www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Icon of the Trinity

On a thread in the East-West Forum dealing with the filioque:

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000779;p=8

Andrew Rubis was bothered by the Scriptural source of the Trinity icon. Traditionally, this icon is believed to have arisen from Genesis 18 in which Abraham is greeted by three visitors. He, Rubis, correctly states that often this same scene is depicted with Sarah and Abraham serving the visitors. This broader icon is better known as "The Hospitality of Abraham". He questions the appropriateness of "reading into" the Genesis account the typology of the three visitors representing the three Persons of the Trinity and ponders that this was a rather late development. He also questions as to whether Andrei Rublev was correct in depicting the Trinity in this fashion. I now wish to reply but thought it was best done as a separate new thread.

The first known depiction of this Genesis story can be found in the catacombs of Italy and can be dated to about 350. (What else was going on at this time? Could it have been, perhaps, the great Christological debates?)

It is true that these earliest versions depicted "The Hospitality..." story. However, it became very clear very early on that this icon was closely associated with the Eucharistic celebration (i.e. the depiction was often placed close to the sanctuary).

This theme was mostly unknown in the East with no known depictions prior to about the 7th century. However, it is not known if this was a true lack or was the result of the widespread destruction of icons during the iconoclastic period.

The Trinity as depicted by Rublev pre-dates him. His, however, remains perhaps the best iconic depiction of any topic. It is very clear that his choice and purpose were deliberate.

Rublev was a monk in the St. Sergius (of Radonezh)-Holy Trinity monastery in the late 14th-early 15th centuries. (He painted this icon about 1511.) These monks were especially committed to the concept of the Unity of the Trinity and with the ideal that it served as the example for all believers to lay aside their disagreements. That is, they believed that by contemplating this Mystery, all divisions among peoples would end.

Interestingly, at this time the Church was combatting a heresy (like there was a time when we weren't!) known as the Strigol'niks or the Judaizers who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. There was also a very active iconoclastic movement he was dealing with at the time. (My kind of saint; he single-handedly defeats two heresies at the same time!)

Now, Andrew Rubis (as opposed to Andrei Rublev)also mainatained that to refute this interpretation of the Trinity and to stay with the Scriptural story of "The Hospitality of Abraham" as a simple story is entirely Orthodox. While I understand his point, I have to, as respectfully as possible, disagree with him.

The Trinity icon is actually the official icon of Pentecost Sunday. The icon of the Descent of the Holy Spirit (fiery tongues and all) is actually the icon for Pentecost Monday. This is not meant to demean or degrade "The Descent" icon in any way. Rather, the more important meaning of the Pentecost is its exclamation of the Trinity. The Descent is also significant which is why it has its own day. The feast is just that big!

So, if the Pentecost icon is the icon of the Trinity, and if the official icon of the Trinity is the Old Testament version (Rublev, and others), then, it is an essential dictum that the three visitors of the Genesis story is a typology of the Trinity.

John

How does that compare with the Trinity being depicted as God the Father enthroned holding his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit shown in the form of a dove? I've since this type of Holy Trinity depicted in Byzantine iconography, is it proper to depict an image of God the Father or is this just borrowing from the Latin imagery of God the Father??

Ung-Certez

Dear John,

Thank you for your considerate and most respectful response.

As I said in my original post, Rublev's depiction (or other depictions without Abraham and Sarah and with the title "Holy Trinity") is not the traditional depiction and title used for the first 1,500 years of the New Testament Church for this particular Genesis account. 1,500 years vs. 500 years to me makes one traditional and the other "new" or "non-traditional." Usually, we call the Rublevian interpretation the "Trinitarian" one (not to imply that the first is anti-Trinitarian but simply non-Trinitarian).

These additions and subtractions to the traditional depiction and title I characterized as "highly suspect" in the sense that they proceeded outside of a declaration by the universal Church on a matter as critical as the depiction and labeling of an image as the very God Head.

I did not state that Rublev's depiction was invalid or that I sought to "refute" it. What I did point out in further posts is that if one accepts the "Trinitarian" interpretation of the icon and the scriptural passage behind it, then one must necessarily accept that two persons of the Holy Trinity visited Lot in Sodom and Gomorah, if one would be consistent in one's interpretation.

And the fathers have always insisted on consistent interpretation of scripture.

However, I have yet to find a supporter of the "Trinitarian" interpretation of the icon and scriptural passage even willing to go in that direction. It is as if they are more interested in Rublev and his icon than the word of God underpinning it! Please remember, that I write "as if."

What do you think about the visitors to Lot's home?

With love in Christ on the Eve of His Nativity.

Dear UC:

On the previous thread, there is a link to a depiction such as you describe from Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow. To your knowledge is this depiction somewhat common, or is it an isolated example? Have you seen it in any of our church buildings?

djs

Djs, in some of the newly-decorated Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Churches, new Byzantine icons depicting the Trinity in three persons have installed. I'm also wondering myself if this was common early on in the Eastren Churches. I'm just don't know if this is a new concept in traditional Byzantine iconography?

U-C

With the other icon of "the Trinity" to which Ung-Certez refers, the problem is not entirely with the depiction but more with the title "Holy Trinity." This other icon has traditionally been called "the Vision of Daniel" since that is exactly what it is, from Chapter 7 of Daniel. It has "the ancient of days" seated on the throne and before him comes another figure, "one like the son of man." But in the scriptural vision, there is no dove as we often find in modern depictions. Why did later iconographers incorrectly add in this dove? Weren't these the same iconographers who changed the name of the depiction from "the Vision of Daniel" to "the Holy Trinity?"

So we should see then that they added a dove so that they could call the icon "the Holy Trinity," or possibly, in calling it "the Holy Trinity" they felt obligated to add a dove.

This linkage was made because they already had an accepted Trinitarian icon to borrow from!!!! Get this now, even I interpret this next icon as Trinitarian!

The worship of Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit became manifest for men at the Theophany (sound of God). This is the baptism of the Lord where the Father proclaimed his pleasure in His Son and sent the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, to confirm the truthfulness of his word (paraphrasing the Troparion).

The only problem was that with this icon of the Theophany, one still could not show simple folk a picture of "the Holy Trinity" since only the Father's voice was heard. If they had labeled the Theophany icon as "the Holy Trinity," some simple folks might have mistaken John the Forerunner as one of the three persons of the Trinity. So they were careful.

As we hear from Petrus above, Rublev's icon and its title came out as part of a necessary polemic against heresy.

I'm not an expert on the dates of the changes made to the icon of "the Vision of Daniel," but these changes may also have been part of a necessary polemic against some other heresy.

This discussion started in the subforum regarding the filioque, not by accident. The modification of prayers, litugical practices, iconography, and even our Holy Symbol of Faith have often been implemented locally to combat heresies. That does not mean that these modifications must be universally accepted everywhere prior to an ecumenical synod!

Again, wishing all the brothers and sisters a most blessed feast of the Nativity.

With love in Christ.

Christ is born!

Glorify Him!

This is in response to Mr. Rubis above. I hope this does not take take the tone of a personal attack as I consider this a purely intellectual theological exercise.

This topic was actually dealt with in detail by St. Augustine in his treatise on The Trinity. Just by virtue of the fact that he dealt with it at length implies, at least to me, that this discussion was alreay somewhat known during the time of its writing (estimated to be between 400-420).

First he gives credence to St. Stephen, a timely reference as we celebrate his feast tomorrow. He notes that in Acts 7:2 we read:

The God of glory appeared to our ancestor Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia.

While this refers to Genesis Chapter 12, it still raises the question as to how the incomprehensible God appeared to Abraham.

He then brings up the Lot problem as you suggest. He has two problems with it. First, and most directly, he highlights Genesis 19:17 in which Lot says:

Pray Lord, since your servant has found favor before you...

Why would he reference Lord, if the angels had already departed "the Lord"? Also, why would he refer to them in the singular again?

Furthermore, he reaches farther into Genesis to develop this conundrum. In Genesis chapter 22 we find the story of the sacrifice of Isaac. We know that it is God who told Abraham to sacrifice his son. However, and astonishingly, an angel intercedes and provides a reprieve. Now are we to assume that an angel has the authority to override God Himself? Or are we to assume that the angel and God are, in some sense, the same Being? In Genesis 22:12 we read:

Now I know that you fear God, and for my sake have not spared your beloved son.

Do we believe that "my sake" refers to an angel? Abraham was going to sacrifice his beloved son for the sake of an angel? Furthermore, in Genesis 22:13 we read:

...And Abraham named that place The Lord has seen, so that there is a saying today, "on the mountain the Lord was seen".

Ultimately, if I'm reading him correctly, Augustine concludes that it does not matter whether you believe that Abraham encountered the Trinitarian God or three angels. He utilizes the "burning bush" as an example of God's theophany. Therefore, God may appear in whatever guise "They" see fit. In this sense, the three angels, like the burning bush, are a theophany of the Trinity. That is, the angels are an appropriate "physical" approximation of the Trinitarian God.

(I may need to revive my thread on "Are Angels Persons". This discussion has given me an idea.)

John

Dear Mr. Rubis,

In support of your theory, see the Apochryphal "Testament of Abraham" in which the Archangel Michael appears to be one of the angels who visited Abraham.

John

Kudos to djs who found this rendering. I add it here primarily because I think it is pretty cool!

http://www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s01/f003.htm

I offer the following scriptural passages in support of God the Father. The depictions of the Son, and the Spirit are so well known that they do not need scriptural support:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days..." (Dn 7:13)

"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool." (Dn 7:9)

John

The Old Believers declared the "old man" and the "dove" depictions of the Holy Trinity to be improper.

They do accept the Rublev-style depictions of the Holy Trinity, which is a wonder of theology when one really contemplates Rublev's icon.

As Petrus well pointed out, this type of depiction of the Trinity sans Abraham's hospitality was extant before Rublev, and Rublev may actually have gotten the idea for this icon from his teacher Theophanes the Cretan who was one of the most well versed and experienced iconographers of his time.

I posted the link on the other thread because of the comment of Andrew J. Rubis:

My question is: is there in fact such a universal canon? And if so, is the linked fresco, obviously a depiction of the Trinity - with the dove and the child holding the "Logos" banner - recognized as a violation of that canon?

djs

Dear John,

As is the fashion on this forum, please call me "Andrew" and have no concern for how I might misconstrue your remarks. You yourself have been very clear, considerate, and kind. As a Christian, even if you were to curse me (which you haven't) I would be obligated to bless you. May the Lord bless you!

I actually have some of Augustine's works at home. Could you cite the source for his Trinitarian commentary for us?

I think anyone who reads the Genesis 18 account and doesn't see a visit by God the Lord is clearly wrong. "And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham..." But if it is true that "no man can see God" then we do enter into this problem of the many divine manifestations to Abraham, Moses, etc.

But if we accept significance that Lot refers to two men as "the Lord" then we must also look for significance in the fact that he refers to them as "lords" (plural). We need to be consistent in explaining these manifestation. And from your most recent post, it appears that you are in agreement with this attempt at consistency.

This is how I arrive there:

At the sacrifice of Issac, the angel called out to Abraham at the Lord's order, he does the Lord's will, and delivers the Lord's message, but he can't possibly be thought of as the same being or somehow exercising his own will. In other words, let's not add fog to mist. We already have our task cut out trying to discern what the words of the scripture mean, without reading too much into them. Part of the problem is in trying to separate the Lord's words and his actions. We should not do this. When He wills He acts. The angel is just his agent.

When the U.S. military attacked Afghanistan we said that the U.S. attacked Afghanistan because we know that the U.S. military is just an agent of the U.S. government. (And in theory, the government is an agent of the U.S. voters/people.)

Scripture assumes that we accept that what the Lord wills he automatically achieves. His word is an action. The prophets, angels, the big fish of Jonah, the burning bush, the apostles are all just agents. (God speaks and acts through the prophets, angels, fish, bush, and apostles), but sometimes he doesn't even use an agent.

The Word and Spirit are not agents, but integral persons of God. So in trying to discern when it is his Word and Spirit vs. just an agent I would look to see how important the action is.

When he comes to fulfill his promise to Abraham at Mamre, the Word comes. When He creates the world, the Word and Spirit act directly. When he gives the Law to Moses, He speaks and uses a visual agent, the burning bush. When it comes time to fulfill the Law, the Word comes. When it is time to fill the Church, the Spirit comes. But when it is time to announce that "the Kingdom of God is at hand," He sends an agent, John the Forerunner. And to announce the Incarnation/Annunciation, an enormous event, He sends an agent, the Archangel Gabriel. Of course the action is achieved by the Spirit, but Gabriel makes the visit.

So I read the visitation to Lot, much less significant than the arrival of the Kingdom of God or Annunciation to Mary, as a visit by two agents. And even though they ate together, nowhere does it say that they "communed" with Lot as it says with the visit to Abraham. Not only do they come for a rather menial task, destroying a filthy den of iniquity, but they even say "we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord has sent us to destroy it."

In scripture, the agents say that "the Lord sent me to say or do this or that." But the Word and Spirit don't need to say this, they simply act. The agents make it clear that it is God who directs them.

I think it is true that God manifests himself through his agents, as Augustine is saying. But there may be degrees of manifestation and reasons why God sometimes uses only an agent, or a combination of His voice (Word) or Spirit and an agent's presence, or a direct sending forth of Word and Spirit. I would argue that the context of the manifestation should help us to discern this.

Manifestation of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit all at once would for me imply an occurrence of the magnitude of the Nativity and Theophany, the public beginning of the salvation of created world.

This is part of my justification for the "traditional" or "non-Trinitarian" interpretation of the Hospitality of Abraham.

With love in Christ.

I have followed with interest this thread and the issue of the Trinity. There is an interesting verse in Gen. 19:24 that adds interest to this visit. We are told in verse 1 that they are angels and later they tell Lot that they were sent to destroy the cities. Note the plural we used. Later the indication is singular when Lot asks for the sparing of the city of Zoar. When it comes time for the destruction of the city, the verse says "Then the LORD (Yahweh) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD (Yahweh) out of heaven." This verse seems to indicate two LORDs, one on earth and one in heaven at the destruction of the cities. Does this act as possible grounds for the appearance of the three to Abraham being a manifestation of the Most Blessed Trinity.

I also like to use this verse for fun when I talk to Jehovah Witnesses.

Toirdealbhach

Dear Andrew:

I appreciate the invitation to call you by your first name. I see that, like me, you prefer to use your real name on this forum instead of a clever moniker. I find that it results in a different behavior by me. I am more charitable and open to the other's point of view.

The reference you request is Augustine's "The Trinity (aka De Trinitate) and specifically Book 3, Chapter III, paragraphs 24-26, and Book 2, Chapter 4, paragraphs 19-22.

It is unfortunate that Augustine got way off track in Book 4. At the end of book III, it appears that he will be tackling this topic head on but never gets there.

I would also like to applaud you on recognizing my simultaneous struggle with Angels. (What exactly are they?) See:

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001433

I concur with your statement on the possible magnitude of a Trinitarian theophany in the OT. I guess I need to read more before I can comment further.

John

djs

I am not aware of any such canon. Are you? I know that the "Rublev" Trinity is the preferred one, but I do not know of any explicit prohibition for other depictions.

John

Toirdealbhach;

I don't know enough of Jehovah's Witness' teachings to understand your point. What do they believe/deny about the Trinity, etc?

John

Dear John,

I've had experiences with Jehovah Witnesses for years and so I've become familiar with their beliefs. They deny the Trinity and only believe in using the name Jehovah for God. Most scholars today believe it should be Yahweh, but the JW's got their name from the use of Jehovah in the King James Bible and before recent scholarship.

They believe that Jesus Christ was Michael the Archangel before coming to earth and being born.

They believe that Jehovah is one alone. I use this verse on them because of the implications of there being more than one called Jehovah. If God is one alone then this is impossible, but if we are right in our belief of the Trinity then Jehovah being the name of the I Am, then any of the persons of the Trinity could appear under this Name and you could have the possibility of Jehovah appearing in what appears two different places and persons at the same time.

I tend to get a little wordy at times so I hope I didn't confuse the issue.

Toirdealbhach

Here is an icon that perhaps others recognize. The site seems to suggest 14th century Russia.
http://www.ku.edu/~russcult/culture/visual_index/images/orthodoxy/otechestvo_novgorod .jpg [ku.edu]

As to a canon forbidding such depictions:
Many sites say that such depictions of God the Father as an old man are forbidden, but do not give a reference. I find no such prohibition at any excerpts that I found so far from 2nd Nicea. (Pro-icon arguments of St. John of Damascus do not directly comment on this point either) The council specifically sanctions images of Jesus, Theotokos, Angels, Saints. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church precisely recapitualtes this statement of 2nd Nicea.) It sanctions their placement "in the holy churches of God,
on sacred instruments and vestments,
on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways". It is silent on forbidden subjects, or forbidden locations, etc.

I am interested in the development of this idea - is it simply: that which is not expressly allowed must be forbidden; or that a certain tradition of writing icons morphed into a Tradition?

One more, perhaps.

http://www.newskete.com/index.htm

Check out the icon on the right.
Is this a free (wild?) interpretation of Rublev, or is this another scene entirely?

Dear djs,

I really don't know about specific references regarding prohibitions about depicting God the Father etc.

I know my parish certainly does depict God the Father as the "Ancient of Days" above the Iconostasis and in another "New Testament Trinity" icon to the side.

Personally, I'm not bothered about it. I understand that some are even against depicting the Holy Spirit as a Dove since this was only a comparison used in the New Testament.

The icon from New Skete is truly interesting, a compilation of St Andrei Rubleev's Old Testament Trinity with that of the New Testament.

I doubt if it would pass muster with most Orthodox.

But I think many Eastern Catholics wouldn't have a problem with it!

New Skete was formerly Eastern Catholic, and perhaps, some Orthodox might think, they are somewhat still "infected" with Uniatistic tendencies . . .

But isn't being Eastern Catholic fun?

Alex

Dear Brothers:

My question regarding any icon is, "of what is it an icon?" An image must be an image of something/somebody. Am I mistaken? And if the event is known but not seen, such as the Resurrection, then it should be depicted inside of a mandorla (an almond-shaped parenthesis that tells us exactly that, that it was not seen).

I wouldn't feel half as upset in regards to the traditional version of Rublev's icon titled "The Holy Trinity" were the three identical figures in the icon placed inside of a mandorla. It would still beg the question, "from where in scripture or the life of the Church did the something/somebody come minus Abraham and Sarah?" For example was it "the Vision of Rublev of the Holy Trinity?" I don't write this sarcastically, only to sincerely offer it as perhaps a more appropriate title.

As for New Skete and its iconography, the previous abbot was suspended (a public announcement along with other ordinations, assignments, etc. placed in the official newspaper of the Orthodox Church in America). Perhaps, the new abbot will be reviewing their web page, among his other duties.

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,
Christ is Baptized! In the Jordan!
Thank you for your thoughtful question.
The icon first and fundamentally is the image of the presence of God.
The following narrative on Rubley's Trinity by Alexander Boguslawski gives a very complete representation of this great work. I hope it helps you.
Deacon El

Many scholars consider Rublev's Trinity the most perfect of all Russian icons and perhaps the most perfect of all the icons ever painted. The work was created for the abbot of the Trinity Monastery, Nikon of Radonezh, a disciple of the famous Sergius, one of the leaders of the monastic revival in the 14th-century Russia. From the earliest times, the idea of the Trinity was controversial and difficult to understand, especially for the uneducated masses. Even though Christianity replaced the pagan polytheism, it gave the believers a monotheistic religion with a difficult concept of one God in three hypostases -- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Not only the uneducated population but many theologians had difficulties with the concept of the triune God; from time to time, a heretical movement, like Arianism, questioned the doctrine, causing long debates, violent persecutions, and even greater general confusion. Trying to portray the Trinity, but always aware of the Biblical prohibition against depicting God, icon painters turned to the story of the hospitality of Abraham who was visited by three wanderers. In their compositions, icon painters included many details -- the figures of Abraham and Sarah, a servant killing a calf in preparation for the feast, the rock, the tree of Mamre, and the house (tent) -- trying to render as faithfully as possible the events described in the text:(Genesis, 18: 1-8 ).
Very few artists before Rublev dared to eliminate all the narrative elements from the story, leaving only the three angels; usually those who did so had to deal with limited space. The results of their efforts did not find general acceptance or many copyists. Rublev was the first to make a conscious decision not to include in his composition the figures of Abraham and Sarah because he did not set out to illustrate the story of the hospitality of Abraham, as did many painters before him, but to convey through his image the idea of the unity and indivisibility of the three persons of the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity, difficult to explain logically, found various interpretations. Some thought that the Trinity consisted of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Others believed that it was just God and two angels. In the 14th and 15th-century Russia, in the period of many heretical movements, the idea of the Trinity was often questioned. The heretics in Novgorod claimed that it is not permissible to paint the Trinity on icons because Abraham did not see the Trinity but only God and two angels. Other heretics rejected the idea of the three hypostases of God altogether. The church fought the heresies with all the means it had -- usually with polemical treaties, but also with force, if necessary. Russian icon painters before Rublev subscribed to the same point of view that Abraham was visited by God (in Christ's image) and two angels. Hence, Christ was represented in icons of the Trinity as the middle angel and was symbolically set apart either by a halo with a cross, by a considerable enlargement of his figure, by widely spread wings or by a scroll in His hand.
In Rublev's icon for the first time all the angels are equally important . Only this icon truly conforms to the Orthodox idea of the Trinity. But Rublev's genius allows the painter to go beyond the constraints of theological theme. His icon is a special kind of challenge to the antitrinitarians -- instead of forcing them to accept the dogma, Rublev softly and gently tries to bring them to the dogmatic understanding of the icon's meaning.
All scholars agree that the three hypostases of the Trinity are represented in Rublev's icon. But there are greatly differing views as to which angel represents which hypostasis. Many see Christ in the middle angel and God the Father in the left. Others see God the Father in the middle angel, and Christ in the left one. The middle angel occupies a special place in the icon: it is set apart not only by its central position, but also by a "regal" turn of its head towards the left angel, and by pointing with its hand towards the cup on the table. Both the turn of the head and the gesture are important clues to the hidden meaning of the icon. Equal among equals, the middle angel has such expressive power that one hesitates not to see in it a symbolic representation of God the Father. On the other hand one cannot fail to notice that the left angel is also essential: two other angels lower their heads towards it and seem to address it. Therefore, if we assume that the left angel is God the Father, the middle angel, dressed in the clothes customarily used in compositions depicting the second person of the Trinity (a blue himation and a crimson tunic), should represent Christ. This amazing and perhaps purposeful encoding of these two persons of the Trinity by Rublev does not give us a clear clue for a single interpretation. Whatever the case, the icon shows a dialogue between two angels: The Father turns to His Son and explains the necessity of His sacrifice, and the Son answers by agreeing with His Father's wish.
Neither of these interpretations impacts the interpretation of the Trinity as triune God and as a representation of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The cup on the table is an eucharistic symbol. In the cup we see the head of the calf which Abraham used for the feast. The church interprets this calf as a prototype of the New Testament Lamb, and thus the cup acquires its Eucharistic meaning. The left and the middle angels bless the cup: The Father blesses His Son on his Deed, on His death on the cross for the sake of man's salvation, and the Son, blessing the cup, expresses his readiness to sacrifice Himself. The third angel does not bless the cup and does not participate in the conversation, but is present as a Comforter, the undying, a symbol of eternal youth and the upcoming Resurrection.
Perhaps the most important thought Rublev wanted to convey when he painted his great icon was the thought about the necessity and goodness of love, a bond based on the trust between individuals. The old texts about Trinity as three hypostases of the Divinity talk about love which fills the Trinity: "Trinity is love," "The Son loves His Father, the Father loves His Son," "The Love of the Heavenly Father Is Given to the World through His Son ." Since the theological ideas were understandable only to a few, something else must have made the icon attractive for a wider spectrum of viewers and believers. Obviously, the content of the Trinity is not restricted to the theological ideas. Rublev's Trinity is not only a representation of the three hypostases of God and the symbol of the Eucharist, but it is also an all-encompassing symbol of unity and an image of divine love.
This last, important interpretation is beautifully supported by the words of Henri Nouwen:
"Andrew Rublev painted this icon not only to share the fruits of his own meditation on the mystery of the Holy Trinity but also to offer his fellow monks a way to keep their hearts centered in God while living in the midst of political unrest. The more we look at this holy image with the eyes of faith, the more we come to realize that it is painted not as a lovely decoration for a convent church, nor as a helpful explanation of a difficult doctrine, but as a holy place to enter and stay within. As we place ourselves in front of the icon in prayer, we come to experience a gentle invitation to participate in the intimate conversation that is taking place among the three divine angels and to join them around the table. The movement from the Father toward the Son and the movement of both Son and Spirit toward the Father become a movement in which the one who prays is lifted up and held secure. . . .
Through the contemplation of this icon we come to see with our inner eyes that all engagements in this world can bear fruit only when they take place within this divine circle. The words of the psalm, "The sparrow has found its home at last. . . . Happy are those who live in your house" (Ps 84: 3,4) are given new depth and new breadth; they become words revealing the possibility of being in the world without being of it. We can be involved in struggles for justice and in actions for peace. We can be part of the ambiguities of family and community life. We can study, teach, write and hold a regular job. We can do all of this without ever having to leave the house of love. . . . Rublev's icon gives us a glimpse of the house of perfect love"

Dear Reverend Father Deacon,

Thank you very much for sharing this beautiful commentary with us!

St Andrew Rubleev truly was an inspired iconographer and I understand that ALL of his icons are deemed miraculous by the Orthodox Church.

The fact of the matter is, as the writer demonstrates, that the strong Trinitarian emphasis in Orthodoxy, especially Russian Orthodoxy, was further occasioned by the struggle with the sect of the "Judaizers."

These were formerly Orthodox churchmen who secretly converted to a form of Judaism and worked to destroy the Orthodox Church from within by denying Christianity, and especially the Trinity.

St Andrew Rubleev's magnificent icon of the Holy Trinity actually links the Old Testament with the New, as has also been shown.

Just as icons were celebrated to mark the Byzantine victory over iconoclasm, so too did this Icon of the Trinity mark the beginning of the victory over this heresy in Russia, as it became a great teaching instrument in and of itself with respect to the Holy Trinity, in Abraham's time, and also with the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

This icon should have a prominent place in the icon corner of every Orthodox Christian!

Alex

"Of what is it an icon?" is asked by Andrew Rubis above. I have attempted to answer his question (I think) on another thread so as to avoid drifting from the topic of this one. Go to:

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001781

I will return to the Trinity icon when I have more time.

John

Dear Fr. Dn. El,

Thank you very much for the narrative on Rublev's Trinity. Truly, I'm adding this fine piece to my library! I was in fact surprised to see the extensive and open discussion of the traditional interpretation of the Hospitality of Abraham and how Rublev's innovation was in fact a polemical icon for fighting the anti-Trinitarianists. Many authors and commentators ignore these crucial points. This narrative explains, far better than I could, why "Rublev's Vision of the Trinity" might be the best title for what was depicted.

With love in Christ.

P.S. to Alex: I do have this icon at home.

Dear Andrew,

Excellent!

I have one on my desk at work as well. Can you top that?

And what about one of St Andrew Rubleev himself?

"Rubleev," "Rubis," - pretty close, would you say?

Alex

Dear Alex,

Now just trust me on this. No one. I mean no one, not even a fool, would ever confuse me with a saint.

In Christ.

Dear Friends,

There are iconographers' books available that outline the various traditions and canons pertaining to depicting various subjects. One I read long ago did in fact contain the canon prohibiting depicting the Father as an Old Man etc. Only Christ manifested Himself visibly in the Flesh and the reference to the Dove is only by way of similitude, not an actual dove.

Andrew Rubis mentions "consistency" a number of times - and I just wonder if he is not applying an academic stringency to topics that simply do not bear it out. One Gospel states that Christ hung on the Cross for three hours, but another states He hung on the Cross for six hours etc.

Ultimately, it is not what this or that Father had to say about the Hospitality of Abraham, or other topics. It is what the Church herself teaches in her liturgy and otherwise.

Augustine's teachings aren't exactly held in the highest esteem in the East, especially his views on Original Sin.

St John Damaskinos had to consider if St Epiphanios was against icons. He denied it as a fabrication of the iconoclasts, but then admitted that even if he WAS against them, "Just because one sparrow has sung does not mean that spring is here!"

And no Jew in radically monotheistic Pre-New Testament times would have interpreted the Hospitality of Abraham as a revelation of the Trinity - for the ancient Jews the Word and the Spirit were emanations of God and not Divine Persons.

That doesn't mean the event does not bear a Trinitarian interpretation. There is nothing about it that would mitigate against such an interpretation.

And, most of all, it is how the Church of Christ interprets it today that matters ultimately, not "consistency," what a Father said, or what we say on this Forum!

Alex

Alex said:

And, most of all, it is how the Church of Christ interprets it today that matters ultimately, not "consistency," what a Father said, or what we say on this Forum!

I thought this forum had primacy. No wait, Byzantine Faith and Worship has primacy, Scripture is only the Ecumenical Forum!

Alex also said:

"And no Jew in radically monotheistic Pre-New Testament times would have interpreted the Hospitality of Abraham as a revelation of the Trinity - for the ancient Jews the Word and the Spirit were emanations of God and not Divine Persons."

I think that the emanations idea actually arose in the post-Christ era, especially in the writings of Philo.

I also suspect that the ancient rabbis were well aware of the three=one=God problem and concur that they did not see this as a demonstration of the Personhood of the Trinity. Rather, I presume that they did not try to explain it but understood it as a mysterious image. That is, God is not to be understood. One does equal three in the essence of God; is beyond human understanding. In fact, one of the things that they handled very aggressively was the avoidance of trying to understand God in anthropomorphic terms. This was problematic not so much from the Genesis verses we are reviewing here, but moreso from the so-called Imago-Dei:

"Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." (Genesis 1:26)

In this verse there are two problems: the plurality of God (again one=more than one because we are not supposed to understand God), and the human person as image and likeness of the divine.

As Christians we believe that the Christ story revealed all this. God could be understood in the image of a human person. As Eastern Christians we proclaim this via our iconography.

And we are back to the icon of the Trinity.

John

Dear Alex,

When you wrote:

"...it is how the Church of Christ interprets it today that matters ultimately..."

did you mean to imply that this invalidates earlier interpretations made by same said Church?

In Christ.

PS: You forgot to ask me in which room I keep St. Andrew Rublev's trinitarian icon.

Dear Andrew,

O.K. - which room DO you keep it in?

Does the Church's teaching today invalidate previous interpretations?

Only if the Church says it does.

Or else we should simply follow the Church in her liturgical life without applying our critical reason too much.

There are plenty of other subjects, including sociology, where we can give our rational powers a solid workout!

Alex

The Holy Council of the Hundred Chapters held in Moscow in 1551 prohibited the icon known as the 'New Testament Trinity'.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

And welcome back!

What exactly did the Nikonians do to the canons of the Stoglav Sobor later on?

Clearly, they annulled the canons on the Sign of the Cross.

From the Nikonian POV, did the other Canons remain in force for the Nikonian Church?

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon us. Amen.

Dearest brother-in-Christ, Alex,

May the All-Merciful Lord bless you.

The Eastern patriarchs, the same ones that tried and defrocked Nikon, declared the sacred council nul, void and heretical. Thus the spirituality and ways of piety of St Sergei, Sts Vladimir and Olga and the choir of Rus' saints was 'erroneous' and the God-pleasing sovereigns of Holy Russia were in error. Tsar Alexei Michailovich betrayed and spat upon the memory, piety and faith of his own fathers as did Nikon, of sorrowful memory.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father in Christ!

Is there an online rendering of the Canons of the Stoglav Sobor in English?

The Nikonian Patriarch of Moscow has made overtures to the Old Believers recently.

From an Old Believer point of view, what would be necessary to restore communion?

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

p.s. the Lestovka will be worked on following the Nativity "Kanikuly!"

Alex

Hardliners would insist that there must be a full return to Old Orthodoxy. Since the Belayakrinitsi are taking a hard line at the moment it makes any advance nigh on impossible.

Traditionally, the faithful folowing His Holiness Patriarch Aristarkh of Novozybkov, Moscow and All Russia have been more rigid still.

The warmest relations are between the priestless Old Believers and the Nikonian Church. However, I don't know what conditions they would name!

I think that at the end of the day there may be many parishes who would, like the yedinovertsy/united faith parishes of the New Rite patriarchate and ROCOR, look far more moderately at the whole question.

Some of the united faith parishes have united Old Believers of different backgrounds.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Ah, so simple really (and I'm being simplistic).

Since God the Father has never been seen, it is incorrect to depict Him iconographically, especially as an old man of unequal age with the Son, who existed with the Father from all eternity. "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," Jesus said. With the coming of the Logos in the flesh at the Nativity, the Godhead may now be depicted, but only the Son (as Himself and the express image of the Father). Of course, at Theophany we have the Holy Spirit appearinng in the form of a dove.

In much Byzantine iconography, the Father is simply represented by a hand within a cloud from Heaven. The icon of the Holy Trinity by St. Andrew Rublev is a magnificent way to depict the Trinity and counter all objections: all three Persons are equal!

No, no, no!!!

We read that the Holy Spirit desended LIKE a dove, NOT in the form of a dove.

The depiction of the Holy Spirit as dove is INCORRECT!!!

In Christ -
Mark,monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Happy New Year!

I just wanted to review the canonical icons of the Holy Trinity:

Hospitality of Abraham
Theophany
Descent of the Holy Spirit
Transfiguration

These are the ONLY canonical icons of the Most Holy Trinity that the Orthodox Church recognizes, am I correct?

And, apart from the Person of Christ, there is no other way to depict the other Two Persons of the Holy Trinity - am I correct?

Not depicting the Spirit as a dove makes sense in the spirit of the canon (of which Ecumenical Council I remember not) that forbade the depiction of Christ as a lamb, i.e. the prohibition of depicting God as an animal.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Father Mark, are you a hieromonk or a simple monk?
If you are a hieromonk, Father, bless.

I like the symbolism of the dove for the Holy Spirit at the Theophany. Yes, yes, yes!

Troparion of the feast:

"When Thou, O Lord, wast baptized in the Jordan,
The worship of the Trinity was made manifest!
For the voice of the Father bare witness to Thee, and called Thee His beloved Son! And the Spirit, *** in the form of a dove***, confirmed the truthfulness of His word. O Christ our God, who hast revealed Thyself and hast enlightened the world, glory to Thee!"

OrthodoxEast

Dear Orthodox East, I am a hieodeacon.

In monastic culture, bless, is the standard greeting, regardless of holy orders. We see this in the story of St Mary of Egypt. The elder St Zosimma resists Mary's constant demands for him to bless and he demanded the blessing of her.

Equally, if I meet an abbess of eldress I ask her blessing - at least in the Russian tradition.

The dove is lovely as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, but we are not told that the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. If - IN THE GOSPEL - we read 'os peristeran' or 'san peristeri' in modern Greek IN CONTEXT, we must surely make an allegorical conclusion. The Holy Spirit is formless. It CANNOT be a dove, but it's gentle descent may be like a dove. There is a great beauty in this.

With love in Christ,
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Father Mark,

I was taught to take blessings and ask for same only from bishops, priests (whether hieromonks--including abbots-- or not), and abbesses. I was not taught to ask the blessing of a deacon, whether monastic or not. I have *NEVER* seen the bishop's archdeacon, who is resident in my parish, being asked for or bestowing a blessing.

I believe that in the Russian tradition priests wear a pectoral cross to distinguish them from deacons et al. so that one would not make the mistake of asking the blessing of a deacon, as a tsar or tsaritsa once did. But, in truth, anyone may bless or ask for a blessing, e.g., parents for children, children from parents.

Yet, in Orthodoxy, we do address all monks (except novices, whom we address as "Brother"), whether priests or not, as "Father." And we address all nuns (except novices, who are addressed as "Sister") as "Mother." And we address deacons, whether hierodeacons, protodeacons, archdeacons or simply "deacons," as "Father Deacon" or simply "Father."

OrthodoxEast

Dear OrthodoxEast,

Ah, but Fr. Mark is of the Old Orthodox Rite, you should remember.

Crosses are also worn by Monks, especially Stavrophores or the second Grade of Monasticism in Orthodoxy.

East Slavic Orthodox clergy wear one-bar Orthodox Crosses to indicate rank, but all ranks in Old Rite Orthodox wear the three Bar Cross.

Orthodox Monks of old could not only bless, they could hear confessions - even though the absolution had to be received from an ordained priest.

Alex

Dear Father Mark,

Just an after-thought. In icons of the Elder St. Zosimas with St. Mary of Egypt in which the Elder communes St. Mary of the Eucharist, St. Zosimas is often depicted wearing an epitrachelion (priestly stole). Whether this is a correct depiction of him or not I do not know, but at least some iconographers must have thought that he was in Holy Orders and a hieromonk. To be carrying Communion to someone as he did and to administer the Cup, he did have to be a priest (or at the very least, a deacon), did he not? Or have the ancient rules changed.

OrthodoxEast

Dear OrthodoxEast,

No, St Zossimas did not have to be a priest in order to bring the Holy Gifts to the great desert female ascetic.

The early Church even allowed Christians to take Holy Communion with them to their private homes and keep it in their special little home chapels -everyone had a separate room in which to pray at home, and this is still the rule for Copts, Ethiopians and others.

And these Christians would commune of the Holy Gifts THEMSELVES each morning before breakfast.

This practice was later forbidden under St John Chrysostom, who also introduced the liturgical Spoon.

But a shadow of this early practice survives in the tradition today for Orthodox Christians to take some of the Blessed Bread they receive following the Liturgy home with them to keep in a special place and partake of some of this each morning before breakfast and during morning prayers.

Traditionally, although it is Blessed Bread and not actual Holy Communion, the way to receive it is to have it on a separate table with a white cloth over it, and to recieve it with a white cloth under one's mouth - very much as if one were going to receive Holy Communion.

Alex

OrthodoxCatholic:

"Old Orthodox Rite"? Like the "Old Rite" headed by His Grace, Bishop Daniel of Erie (ROCOR), you mean? Or some schismatic or vagante group as seen from the historical Orthodox Church viewpoint?

OrthodoxEast

Alex (OrthodoxCatholic),

I **DO** know what antidoron is!

OrthodoxEast

This practice of blessing is part of MONASTIC culture between monastics. Take Athos - I call Fr Maximos to ask him for some soap. He replies 'Evlogite' - bless -and I reply 'o Kyrios' - the Lord (bless).

I have many Greek friends who follow the practice and receive the same reply. Old Rite Russian Orthodox follow the practice of the early Church in their approach to monastics as illustrated in the life of St Mary of Egypt. We should also remember that blessings may be given by parents to children and spiritual mothers to spiritual daughters and unordained elders to spiritual children. Clericalism creeping into Orthodoxy has corrupted people's views of the blessing. The Lord is the source of blessings. This is why - in the Old Rite books - we see, Glory... Now and ever... Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord bless. The priest pronounces the blessing in as much he is the icon of Christ and shares in the one priesthood which is that of Christ. A priestly blessing remains distinct from any other, but it is not the only blessing.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear OrthodoxEast,

Yes, Old Rite as in ROCOR's Bishop Daniel.

There are many other Old Believers not in communion with other Orthodox.

They can hardly be called "vagante" or other, and I believe the ROC has lifted the anathemas on them.

Or did you know that too?

I was only using the Antidoron issue by way of illustration, as opposed to information.

Sometimes it is good to give full explanations of things like that for others here who may not be as knowledgeable as we, you know.

Alex

True, Alex, and a good point. We "know-it-alls" have a bad habit of "talking down" to others, or so it may appear in writing, but when they meet us in person, they can see how perfectly humble we really are!

OrthodoxEast

PS How does one enable the message icons in this forum?

Please take care Orthodox East, you are close to causing deep offence!!!

Seriously... careless comments do not help!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner

Gentlemen [ well Fr Mark and the 2 gentlemen ]

Thank you for considering the unknowlegeable like me

After all it is only by reading these posts that we can attain a degree of knowledge.

Let the education continue - in a kindly fashion please :p

Anhelyna - the stoopid uneducated Latin Scot !!

This is the way the forum should be Anhelyna - and this is the way I like it and enjoy it!!!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Yes, I agree!!

Angela/Anhelyna is a wonderful lady.

Too bad we are both "spoken for" otherwise we could have made future plans to meet her in Scotland and take her out on the town! (You can take the low road and I'll take the high road!)

Kissing your right hand (yours too, Angela!), I again implore your blessing (yours too, Angela!)

Alex

Dear OrthodoxEast,

Yes, I only use two types of "smileys."

The full smiley is "colon end-bracket," while the wing smiley is "semi-colon end-bracket."

Do let us know if the Metropolitan Yaroslaw Sereda is your colleague from the Diaconate programme! (semi-colon end-bracket or )

Alex

OK OK OK

What are you trying to do to me Alex ??

NO don't answer that I am blushing enough as it is.

I like my Ukrainian name BTW

Anhelyna

Dear Anhelyna,

It is just that a mature woman is a good woman!

And if she is spiritual - that's an added plus!



Alex

METROPOLITAN Yaroslav Sereda???

Yes, Alex, he is the Ukrainian colleague from my Diaconate Training Program. "Metropolitan"???

OrthodoxEast

Dear OrthodoxEast,

And just when you thought you could not be shocked any more, he is also married!

The Orthodox Church of Canada is an "independent" jurisdiction that is not recognized by world Orthodoxy, SCOBA or Fr. Mark

This group had, at one point I believe, tried to come into communion with the Kyivan Patriarchate in Ukraine, but this didn't work out . . .

Alex

But, Alex, he was such a devout Ukrainian Greek Catholic! He was already a subdeacon for the Toronto Greek Catholic Eparchy and a deacon-candidate with me at the Melkite Seminary when I knew "Russ." He was later ordained a deacon for the Toronto Greek Catholic Eparchy. I was invited to his ordination. And the same year, 1979 or 1980, my family and I "adjusted" from Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy through the offices of the Orthodox Church in America (the OCA). What happened with "Russ," I do not know, but I have written him to find out why he became a "vagante" metropolitan.

OrthodoxEast

Dear OrthodoxEast,

Let us know what you hear - if it is our business!

Alex

Just to clarify the blessing issue for Orthodox East. All of this monastic blessing business is purely verbal! There's no sign of the cross etc.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

I understand that St Herman of Alaska, not being a priest, allowed his visitors to kiss his monastic Cross.

Is this something he developed or is it a monastic tradition?

Kissing your right hand I again implore your blessing,

Alex

I think this was quite typical in the past in Russia. Also, it was quite common for monastics to bless with the neck-cross or neck icon.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Do you see how wide my reading on these matters truly is?

Not bad for a layman, eh?

Asking your forgivness, I devoutly kiss your right hand,

Alex

I'm sorry I have neglected this thread (I am sure most of you were hoping I just went quietly away.) Anyway, I have other pressing matters.

Anyway, while trying to find the answer to another question, I came across this reference in the Vespers for the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers.

"The three holy youths were refreshed by the Holy Spirit when they walked in the fire as though in a cool place. In them the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ were prefigured in a mystical manner."

Obviously, this is in reference to Daniel Chapter 3.

Just thought it is interesting the way our liturgies tell us exactly what we believe.

John

Dear Petrus,

Right, right, right!

They "prefigured" in a "mystical" manner. They were not the "figure" of the Holy Trinity. So no one would ever be so bold as to depict the three youths and then label it "the Most Holy Trinity."

In Christ.

Dear Friends,

Yes indeed.

In this same manner, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also prefigured the Holy Trinity, especially in their specific roles in salvation history.

Alex

And if someone, like St. Andrew Reblev, were to say that the three visitors to Abraham and Sarah at Mamre "prefigured" the Most Holy Trinity, I wouldn't be the least upset!

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,

Then I'm sorry to hear that St Andrew Rubleev upsets you!

Alex

Dear Alex,

That's why he's still in my basement.

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,

His Trinity Icon or an icon of himself?

Alex

Dear Alex,

Ja, ja. But he didn't write an icon of the Holy Trinity. Rublev's Vision of the Prefiguration of the Holy Trinity.

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,

Sorry, but the Orthodox Church tells me his Icon is that of the Old Testament Trinity and blesses it as such - as one of four icons of the Trinity that the Orthodox Church recognizes.

Your view is your own, it contradicts that of the Church, and, frankly, you know as well as I that you would be beaten about the calves and ankles if you were ever a priest and said what you just wrote in public.

But have a nice day!

Alex

To All:

Sorry I have been very tied up with such mundane things as work, family, and church but I have a few minutes to add to this discussion.

"Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with these words: "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your foes into your hand."
(Gen 14:18-20)

"This Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High, met Abraham as he returned from defeat of the kings and blessed him. And Abraham apportioned to him a tenth of everything. His name first means righteous king, and he was also 'king of Salem,' that is, king of peace. Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever."
(Heb 7:1-3)

In this Genesis verse then, Melchizedek is God the Father who blesses doubly i.e. with the Son and the Spirit.

Furthermore, this Melchizedek "resembles the Son of God" Is it too much of a stretch to say that the One who "delivered the foes into your hand" also images the Son of God?

Are you willing to "pre-figure" the Eucharist in the bread and wine?

John

Dear John,

Certainly, St Melchizedek prefigures the Trinity and the Bread is a prefigure of the Eucharist!

He is a mysterious figure, to be sure, but is honoured as a great Old Testament saint, whereas the Men Who came to visit Abraham are honoured as being the actual Persons of the Holy Trinity.

One other Saint in the history of the Orthodox Church also experienced a visitation from the Holy Trinity via Three Men, and that one was St Alexander Svirsky who is always portrayed with the Old Testament Trinity.

Alex

Dear Deacon John,

It is precisely these points that have been the subject of a heated discussion on another forum involving me and some others. I was wondering if, when you had some time, you'd expand on this.

What do you mean when you say that Melchizedek "is" God the Father? Did God the Father appear in bodily form to Abram? Did He appear as a spirit to Abram? Is Melchizedek a "type" of God the Father? Was he a real man? Was he an angel? What's the story? And what does it mean to say that Melchizedek/God the Father "blesses doubly" with the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The jist of my argument in the aforementioned discussion was that Melchizedek was a real human being who, because of the lack of details on his life and ancestry (compared to the details, often including genealogical records, given of others), became a "type" of God the Son. There were others who were saying that Melchizedek was an angel. Others were saying that this was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. But I don't think it ever dawned on me to think of this in terms of God the Father. What does the Eastern tradition have to say in addressing this, if it says anything at all?

Dear John,

Regarding a prefigurement of the eucharist, we need to go back to description of the eucharist. Obviously the word itself means "thanks" in Greek. But why do we also in Greek refer to it as a symbol?

A symbol/synvolon comes from "syn" = together and a form of "vlepo" = to see. So a symbol is something (implied two or more things) seen together. In the case of the Holy Eucharist, we see both body and blood and bread and wine in the chalice together. Divine/uncreated with the material/created.

For this reason the East has always rejected the teaching (I don't know if it is a doctrine) of transubstantiation that prevails in the Western Church. According to this teaching, the bread and wine become the body and blood and are no longer bread and wine. In the East, both are "seen together" just as in the very incarnation of God, divine/uncreated and human/created are seen together in the person of Jesus, the Christ.

The problem with calling the eucharist or Christ a "symbol" in modern English is that people misunderstand what we mean by it, not knowing the Greek underpinning it. In English, a symbol is "just" a symbol and is void of true substance/essence. For us, in this particular theological usage, it is the opposite. A symbol "holds" two essences together!

So if one wants to sse the bread and wine alone as a prefigurement of the eucharist (and I'm not sure if you meant that), I would conservatively say "no." The bread and wine are but half of the equation. But the Mystical (Last) Supper and the revellation of the resurrected Lord's identity to the apostles "in the breaking of the bread" are both strong prefigurations of the eucharist. In these, the two are seen together: the divine offering and the material offering are both at the table.

In these instances, the same symbol is repeated: divine and material seen together.

I don't think it would be a stretch to look on the Genesis passage as an eucharistic meal (a meal of thanksgiving), but is this THE eucharistic meal that we remember now? I'm not so sure that the element of sacrifice is there.

One would have to discern very finely; isn't our eucharist the symbol of the offered and sacrificed divine (Jesus Christ) with the offered and sacrificed material things (bread and wine)? But then again, are the bread and wine sacrifices or simply offerings? Doesn't the sacrifice of Jesus Christ end all other sacrifices? I lean toward this last view and this relationship:

offered and sacrificed ICXC + offered bread and wine = the eucharist

I'm placing question marks above because I don't believe that I'm fully qualified to give an authoritative answer. But I think that the answer seems to hinge on the issue of sacrifice.

Thank you for raising the issue. I look forward to hearing from others!

With love in Christ.

Dear Alex,

You and yours are safe! The prospect of a beating about the calves and ankles would definitely cause me to think twice before teaching such anywhere near Toronto!

I think that we are back where we left off on another thread: there are two teachings regarding depictions of the visit to Abraham and Sarah. One older and non-trinitarian and one more recent and very trinitarian.

Both have coexisted in peace for quite a while, just like you and I.

With love in Christ.

Hello Andrew,

I've been expecting you!

I don't think Malchizedek was a real person and I don't think "Paul" (or whoever wrote Hebrews) thought so either. That is why I included it in my prior post. What kind of person is without a mother or a father, without beginning or without end of days.

In regard to the sending forth, he gave Abraham a double blessing (see my prior post). This mysterious King of righteousness and peace provides a double blessing upon Abraham (and therefore his progeny) has long been considered a typology for the Trinity as noted by Brother Alex (whose knowledge of obscure Eastern practice and belief continues to impress!).

I think you need to be a little more gracious to the Latin understanding of symbol/sacrament. Another way of perceiving this from their perspective is that a sacrament is a visible representation of an invisible reality. I have no problem with this. Transubstantiation then makes more sense. I think your explanation comes dangerously close to consubstantiation (the bread and wine maintain their form but simultaneously attain the substance of the body and blood of Christ). This too is contrary to the Roman and the Eastern perspective.

John

Fr. Deacon John,

I find the blessing of Abraham (Gen 14:19) by Melchizedek interesting. The fact that Abraham pays a tithe (Gen 14:20) to Melchizedek implies inferiority or subordination. Does this mean that Abraham's covenant inferior or subordinate?

1/10 tithe was paid by Abram to Melchizedek; similar to the 1/10 tithe that the tribes of Israel paid to Levis (I don't mean the blue-jean manufacturer).

Melchizedek's offerings are an interesting choice too.

Joe Thur

Hi Joe;

I guess it depends on who or what you think Melchizedek is. At least if I understand your point.

Andrew, there are three things that I disagree with in your theology.

First, (and perhaps this is not a disagreement) while the Eucharist appears in the "form" of bread and wine, it has the "essence" of the body and blood. It thus ceases to be bread and wine.

Second, I don't understand why you continue to argue the historical Trinity when the Trinity is beyond time and space. The Trinity could not have been pre-figured in the OT because they already were. Just because we did not understand them to be Trinity until Pentecost does not make it so.

Third, I think you overstate the distinctions among the Persons of the Trinity. The Persons are who they are in relation to each other, not in relation to us. What is accomplished outside of them involves all of them.

For example, a great theological trick question is: When we pray the Our Father, who are we praying to? The answer is we are praying to all of the Trinity. East and West agree on this point. This is actually one of the things I like the most about this icon. It seems to demonstrate the Unity of Essence in its Trinitarian depiction.

John