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

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