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

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

"When we pray the Our Father ... we are praying to all of the Trinity."

Really? Wouldn't it be better to call it the "Our Trinity" prayer instead? Was Jesus really referring to himself (and the Holy Spirit) when he instructed those listening how and to whom to pray? How is our understanding similar or different from Jesus' understanding. Just wondering. Is that also our understanding of whom the Anaphora is addressed to? Thanks.

Joe

Dear Cantor Joe!

A great point on the Our Father!

St Maximos the Confessor did a very good analysis of this and showed how the reference to "Father" is already a reference to the Holy Trinity - this is repeated by another Father in the Philokalia.

"Father" is a relational term that ALREADY implies that there is a Son Who is loved etc.

So to say "Our Father" is to address the entire Trinity already - as well as to place ourselves in a state of adoptive Sonship through Christ.

This is also why the Eastern Fathers only understand the Trinity in terms of the Persons themselves - rather than as a Western construct "Holy Trinity."

Our relationship to the Trinity is that of a relationshiop to each Divine Person Whose intimate relationship to the other Two immediately draws us into the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But I'm out of my depths here with yourself and the other eminent theologians on this thread.

That is what I ponder when I pray the "Our Father."

God bless you, Cantor and Mentor!

Alex

Dear John,

I'm glad to have arrived. Thank you!

Now when did I say that I had a problem with Mechizedek prefiguring the Holy Trinity? He is a clearly Christological figure. I wouldn't even want to call him "an agent" as some might term the burning bush. My hesitancy is with calling the passage a prefiguration of THE eucharist. I would need to be convinced, but I didn't reject it out of hand. We have several eucharistic figures/images/passages in the scripture and many have been depicted as icons. But not all have been interpreted as prefigurations of THE eucharistic meal.

When the Lord visited Abraham and Sarah at Mamre, we see that (LONG AFTER THE TWO MEN/ANGELS HAD DEPARTED) the Lord departed "as soon as he had left communing with Abraham." Was this the sacrificial eucharistic communion meal that we remember each Lord's day? Abraham did have a calf slaughtered and served. Or was it simply a eucharistic communion meal. Is the function of the visitor (the Lord) to somehow die for Abraham and Sarah?

But the Passover meal and the Mystical Supper (also the Passover Meal)? They are clearly prefigurations of the eucharistic meal.

As I said, I think that this discussion hinges around the issue of sacrifice. If we see all images of the Son as images of a sacrificed Son, then we see prefiguations of THE eucharist almost everywhere and I think that the image is at risk of losing its power (for us). That's just part of why I'm cautious.

You'll have to explain some more regarding Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation for I am perhaps ignorant. [I know that I was really ignorant when as a boy I complained to my mother that my brother had called me "ignanint." As my brother pointed out, "Ma, he just proved my point!" No he became an attorney and a seminarian!] In your post, you are aligning "symbol" and "sacrament" but they don't necessarily go together. Normally, we try to equate Western "sacrament" with Eastern "mystery." What I can say is this: bread and wine remain in the chalice, but not bread and wine only. When our chalice needs to be refilled during great feasts because the line of communicants is long, throughout the Orthodox world, the priest returns to the altar and refills the chalice from the unconsecrated wine kept in a kruet or bottle. He then continues to commune the faithful. If you have any doubt regarding this practice, think to the Presanctified Liturgy of Pope Gregory Dialogos of Rome. In effect, we do the same procedure there, except that its done liturgically!

We understand the Trinity at the Theophany and then again some time later at Pentecost. The figure or prefigure is a form. We comprehended the form of the Trinity at the Theophany. At the prefigurements, the form was there but it was not understood as such. Obviously the Trinity exists before all time and space. We're the ones who have limited discernment (some would say that mine is more limited than others'!)

Certainly, we can't address God the Father and expect the Son and Spirit not to hear. Or try to complain to the Son regarding the Spirit. This would be polytheistic nonsense! But we, again, are limited. We have been nourished with baby food because that is all that we can digest. Perhaps in the Xeiron one or all of us will understand the Trinity, but I haven't met that person yet!

God gave us these categories because we need categories. We must discriminate and categorize to have order. "This is my wife and that is your wife." An insane person puts everything into the most rigid categories: "They are out to get me!" Who are they? "Everyone!" "Good Empire vs. Evil Empire" "They are all my wives!" "All Jews are evil and must die." etc, etc.

God doesn't need categories (He's the only completely sane one). He can be the offeror and the offered, the giver and the receiver, the alpha and the omega. He can be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So in our discernment of the meaning of the passages regarding Melchizedek, I go back to the same approach that I took with the passage regarding the Holy Hospitality of Abraham and Sarah. I would look at what lessons it is trying to convey and the role and importance of those lessons in the history of salvation. If that role can be linked strongly enough with sacrifice on the cross, then we may have the sought prefiguration of THE eucharist.

Maybe, had Abraham been defeated by the kings, and had Melchizedek blessed him for accepting defeat, I would be more likely to agree.

I await your enlightening responses.

In Christ.

Dear Mor Ephrem;

I apologize. I think I may have answered your question, but originally I thought Andrew had voiced your concern. If not, please ask it again because I am not sure I understood it.

Dear Andrew:

First, you need to review Aristotelian thought. You will recall that Aristotle thought that there is a difference between between the substance (or some would say essence) of something and its accidents. That is, the "accidents" of something are its physical characteristics that can be known be our senses; it's taste, color, shapre, smell, etc. However, its substance or essence remains unknown to us. While you have a sense for what bread and wine is, your sense is really just a recognition of its accidents. You do not know the (substance or) real essence of bread; its breadness.

Transubstantiation then is the teaching that the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist retain the "accidents" of bread and wine, but the essence has become the body and blood. The essence is no longer that of bread (its breadness) or wine (its "wineness"). Contrary to popular conception, transubstantiation is a mere teaching and not an explanation. It does not tell us how the Eucharist comes to be.

Consubstantiation was preferred by Martin Luther and others. He believed that the bread and wine retained the essence of bread and wine but this became simultaneously infused with the essence of Christ. He likened this to the infusion of Christ's divine nature with the human. Both were retained within the "accident" of Christ's humanity but his humanity did not become absorbed into the divine essence. Bread and wine retains its accidents and its essence but also becomes infused with the essence of Christ which permeates but does not become confused with its reality.

These concepts need to then be further separated from the more recent concepts of: a) "transfinalization" which teaches that the substance (or essence) of a thing is determined by its ultimate purpose, and b) "transignification" which maintains, almost contrary to Aristotelian teaching, that the substance of a thing is its significance. So, the substance (or essence*) of a thing is determined by its meaning or significance. Bread and wine which are derivative of nourishment have become communion in the body and blood. The former (food) is changed into our bodies. In the latter, (body and blood) we are changed into It (the Body of Christ).

In my mind, these modern Catholic conceptions are most consistent with Orthodox belief as they highlight the Mystery of the Sacrament.

John

* I apologize for the persistent mention of "substance (or essence)". I personally prefer essence but recognize that some may confuse it with the Essence of the Trinity.

Dear Andrew:

In reply to your other line of questioning that has to do with pre-figurement, I have a question for you: When was the Eucharistic Last Supper infused with its Sacramental meaning? Did this occur at the Last Supper, at the Death of Christ, or at Pentecost when the apostles realized its eschatological significance?

If you say that it was at the Last Supper, I would maintain that the Apostles did not understand it as such at that time. If you say that it was at the death of Christ, I would give the same answer. If you say that it was at Pentecost with the apostles' realization, then I would ask if it was only pre-figured at the Last Supper and at the Death of Christ.

This is the same argument that I would use for the OT typologies. We Christians can see the OT in its proper light because we have been provided the answer key. The Trinitarian God had been there all along but we did not realize it.

John

Dear Joe T,

Yes, the Our Father is a prayer to the Trinity. For us, they cannot be separated. The focus of the prayer is the Father, utilizing the Word, made fruitful by our adoption in the Spirit. The goal(Father) is achieved through the Way (Son) and the Means (Spirit).

Yes, this is exactly the same as occurs at the Anaphora. The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ via the action of the Holy Spirit which is the sufficient sacrifice of the Father. We are once again led to the very source. The Three act in unison and in complete Unity.

The same can be said for Christ's passion. Theological question: Was this an act of One Person or of the entire Trinity?

John

Dear John,

I was blessed prior to studying theology in that I had read no philosophy since High School and but two theological books prior to my entry in seminary: Great Lent by A. Schmemann and the Holy Scriptures. This isolated me well from Aristotelianism, Platonism, Existentialism, etc. so often present in Christian authors, let alone the ancients. When the professor said that scripture is anti-philosophical, I smiled with joy.

I won't pick a category, but reiterate. The Orthodox faithful partake of both bread and wine and the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour. We hold this symbol as we hold the mystery of the incarnation. Consubstantiation "appears" closest to this view. Perhaps Luther was correct (not that he had it first) but I understand that their Missouri Synod sees things very close to how we do in the Orthodox Church.

Considering the clarity of the order to "do this in remembrance of Me" and that we are to eat His "flesh" and drink His "blood," the East has never really preoccupied herself with the "how." Much like the incarnation or scripture itself, we waste time with the "how." What we really need to discern is the "why."

I would be surprised if the official and modern Eastern Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue has not discussed this issue and defined what the differences may be. When in Boston in a few weeks, I may ask Rev. Fitzgerald, who has led this dialogue (from the OC side).

With love in Christ.