Page 71 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

G O D T H E FAT H E R A N D T H E O R I G I N O F B E I N G
Father” (Galatians 1:3), “to the glory of God the Father” (Phi-
lippians 2:11), and “in God the Father” (1 Thessalonians 1:1).
Other New Testament writers—such as James (1:27), Peter (1
Peter 1:2), and Jude—reflect the same usage. This consistency
invites us to ask: what is the theological meaning of calling
God “Father”?
In the Eastern Fathers, the ontological dimension of divine
Fatherhood is paramount. There was even a certain suspicion
that emphasizing the moral qualities of God’s Fatherhood
could lead to a latent Sabellianism—that is, to a reduction of
Fatherhood to a mere attribute or activity. For this reason,
divine Fatherhood must not be understood as a quality or
energy, but as a fundamental mode of being.
At the same time, we must note that all the ancient creeds
relate divine Fatherhood to creative power. Yet this does not
mean that God is Father because He is Creator. As we have
already seen, the term “Father” is not attached to “almighty,”
but to “God” Himself. This indicates that the Fatherhood of
God does not arise from His creative activity. God is not called
Father because He creates; rather, creation itself flows from the
fact that God is Father.
Here we encounter a subtle but important difference be-
tween the Latin and Greek patristic traditions.
In Latin theology, the term corresponding to “almighty” is
omnipotens, which emphasizes power. This reflects a broader
tendency in Western thought to understand being in terms of
action and capacity—God as actus purus, pure act. The lan-
guage of potestas becomes central, and divine freedom is con-
ceived primarily as the power to act.
In contrast, the Greek term used in the creeds is pantokra-
tor (παντοκράτωρ), not pantodynamis (παντοδύναμος).
While pantokrator can indeed be translated as “almighty,” its
71