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

djs:

Looks like French to me! Do you have it in English?

John

Sorry. Search the page on google, then click "translate this page". Or use one of the free on-line translators.

While the whole article is interesting, I think that the etymology is particularly pertinent.

So it starts out as a token cut in two, which when joined together (the "syn" or "sum" part), establishes the identity and relationship of those holding the half-tokens. Already in ancient times, however, it simply came to mean a token that manifested or guaranteed the identity, position, rank etc. of its bearer.

Dear Brethren,

Yes, Joe T, you would get a description based upon wavelength, but the I'd have you do the prism trick to demonstrate the constituent parts, which also have their own wavelengths (which you would measure and that is how we would confirm that you had seen Yellow and Blue).

Thanks djs, I was just getting ready to try my own translation, which would have been less than adequate. I think that the definitions offered are adequate to my usage. Merci beaucoup. C'est define tres bien, non?

I believe that a symbol, in this ancient or traditional definition, could also have more than two constitutent parts. Technically, the Greek is saying "volon" from "vlepo" (I see) and "sin" (together). It is just usual that we would be discussing a symbol with only two constituent parts. However, in this sense, we could (and already have) looked around for symbols that we call the Holy Trinity.

My concern in this thread is not to insist that others use "symbol" in discussions of the incarnation or the eucharist or Trinity, but that it allows us to define them most accurately for the purposes of these discussions. We all know that the modern usage of symbol has changed, but we still don't have an adequate replacement for the ancient definition of symbol.

I think that the point that keeps these particular symbols from being signs is that they are not arbitrary. Circumcision is an arbitrary sign of the covenant. There is no direct relationship other than that God told them to use it as the sign. He could have picked anything as a sign. Baptism is not a sign of the new covenant. The relationship between Green, Yellow, and Blue is not arbitrary, but based upon mathematical relationships reproduced anywhere (anywhere on earth? Would gravitational differences affect wavelengths Joe T? Let me know ). I agree that Green is sign of Pentecost. But Green is the symbol of Blue and Yellow together.

The relationship of the Eucharist to its constitutents is not arbitrary. If the bread and wine are not consecrated with intent to have the Lord present in his body and blood, in the boundaries of the canonical Churches, with an ordained priest as celebrant, then we hesitate to affirm it as the Eucharist. (Although we don't look outside the bounds of the Church and declare that the Holy Spirit has not acted, we hesitate to affirm that it has.) The link between bread and body and wine and blood is much deeper and is worth a dissertation in itself (probably too many have been written already). Suffice to recall that He is the passover/paschal lamb of God, sacrificed for the sins of God's people (and now the whole world), consumed each year with bread and wine. So clearly, the link is not arbitrary.

The symbol may be completely different from its constituent parts, but the constituents don't go away, they remain.

If I try again, I'll use chemistry!

With love in Christ.

Andrew;

You are missing the point. You are taking the normal human perspective that things are the way we perceive them. Even if you did do a chemical analysis of bread and wine/body and blood, all you would be doing is more accurately describing it, but you would not be able to know it at its essence. You will be taking reality and making it symbolic and assume the symbol is reality because that is the way you understand it.

But theologically, we don't learn things symbolically, we learn them as they really are. We experience God, Holy Spirit, as He/She really is. This is perhaps the only thing we know in this way. Everything else we know symbolically, through language, through constructs, and so on.

We don't know the world as it really is, only as we perceive it to be!

When the Eucharist is consumed, we experience it as it really is, not as we perceive it to be. That is why we are transformed by it. This is the very concept of theosis.

When we look upon the Eucharistic elements we may perceive bread and wine but that is not what it is nor what we experience. We experience the essence of God even if we don't perceive the experience!

If we state that the elements remain bread and wine and that the transformation is symbolic, then we state that we cannot really experience the essence of God. This is tantamount to denying the Incarnation and everything that Christ accomplished for us.

You need to think of reality not in our terms but in God's. Reality is experience and the only real experience we ever have is the Son and the Holy Spirit.

John

Dear Dn. John,

I'm going to exit this exchange while neither frustrated nor angry, but convinced by the statements below that we are not speaking in the same language.

"Even if you did do a chemical analysis of bread and wine/body and blood,..."

"If we state that the elements remain bread and wine and that the transformation is symbolic,..."

I've certainly enjoyed the exchange and look forward to others.

With love in Christ.

Dear Andrew:

Please don't go yet! I have learned a tremendous amount from our discussion but I don't feel we have completed this topic.

I also think it is important because this whole "symbol" business is essential to the theology of iconography, liturgy, sacramental life, and our ultimate destiny.

Dear djs;

When I read that discertation on symbol, I am struck by the multifaceted nature of its meaning. Why do you isolate your discussion to symbol as object alone?

Do you know what we need? Input from our resident linguist and Greek to boot, Dr. John. I wonder if we can find him?

John

I have not followed the entire thread here, it looks interesting, but I will throw out a definition of "symbol"

It is from the French and Latin. [syn=together] and [ballin=to throw].

We could say "to throw together" but in the sense of a comparison... not a merging.

In related languages and use it is a token, a sign, a pledge, something that stands for or indicates something else.

A related word is symbiosis (together-live). The living together of two disimilar organisms in close union.

Symbolism - the representation of things by use of symbols.

I believe that the RC stance is that the substance of bread and wine - change - into the body and blood - but the appearnce (the expereince of our senses) remains one of bread and wine.

This 'change' is not to be thought of as molecules moving about and such (a chemical change) but rather a 'changing out' of one substance for another.

Trans =[to pass] and Form =[that which in-forms our senses] and is our experience.

So the form (bread and wine) remains (as to say it is not trans-formed).

Trans =[to pass] and mute =[qualities]
and qualities are attributed to - form. So trans-mute means to pass from one set of qualities (of form) to another set of qualities (of form). So transform means the form changes and transmute refers to the change of qualities attributed to any form. To be transformed would be an obvious change to our senses - to be transmuted would be a real change of form but maybe not so evident to our senses (as for example ice can sometimes seem like glass to our sense of sight).

Trans =[pass] Substance =[essence or what-a-thing-is] irregardless of what form it is in.

Ice is water. Water in a glass is water. Rain in the air is water. Water is water but it may be in many forms.

Water that has been frozen into ice has been trans-formed (to pass from one form to another) and has been trans-muted (from liquid to solid) but it has not been tran-substantiated - it remains water (H2O). By casual habit we call �water� that which is in the liquid state.

So the RC doctrine is that the substance passes - - - from the substance of bread and wine ==> body and blood - while the form and quality (to our human senses) remain that of bread and wine. So its' appearnce to our senses is that of bread and wine.

So it would not be that there is a co-substance (two substances mingled or joined together). It is either this (bread and wine) or that (body and blood) � because - substance - is what-it-is.

As far as an icon is concerned, it appears to me that by the use of a non-realistic representation (non-realistic used in the sense of art style) the artist draws the viewer's attention "through" the icon to a spiritual or phychological meaning. In other words, buy approximating some natural object but not reproducing it to detailed reality - it is easier recognized as a symbol refering to an object of the intellect and not to a material onject of the senses.

This certainly would sit better with those who mightt misinterpret the commandment "do not make graven images to worship" in a fundamentalist way. In the Hebrew this commandment has more to do with mental images (politics, economics, ego, etc� to the extreme) and only secondarily refers to the ancient habit of stone and wood �gods� like the Golden Calf. In the early languages words had a wider meaning which was apparent from context (and many replated meaning may be present, we say today word-play or inflection) as languge further developed words became more restricted and less elastic in meaning - forcing us to create more words and string them together.

The development of the art of icon - evolved to the use of certain shapes and colors and figures, of which the icon is composed, that in themselves have meaning. So, as it were, the icon is a mosaic of symbols composed in such a way as to also be one united symbol.

So it seems to me

Fr. Deacon John,

You began this thread with:

"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."

"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."

"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."

My comments:

I entirely agree with Andrew Rubis and find the icon as a possible interpretation or theology of the hospitality scene than what the author of Genesis was implying. Prophecy fulfillment is one thing; taking typology literally is another. Typology maintains the distance between type and anti-type.

Now, with that said, let me explain with some analysis:

One must take caution in reading the several chapters that surround Genesis 18:1-15. It is a pericope that doesn't stand alone, thematically or structurally (literary-speak). Let's back up for a moment on what is going on in this part of Genesis before deciding if Abraham's visitors were the Trinity in disguise. Remember, only one was stated as being the Lord while the other two were angels. Hardly a Tri-unity. A Trinity? No. A council? Yes.

In the context of the Abraham saga we see stories corresponding with each other almost verse-to-verse, similar to the parallel annunciation and nativity stories of John and Jesus in the Gospels. We have here two Covenant narratives (Gen 15:1-15 and 17:1-27) and two Annunciations (Gen 16:1-16 and 18:1-15).

Regarding the Covenant stories, God appears to Abra(ha)m quoting a verse or two. In 15:1b God states three things that are a synopsis of a lot of biblical theology: be not afraid, shield, and great reward. In 17b we have two verses with additional themes: God's almighty-ness and walking blameless.

I point this out because one cannot take one narrative in isolation. There is a lot more close relationships between these two Covenant narratives. In fact, the beginning of Chapter 17 is the central pivot point of the entire Abraham story. So, I guess what happens immediately before and after this pivot point should grab our attention.

Continuing on, we see that there are parallels in how Abraham is concerned about not having children or an offspring. But notice the subtle but important change in this parallel: in ch. 15 God makes a promise of MANY offspring (as many as the stars in the heavens) and not the ONE Eliezer. In ch. 17, God makes another promise of MANY offspring (17:2b), but points out the ONE heir in Gen 17:16 (Guess who? Answer: Isaac!).

There is a lot of promises going on as well as heir talk. But the problem is this: Abraham's wife is childless. Abram and Sarai work out a solution in ch. 16, with the Lord's approval, of course (first Annunciation scene). Abram sleeps with his Egyptian maidservant, Hagar, and bears a son, Ishmael. The angel of the Lord speaks to Hagar in similar words we find elsewhere in the Gospels. Hmmmmm.

Chapter 18, the one including the Three Visitors account, includes another miraculous Annunciation scene in 18:9-15. This time, Sarai (now named Sarah since 17:15) and Abram (now named Abraham since 17:5) will have an heir between themselves, named Isaac (see Gen 21:1-5). Notice how only the Lord speaks. The other two "angels" (not men, since they are spoken about as "angels" again in 19:1) don't speak. They give witness. Only later in ch. 19, when they deal directly with the problem of Sodom, do they interrogate. The Lord isn't with them this time, but he destroys Sodom in the end.

The events in 18:1-15 have a mirror image in 19:30-38. Both deal with the issue of posterity and the problem of not having it. While in a tent, Sarah receives the annunciation of her going to have a child - and she laughed. In Gen 19, Lot's two daughters realize the problem of posterity and both girls get their father, Lot, drunk on wine in their cave abode and ... Well, within two nights, they both get themselves pregnant similar in style to the mother of Garp, in The World According to Garp (starring Robin Williams). Hardly a Bible Story to tell the ECF children! Their descendents will become the bitter enemies of Abraham's descendents. If the hospitality scene was an occasion of announcing the good news of posterity and promise to Abraham and his wife Sarah, then the cave scene was on occasion of incest. The Lord and his two angels were not there for 19:30-38.

Before I get to the Three Visitors issue at stake in our Hospitality Icon (I shy from calling it the Old Testament Trinity Icon), we should reflect on how a lot of similarities are found in the first couple chapters of Matthew and Luke regarding John and Jesus. Any parallels to Ishmael and Isaac? The two "J" people and the two "I" people? In the Hebrew Scriptures, the junior son seems to always take rights over the firstborn. The New Testament continues that formula in Jesus' gain of importance over John the Baptist.

Now we come to the Three Visitors. In what way should we interpret their visit? Why is Abraham so overly-hospitable? What was the purpose of their visit? And where else do we hear of a heavenly council (in Genesis)?

Abraham is God's friend. Even Isaiah says so (Isa 41:8). Abraham is also the one that God decided to make a covenant with. Therefore, Abraham is God's Covenant Friend. This makes Abraham special. The intimacy that Adam and Eve had in the Garden with God (after the first heavenly council was held) is also found in Abraham's tent. But like the 2nd Creation story, JUDGEMENT is forthcoming as well as a major, big-time FALL. Sodom becomes another Lost Paradise.

Only when the three visitors get up to leave (Gen 18:16) does Abraham begin pleading for those in Sodom who are righteous but may be swept up in the pending destruction of their city. The tent visit is a council hearing to which our Covenant Friend, Abraham, is privy to - and even gets to chat privately with the Lord regarding Sodom's fate. "Hey, Lord! What do you think about ..." Abraham's argument is again reflected in 19:29 where God remembered Abraham's arguments.

The hospitality scene we see in Gen 18:1-15 is the locus for the Annunciation that is superior to the one immediately prior. There is a lot of themes being merged and interwoven here: Annunciation, Covenant, Council, and Promise; all in the context and comfort of HOSPITALITY.

The hospitality scene in Gen 19:2-3 (Lot and the two angels) don't get the iconographic appreciation or focus as the hospitality scene in Gen 18:3-8 (Abraham/Sarah and the Lord/2 angels). Why should it? Even in the New Testament iconography, Mary's Annunciation gets center-attention (and even an honorable place on the Royal Doors of our iconostasis), whereas Joseph's Annunciation is riddled with "pondering" somewhere in the bottom corner of Christ's Nativity Icon. "Sorry, Joseph, but you blundered with your doubting."

Abraham told Sarah, "Bake some bread, honey. We've got important guests!" His servant gets the best calf that is both choice and tender (USDA Approved). There were curds and milk too. It was not a Trinity in disguise scene, but hospitality, pure and simple. I remember a house rule that one gives one's best of foods and drinks for guests. The Jews leave an empty seat at their Passover Meal. My Italian wife makes enough food to feed an army - just in case someone wants some, especially at work. The choicest dinnerware and silverware is laid out along with the best crystal.

In this way, I agree with Andrew Rubis. One doesn't have to infer hidden symbolism or typology where it doesn't really have to exist. We saw this in the historical development of the symbolic interpretation of the liturgy as a 'Life of Christ' and it ruined a more 'liturgical' understanding of worship by making it into something it wasn't. Does the rite of proskomdie really represent the Nativity? Well, some tables have an icon of the Nativity over it and a little "star" of David hanging below the asterix(sp?). Our temple has an icon of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice Isaac. Another liturgical typology? Does the Great Entrance really symbolize Christ's Entry into Jerusalem? And does the antimension on the altar table represent the burial shroud? Just read the troparion words on it. Are the deacons the angels? Some oraria have "Holy, Holy, Holy" written on them. You see where this tendency can lead us? We end up being more concerned about matching the rites and prayers to the Life of Christ and making "worship" into a Passion Play or Gospel Re-enacted that we forget why we are truly there: to give glory to God in the context of His community receiving His presence in a real (not an Augustinian "real") manner. But if liturgy becomes foreign even unto those who it was meant for, then creative substitutes are brewed and developed to satisfy a "popular" understanding devoid. EVERYTHING becomes a symbol of something; EVERYTHING becomes something it is not; EVERYTHING non-real becomes real while EVERYTHING real becomes non-real. We end up with meaning inverted. And yet, folks, EVERYTHING brewed is to satisfy US since we cannot be satisfied with things as-is for the FATHER.

Yet, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes our need to symbolize where symbolism isn't needed can be interpreted as a failure to convey meaning found in itself. Cannot the actions of liturgy be good enough without the need to make it more understandable (and entertaining) by making worship into a Passion Play? Just wondering. One Patriarch of Constantinople referred to those who needed to find symbolic interpretation in simple rites of the church as "acting stupid." The late Alexander Schmemman also had a few words to say about such things.

Yet, unfortunately, it is those popular interpretations that get our attention and efforts. Kinda like a Star or National Inquirer version of liturgical theology. A highly symbolic act such as a simple transfer of gifts to the altar can ecclipse the transfiguration that occurs at every divine liturgy so often done silently for "sacred" reasons. Our bogus piety and inverted priorities of liturgical theology (and biblical theology) get the best of us. We give Rublev all the attention for his truly wonderful icon, but fail to expound on the meaning and importance of Abraham's hospitality and the role he played in Genesis. How many have heard a good sermon expounding the story of Abraham as the author of Genesis wrote?

Hospitality is a story in itself worthy of icons, especially living (and loving) icons. Rublev really made us think when he wrote that one special icon of the Hospitality of Abraham. What Rublev's theology was in his icon should not infer the same meaning or understanding in what the author of Abraham's Hospitality was trying to convey. If it was the Trinity being depicted in the icon, then fine. But what happened in Gen 18 might have been something totally different. Don't we include Mary in the Pentecost icon even though she wasn't there in Acts? Icons are theological in nature, not simple "religious" pictures or paintings. They are, therefore, written and can take on any catechesis they want. But we do them injustice when we return to their Scriptural sources and force their meaning or interpretation on unsuspected events and persons. Nowhere in the Abraham narrative does it say that the three guests were all angels or the three persons of God (Trinity). The biblical narrative states clearly that there were two angels and the Lord. The text itself should check us and cause us to think that maybe Rublev had other intentions of portraying this event of hospitality or writing something other than the foundational biblical source.

Cantor Joe Thur

Thanks Joe. Well said.

Cantor Andrew