pointing out its relevance and applicability within the contemporary anthropology. To an extent that this anthropology sees the human being as a person capable for communion who follows the ideal of the triune perichoretic communion, it is itself a perichoretic anthropology. In the second, main part of this article the author detects and points out elements of such anthropology in the text of Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer (Jn 17:1-26). By using a philological analysis of the original Greek forms of this text, the author discovers interesting theological premises that can be used as a basis for a perichoretic theology of the High Priestly Prayer. The author points out that John’s theological usage of the Greek past tense indicates eternal and metaexistential dimension of this prayer, while the grammatical game of ‘perichoretic’ passives (kenotic and eschatological) and ‘perichoretic’ mediopassives (ontological and ecumenical) expresses the mutual permeation of Trinitarian and anthropological perichoresis in Jesus’s discourse on glorification (theology of ‘kenotic glorification’), on the fullness of joy of the Divine and human persons, on the Father’s sanctification of the Son and of human beings, and, finally, on mutual Trinitarian and anthropological activities in an effort to bring out a perfect unity between human beings and, consequently, between human beings and perfectly one God. Such philological-theological analysis also brings out a theological articulation of the noun ‘name’, which shows that the ‘name of the Father’ and the ‘person of the Father’ are theological synonyms. This theological synonymisation of the terms ‘name’ and ‘person’ tries to define the person as a perichoretic category (‘to be a person’ means ‘to echo in the other’). Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer also shows a strong theological message of the verb didōmi (predati, dati), which describes the perichoretic relation within the Trinity most strongly, as a surrendering relation of one Divine person to another, and, consequently, to human beings in the event of the cross (theology of surrender). The third part of the article, which can be understood as an actualisation of the previous theological reflection and an indication of its relevancy, tries to survey the contemporary humanistic reflection in the light of perichoretic anthropology by opposing the theological verb di,dwmi with the contemporary neo-humanistic ethics of emotivism. Apart from that, this part recognises the three theological-anthropological motives (life, truth, and love), discerned as the theological message of Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer, to be of crucial importance for a wholesome anthropological discourse, especially as a discourse on ecclesiological perichoresis and Conciliar perichoresis of communion, which follows the ideal of Trinitarian communio (love as the basis of communion and equality in mutual glorification-service)