Icon of Trinity

[Mina Mounir]

peace ,

in Cairo , we have the Patriarchal Cathedral ( st. Nicolas church - were saint Nectarios of Aegina served when he was the metropolitan there) and saint Constantine & Helena church.both have drawings and icons of the father together with the son and the holy spirit , and another one that the father and the son are crowning the mother of God.
is it acceptable in the Orthodox theology to draw the Trinity ( I don'r mean Rublev's famous icon)?

[Michael Astley]

peace ,

in Cairo , we have the Patriarchal Cathedral ( st. Nicolas church - were saint Nectarios of Aegina served when he was the metropolitan there) and saint Constantine & Helena church.both have drawings and icons of the father together with the son and the holy spirit , and another one that the father and the son are crowning the mother of God.
is it acceptable in the Orthodox theology to draw the Trinity ( I don'r mean Rublev's famous icon)?

Dear Mina,

Thank you for starting this.

No, it is not in keeping with Orthodoxy to depict the Father in this way. We depict Christ because He became incarnate and was tangible. He became part of the physical world and so, in his human nature, can be depicted as such. Orthodox theology knows of no such incarnation of the Father.

St Theodore the Studite focuses very much on the uncircumscribable divine nature and contrasts it to natures that are circumscribable, drawing a distinction between that which is limitless and eternal, and which cannot be perceived or imagined by human sense or thought on the one hand, and that which is limited and constrained by its created existence on the other. By that distinction, Angels, which do not have the human nature and are not physical in the same way as human beings, may still be properly depicted in icons because they are not divine - they are circumscribable and are a part of the created order.

Similarly, the Holy Spirit may only be depicted in symbolic form, and only those symbolic, created, forms in which He has Himself appeared in creation: fires of flame at Pentecost, the dove at Theophany, an Angel at Mamre, and so forth.

To depict the Father and the Holy Spirit in any other way, as though they, like the Word, have become incarnate, is not at all in keeping way with the Orthodox Faith. If we truly believe that our icons depict what we believe, then I don't think that I am being extreme to say that such icons depict heresy and have no place in our churches.

There is a very good essay about this by Fr Steven Bigham (http://www.eden.co.uk/shop/image-of-god-the-father-in-orthodox-iconography-and-other-studies-1201970.html). He mentions a local robber council in Russia a few centuries back where such icons were hailed as positive, and explains some of the arguments that were put forward at the time. This synod was quickly overturned by another a few years later, which restored Orthodox teaching.

I have heard that, in recent times, icons that have depicted the Father as a bearded old man have begun to be altered to depict Christ, the Ancient of Days. Certainly, when the Reigning icon of the Mother of God toured the world recently, the copies that were given to parishes did not depict the Father, as does the original, but rather they depict the Trinity in symbolic form in the icon of the Hospitality of Abraham. I welcome this and hope that this continues.

In Christ,
Michael

[Mina Mounir]

Dear Michael,
thanks for your post ,

Similarly, the Holy Spirit may only be depicted in symbolic form, and only those symbolic, created, forms in which He has Himself appeared in creation: fires of flame at Pentecost, the dove at Theophany, an Angel at Mamre, and so forth.
I think that the dove or fire or different manifestations can be recognized as uncreated energies , if we take st. Gregory Palamas' interpretations. consequently, if we considered that what Daniel saw " the ancient days" was an uncreated energy manifestation , then could we draw the father based on that ?
I think the debate over the icons in the eighth century was not about Jesus' human nature, but it was about the uncreated energy radiated from him in the icon of transfiguration ( i think I read this in fr. Meyendorff book : christ in the eastern tradition). since the 7th ecumenical council rejects drawing the essence , then we can draw the person and his uncreated manifestation ?
I found some interesting points in that paper :
http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20ICON%20OF%20THE%20HOLY%20TRINITY.htm
I was also thinking of the event of Jesus baptism. since there's a voice of the father that can access our world, I guess he can have an image too because the problem is not in " visibility" but in sensibility ... if God can be sensed through voice , then it is probable to be visually sensed ( through the uncreated manifestation).
i found a nice quote in the previous link :

St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in his prolegomena to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, sums up the Council's decrees on this subject as follows: "The present Council, in the letter which it sent to the Church of Alexandria, on the one hand blesses those who know and accept, and therefore make icons of and honour, the visions and theophanies of the Prophets, as God Himself shaped and impressed them on their minds. And on the other hand it anathematizes those who do not accept the iconographies of such visions before the incarnation of God the Word. It follows that the Beginningless Father must be represented in icons as He appeared to the Prophet Daniel, as the Ancient of Days."

I think that's why they write " palais imeron " around his face , which is ancient days. but the question is , why I noticed that he is the only that his face is surrounded by a triangle ? does it relate to the monarchy or that he represents trinity or what ?

thanks!

[Olga]

Dear Mina

Michael's post is exactly right, and is an excellent summary of why it is improper to depict God the Father as a bearded old man. As for God the Father being the Ancient of Days as described in the book of Daniel, this is incorrect. Daniel's description refers to God the Son, not the Father. The ideas put forth by Vladimir Moss in his article are essentially contradictory to longstanding Orthodox teachings, going back at least to Sts John of Damascus, Theodore the Studite, and the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, and many more councils and decrees since. There is a similar article written by the iconographer Paul Azkoul, who also promotes the "canonicity" of the "NT Trinity" and denounces the "three angels" composition.

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=49580#post49580

The image of the crowning of the Mother of God is simply a borrowing from Roman Catholic religious painting, derived from that church's feast of the Assumption of the Virgin. The theology and meaning of the Orthodox feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God varies considerably from that of the western Assumption.



since the 7th ecumenical council rejects drawing the essence , then we can draw the person and his uncreated manifestation ?



An icon can only depict what has been revealed, and that which is visibly manifest. Can the voice of God the Father (at Theophany and the Transfiguration) be drawn or painted?

[Mina Mounir]

thanks Olga for the reply,
well , I'd like to add this article of fr. John Whiteford about the same topic:
http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/ancientofdays.htm

There is a similar article written by the iconographer Paul Azkoul, who also promotes the "canonicity" of the "NT Trinity" and denounces the "three angels" composition.
unfortunately, I couldn't find that article, is it online ?
what I wanted to say about the voice of the father is that the whole concept of salvation is in the ability of communicating between God and man . if he can express himself through his voice , then he can express himself through vision . because - as far as i think - the fall of man is in his darkness and blindness from feeling God's existence.so, when we draw the Trinity , we reveal eschatological fact , and salvation.
st. Stephen saw the son of Man standing at the right hand of God ( acts 7 : 56) .. he saw God ( the father I think )what did he see then ? I think this vision can be impossible for man before salvation ( if we exclude the special cases of prophets like Daniel) , and when we draw with st. Stephen's eyes , we can live the afterlife in the church ( as we believe that we live in the church).

at least we can say that God the father can be expressed even symbolically through uncreated energies.
by the way , I don't have a certain or solid view point , but I just give the different view point and thinking loudly ( or brainstorming) and I'd be grateful for anyone corrects my ideas.
I found that site too : http://www.synod.com/synod/engrocor/enicons.html
it is in the ROCOR website , about the icon of our Lady of Kursk
in Christ,
Mina

[Olga]

The article by Paul Azkoul can be found at http://www.traditionaliconography.com/, click on the link to "On the Hospitality of Abraham". For the benefit of readers, I reproduce a post from the "Andrei Rublyev" thread of 2007:

"Allow me to point out that this article is simply the viewpoint of one iconographer, who, as it turns out, has a rather interesting interpretation of iconographic canons and Church Tradition with regard to the iconographic portrayal of the Holy Trinity. This interpretation is contrary to the clear and consistent view of the Orthodox Church, which has been well-documented as well as passed down by other means over many centuries.

I could say much more on this, but suffice to say that Paul Azkoul's article contains some serious errors in history and scriptural interpretation, and at least one of them must be considered a deliberate distortion of a pronouncement of the Council of Moscow of 1666, and other councils he refers to:

Azkoul writes:

Centuries later, the Trinity portraitures infiltrated the Church everywhere, especially in Russia. This kind of religious art was condemned by two Councils: the Great Council of Moscow in 1666 an the Council of Constantinople [1780]. To quote from the decree of the Russian Synod:


"We synodically declare that the so-called icon of the Holy Trinity, a recent [my emphasis] invention, is alien and unacceptable to the Apostolic and Catholic Orthodox Church. It was transmitted to the Orthodox Church from the Latins."


According to the Council of 1666 and the council of Constantinople of 1780 the "icon" of the Trinity is referred to as "improper", "ignorant", "unbefitting" "unacceptable", and "base". It would seem contradictory to reverence such an icon so described. What sense does it make? Even if the "icon" has not been officially declared a heresy it seems by these words to be nothing else. If these words do not mean heresy then what do they mean?

The "Trinity icons" condemned by these councils refer to the compositions portraying the Trinity as the Father as an old man, Christ, and the Holy Spirit as a dove, the so-called "New Testament Trinity". It is this image that the fathers of these councils condemn, and rightly so, NOT the "three angels" icon painted by Andrei Rublyev. It is unbecoming of any iconographer, particularly one who proclaims himself as an authority on the subject, to promote such distortions."

Mina, you wrote:


at least we can say that God the father can be expressed even symbolically through uncreated energies.


No, we cannot, other than in the ways which have been revealed to us. And the only way this has been done in Biblical history is the appearance of the three strangers at the Oak of Mamre. The only permissible symbolic iconographic portrayal of a Person of the Holy Trinity is that of the Holy Spirit in the specific forms associated with specific theophanic events, as Michael Astley described, and, of course, of the three strangers at the Oak of Mamre.

May I ask, what is the significance of the article on the Kursk-Root icon on the topic of this thread?

[Mina Mounir]

hi,

No, we cannot, other than in the ways which have been revealed to us. And the only way this has been done in Biblical history is the appearance of the three strangers at the Oak of Mamre.
have u seen father Whiteford's article?

[Paul Cowan]

hi,

have u seen father Whiteford's article?

Yes, There is only one place that speaks of a quasi-description of God the Father as it is typed from the Book of Daniel.

The Treatise Against the Heretic Novation

(Often Attributed to St. Cyprian of Cathage)

(ca. 255 A.D.)

“Like things to these also says Daniel: "I beheld a throne placed, and the Ancient of days sat upon it, and His clothing was as it were snow, and the hairs of His head as it were white wool:


St. John is very careful to distinguish "seeing God" and "as if in a vision" of God


St. John Chrysostom (c. 347 – 407 A.D.)

St. John Chrysostom is a particularly significant Father in this discussion. One finds many liturgical and Patristic quotes in which the infant Christ is spoken of as the Ancient of Days (this issue will be discussed further when we get to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and one also find St. John Chrysostom speaking in this manner:

"What can I say? What can I utter? For the wonder stuns me: the Ancient of Days became a child. He who is seated upon a high throne and carried aloft is placed in a manger." (2nd Homily on the Nativity, EPE, vol. 35, p. 472. as quoted by George Gabriel).

It should be noted that this is not a commentary on the vision found in Daniel 7, and this is clearly demonstrated when one looks at the following citations in which St. John Chrysostom actually does discuss who the Ancient Days was in that passage. In his commentary on Daniel, St. John says, this prophet "was the first and only one [in the Old Testament] to see the Father and the Son, as if in a vision" (In Danielem (PG 56:231-233)).



Elsewhere St. John makes the following comments on the question of visions of the invisible God in the Old Testament:



“No man hath seen God at any time." By what connection of thought does the Apostle come to say this? After showing the exceeding greatness of the gifts of Christ, and the infinite difference between them and those ministered by Moses, he would add the reasonable cause of the difference. Moses, as being a servant, was minister of lower things, but Christ being Lord and King, and the King's Son, brought to us things far greater, being ever with the Father, and beholding Him continually; wherefore He saith, "No man hath seen God at any time." What then shall we answer to the most mighty of voice, Esaias, when he says, "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up" (Isa. vi. 1); and to John himself testifying of Him, that "he said these things when he had seen His glory"? (c. xii. 41.) What also to Ezekiel? for he too beheld Him sitting above the Cherubim. (Ezek. i. and x.) What to Daniel? for he too saith, "The Ancient of days did sit" (Dan. vii. 9.) What to Moses himself, saying, "Show me Thy Glory, that I may see Thee so as to know Thee." (Ex. xxxiii. 13, Ex. xxxiii 13 partly from LXX.) And Jacob took his name from this very thing, being called3 "Israel"; for Israel is "one that sees God." And others have seen him. How then saith John, "No man hath seen God at any time"? It is to declare, that all these were instances of (His) condescension, not the vision of the Essence itself unveiled. For had they seen the very Nature, they would not have beheld It under different forms, since that is simple, without form, or parts, or bounding lines. It sits not, nor stands, nor walks: these things belong all to bodies. But how He Is, He only knoweth. And this He hath declared by a certain prophet, saying, "I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes by the hands of the prophets" (Hos. xii. 10), that is, "I have condescended, I have not appeared as I really was." For since His Son was about to appear in very flesh, He prepared them from old time to behold the substance of God, as far as it was possible for them to see It; but what God really is, not only have not the prophets seen, but not even angels nor archangels. If you ask them, you shall not hear them answering anything concerning His Essence, but sending up, "Glory to God in the Highest, on earth peace, good will towards men." (Luke ii. 14.) If you desire to learn something from Cherubim or Seraphim, you shall hear the mystic song of His Holiness, and that "heaven and earth are full of His glory." (Isa. vi. 3.) If you enquire of the higher powers, you shall but find7 that their one work is the praise of God. "Praise ye Him," saith David, "all His hosts." (Ps. cxlviii. 2.) But the Son only Beholds Him, and the Holy Ghost" (15th Homily on the Gospel of John).


It seems to me that man in his attempt to wrap his mind around the prospect of God the Father, makes Him look like Jesus, a man, in his carnation. The vision Daniel saw is still very nondescript. White clothes and white hair. Christ was dressed such on Mt. Tabor in the transfiguration. The connotations of a father to a son brings to the mind of someone older. So man in his inability to fathom God imagines God the Father as an old man. Why? God is timeless. Why would He need to "look" old?

What I find distressing is some 1300 years later from the Holy Mountain.

Dionysius of Fourna (ca. 1734)

“The painting of holy images we take over not only from the holy fathers, but also from the holy Apostles and even from the person of Christ our only God… We therefore depict Christ on an icon as a man, since he came into the world and had dealings with men, becoming in the end a man like us except in sin. Likewise we also depict the Timeless Father as an old man, as Daniel saw him clearly….” (The Painters Manual. 87 (This is a standard Orthodox text on Iconography “compiled on Mt. Athos, Greece from 1730-1734 from ancient sources by Dionysius of Fourna)).


Daniel did NOT see Him clearly if you read the Book of Daniel.

The Holy spirit descended AS a dove. Was He a dove? No. God the father is spoken to as a father. Is He a father? No, He is God. The Bible uses words the human mind can comprehend to attempt to understand what is spoken of the great mysteries of Heaven. There are many other passages I could copy and paste from this article, but suffice it to say, I don't think God the Father can be understood. Please reread this from St. John Chrysostom above

It is to declare, that all these were instances of (His) condescension, not the vision of the Essence itself unveiled. For had they seen the very Nature, they would not have beheld It under different forms, since that is simple, without form, or parts, or bounding lines. It sits not, nor stands, nor walks: these things belong all to bodies. But how He Is, He only knoweth. And this He hath declared by a certain prophet, saying, "I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes by the hands of the prophets" (Hos. xii. 10), that is, "I have condescended, I have not appeared as I really was." For since His Son was about to appear in very flesh, He prepared them from old time to behold the substance of God, as far as it was possible for them to see It; but what God really is, not only have not the prophets seen, but not even angels nor archangels. If you ask them, you shall not hear them answering anything concerning His Essence, but sending up, "Glory to God in the Highest, on earth peace, good will towards men." (Luke ii. 14.) If you desire to learn something from Cherubim or Seraphim, you shall hear the mystic song of His Holiness, and that "heaven and earth are full of His glory." (Isa. vi. 3.) If you enquire of the higher powers, you shall but find7 that their one work is the praise of God. "Praise ye Him," saith David, "all His hosts." (Ps. cxlviii. 2.) But the Son only Beholds Him, and the Holy Ghost" (15th Homily on the Gospel of John).

Forgive me. I may be all wrong

Paul

[Olga]

No, Paul, you are quite correct. The depiction or otherwise of God the Father in icons is a question which the Church has addressed again and again, at ecumenical and synodal council level, and through many seminal patristic writings. Yet, time and again, these clear and unequivocal teachings are either ignored or misunderstood.

[Michael Astley]

Thank you for your clarity in this matter, Olga.

Your elaboration on this and citation of other sources has helped me.

In Christ,
Michael

[Mina Mounir]

hi all,
let's put some conclusions if we can :
the first point is that we draw the famous three angels icons because the trinity revealed himself in that form to Abraham.consequently , we depict the forms that are given by God. in Daniel , as the fathers of the church in many patristic quotes interpreted ( and even the kontakion that fr. Whiteford mentioned at the end of his article) , the ancient days is God the father , and there's also a description in the same prophecy , why don't we consider it a form and consequently we can depict it ?
so, the question is : if the ancient days in the daniel Prophecy is God the father , then there's no reason for objection , otherwise we should refuse the rublev's one too if we use the same criterion.
--------------

the councils and synods didn't have a clear view point , specially we can see two important notes :
1- st. Nicodemus the Hagiorite is pretty clear in his message to the Patriarch of Alexandria about the teaching of the seventh ecumenical council.
2- the icon is early back to the fourth century - in the latin world - and to the eleventh century in the byzantine world. they were not that problematic in that time.


the objection of drawing the divine nature is right , and st. John of Damascus cleared this ... but who claimed that he draw the divine nature whether in that icon or any other icons like the transfiguration one at which the uncreated energies are depicted.?


-----------------------
these are my questions ... I'm just trying to follow logic to solve that dilemma ...
thanks

[Mina Mounir]

dear Paul ,


Yes, There is only one place that speaks of a quasi-description of God the Father as it is typed from the Book of Daniel....
Daniel did NOT see Him clearly if you read the Book of Daniel.
first of all ,it is a progress to see that the old days is the father not the son ;)
so we can move to the next idea . that is , the vision itself:

So man in his inability to fathom God imagines God the Father as an old man. Why? God is timeless. Why would He need to "look" old?there's another viewpoint I've heard in that point :
I guess that using the term " father" and "son " is the same. because it is difficult to imagine that the father is not before the son... neverthless, we use those names . in the same way , if we depict the father with white beard or old man , it doesn't mean he is not timeless .
what do you think ?

[Paul Cowan]

I think man (over the mellinias) tries to put God in a box. A box which He can't fit into. But because He can't fit into it, man tries to find bigger boxes.

[Olga]

From Leonid Ouspensky's Theology of the Icon:

"In the struggle against iconoclasm, the Church defended all of its teaching about our salvation. The kontakion (sermon-hymn) of the Triumph of Orthodoxy is the best example of this. On the occasion of the triumph of the icon, it concisely expresses, in three sentences, the entire economy of our salvation, and thereby, the teaching on the image and its contents. Here is the text of this kontakion:

No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh from you, O Mother of God, He consented to be described, and restored the fallen image to its former state by uniting it to divine beauty. We confess and proclaim our salvation in word and images.


The first part of the kontakion (“No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh from you, O Mother of God ….”) can be summarised in the following way: The second person of the Holy Trinity becomes man, and yet remains what He is, that is, fully God, possessing the fullness of divine nature, hence -uncircumscribable in His divinity, for “no one could describe the Word of the Father”. God assumes the human nature which He created; He borrows the human nature in its totality from the Mother of God, and, without changing His divinity, without confusing it with humanity, He becomes God and Man at the same time: “the Word became flesh so that the flesh could become word” according to St Mark the Hesychast. This is the humiliation, the kenosis of God; He who is absolutely inaccessible to man, who is indescribable and unrepresentable, becomes describable and representable by assuming human flesh.

During His life on earth, Christ reunited in Himself the image of God and the image of the servant about whom St Paul speaks (Phil. 2:6-7). The men who surrounded Christ saw Him only as a man, albeit often as a prophet. For the unbelievers, His divinity is hidden by His form of a servant. For them, the Saviour of the world is only a historical figure, the man Jesus. Even His most beloved disciples saw Christ only once in His glorified, deified humanity, and not in the form of a servant; this was before the passion, at the moment of His transfiguration on Mount Tabor. But the Church has “eyes to see” just as it has “ears to hear”. This is why it hears the word of God in the Gospel, which is written in human words. Similarly, it always considers Christ with the eyes of unshakeable faith in His divinity. This is why the Church depicts Him in icons, not as an ordinary man, but as the God-Man in His glory, even at the moment of His supreme humiliation. This is precisely the reason why, in its icons, the Orthodox Church never represents Christ simply as a man who suffers physically, as is the case in Western religious art.

This possibility of representing the God-Man in the flesh which He borrowed from His mother is contrasted by the Seventh Ecumenical Council with the absolute impossibility of representing God the Father. The Fathers of the council repeat the authoritative argument of Pope St Gregory II, contained in his letter to the emperor Leo III the Isaurian: “Why do we neither describe nor represent the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Because we do not know what He is ... And if we had seen and known Him as we have seen and known His Son, we would have tried to describe Him and to represent Him in art.”

Just as human thought has not always measured up to real theology, so artistic creation has not always measured up to authentic iconography. Among other errors, we often find the image of God the Father. This image has been particularly widespread in the Orthodox Church since the seventeenth century, though it appeared as early as the 15th century. Obviously anything can be represented, since the human imagination has no limit. But the fact is that everything is not representable. Many things concerning God are not only not representable by an image and not describable by words, but are even positively inconceivable to man. It is precisely because of this inconceivable, unknowable character of God the Father that the council proclaims the impossibility of making His image. We have only one way of knowing the Holy Trinity. We know the Father by the Son (“He who sees Me, sees Him who sent Me” as we read in John 12:45, and “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” in John 14:9) and the Son by the Holy Spirit (“No man can say ‘Jesus is the Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit”, I Cor. 12:3). Consequently, we only represent what has been revealed to us: the incarnate person of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is represented as It manifested Itself: in the shape of a dove at the baptism of Christ, in the form of tongues of fire at Pentecost, and so on. As for God the Father, His presence is only indicated symbolically in icons: usually a blessing hand is represented coming from heaven, this in general indicating the divine presence."



first of all ,it is a progress to see that the old days is the father not the son


Progress? Really?



the councils and synods didn't have a clear view point , specially we can see two important notes :
1- st. Nicodemus the Hagiorite is pretty clear in his message to the Patriarch of Alexandria about the teaching of the seventh ecumenical council.
2- the icon is early back to the fourth century - in the latin world - and to the eleventh century in the byzantine world. they were not that problematic in that time.


Just because such images were present in antiquity does not mean they are theologically and doctrinally sound. Such images were problematic from earliest times, yet, people in their (often honest) ignorance of doctrine and canon continued to paint them, and, unfortunately, still do. The Cretan School iconographer Dionysius of Fourna, along with his contemporaries Damaskinos and Emmanuel Tzannes, were very heavily influenced by western Renaissance art, to the point that many of their later paintings had greatly strayed away from expressing Orthodox teachings and theology. Much the same occurred all over the Orthodox world, particularly in Russia from the 1700s to the turn of the 20th century. The teachings of both the Quinisext and Seventh councils are crystal clear, as are those of various other local (synodal) councils.

May I also ask what is the reason for your posts on this subject - is it to find some justification for the portrayal of God the Father as an old man?

[Mina Mounir]

Dear Olga,
thanks for your help,

May I also ask what is the reason for your posts on this subject - is it to find some justification for the portrayal of God the Father as an old man?
well, I'm afraid u may did not read what I said about my situation ( which has nothing to do with our subject ... I guess)... and I hope I didn't annoy anyone , I apologize in advance. neverthless , discussion can bear different view points , with flexibility ...
the kontakion you gave talks about the nature of the father which cannot be known or described except by the son ... I think no one claimed that he depicted the ineffable nature, and the same for your orthodox interpretation about the son and the holy spirit ability to know the father. so, it has nothing to do with our topic , specially there's a clear kontakion tells that the ancient days is the Father , so , my questions in my latest post are still wait for an answer.

Progress? Really?
I guess so , since the fathers of the church and the kontakion say that he is the ancient of days , and brother Paul admits it , so , it is a progress towards accepting the idea , from my view point at least.


Such images were problematic from earliest times
i think the icons are earlier than the western rennisance . however, the judge is not if it is western or not , but if it is orthodox or not . the Tome of Pope Leo is western , while it is orthodox.isn't it ?


Seventh councils are crystal clear, as are those of various other local (synodal) councils.

ok , how do we interpret the following :

St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in his prolegomena to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, sums up the Council's decrees on this subject as follows: "The present Council, in the letter which it sent to the Church of Alexandria, on the one hand blesses those who know and accept, and therefore make icons of and honour, the visions and theophanies of the Prophets, as God Himself shaped and impressed them on their minds. And on the other hand it anathematizes those who do not accept the iconographies of such visions before the incarnation of God the Word. It follows that the Beginningless Father must be represented in icons as He appeared to the Prophet Daniel, as the Ancient of Days."

u had a question that I forgot to answer :

May I ask, what is the significance of the article on the Kursk-Root icon on the topic of this thread?
I just noticed that it is a miraculous icon and the russian orthodox church ROCOR documented that in the official site ... this icon depicts the Father.
what do you think ?


I'm sorry again for anything wrong I said.

[Olga]

A couple of brief comments, Mina:

1. The image of God the Father on the Kursk-Root icon is part of a broad border which also contains icons of some of the Old Testament prophets. This border was not part of the original icon as it was found in the 1390s, but was added, along with an enamelled and jewelled silver and blue riza (cover), several centuries later as an act of "beautifying" and enlarging the icon. By the time this border was added, there were many, many images of God the Father being painted in Russia, contrary to established canons. The original panel found wedged in the tree-root at Kursk was only that of the Mother of God of the Sign. This panel is quite small, and the added border effectively quadruples the size of the original icon.

2. Which kontakion are you referring to, Mina?

3. I direct you again to the following quotes:

"The first part of the kontakion (“No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh from you, O Mother of God ….”) can be summarised in the following way: The second person of the Holy Trinity becomes man, and yet remains what He is, that is, fully God, possessing the fullness of divine nature, hence -uncircumscribable in His divinity, for “no one could describe the Word of the Father”. God assumes the human nature which He created; He borrows the human nature in its totality from the Mother of God, and, without changing His divinity, without confusing it with humanity, He becomes God and Man at the same time: “the Word became flesh so that the flesh could become word” according to St Mark the Hesychast. This is the humiliation, the kenosis of God; He who is absolutely inaccessible to man, who is indescribable and unrepresentable, becomes describable and representable by assuming human flesh."

and:

“Why do we neither describe nor represent the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Because we do not know what He is ... And if we had seen and known Him as we have seen and known His Son, we would have tried to describe Him and to represent Him in art.” Is not Christ, as Apostle Paul stated, the image of the invisible God?

[Mina Mounir]

1.the first note cannot deny the existence of miracles in the state of the icon now , besides , it's not the only icon depicts the father that miracles were made through.
2-I thought u had a look on the article of fr. Whiteford , anyway here's the kontakion :






The Octoechos, Tone 5, Midnight Office Canon to the Holy and Life Creating Trinity, Ode 4, first troparion:

"Daniel was initiated into the mystery of the threefold splendour of the one Dominion when he beheld Christ the Judge going unto the Father while the Spirit revealed the vision." HTM Pentecostarion (which includes this text from the Octoechos), p. 270

“Μυείται τής μιάς Κυριότητος, τό τριφαές ο Δανιήλ, Χριστόν κριτήν θεασάμενος, πρός τόν Πατέρα ιόντα, καί Πνεύμα τό προφαίνον τήν όρασιν.” Ωδή δ' πλ. α', ΤΟ ΜΕΣΟΝΥΚΤΙΚΟΝ (http://www.tcgalaska.com/glt/texts/Och/Tone5Sun.htm)
so , if we are back to my unanswered question :

the first point is that we draw the famous three angels icons because the trinity revealed himself in that form to Abraham.consequently , we depict the forms that are given by God. in Daniel , as the fathers of the church in many patristic quotes interpreted ( and even the kontakion that fr. Whiteford mentioned at the end of his article) , the ancient days is God the father , and there's also a description in the same prophecy , why don't we consider it a form and consequently we can depict it ?
so, the question is : if the ancient days in the daniel Prophecy is God the father , then there's no reason for objection , otherwise we should refuse the rublev's one too if we use the same criterion.we can have a conclusion that the orthodox tradition through fathers and liturgy prove that what Daniel saw was a vision in the same way of Abraham , then we should use the same criterion .. what do you think ? ( I don't support certain opinion , just try to solve the dilemma)


The first part of the kontakion (“No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh from you, O Mother of God ….”)again, if u look on the previouse " equation " that I put now , then u will find that you should take the vision of Abraham with Daniel's together or not since they are the same , and in both we don't claim that we describe the father as if in John 1:18 ( which talks about God's essence) which is the kontakion u mentioned, and the evidence is clear in the bold sentence of your interpretation : " He who is absolutely inaccessible to man," this directly refers to the essence , because the energies are accessible , and no one dares to say we draw the essence. and the question is , did we describe the father in his angelic manifestation ? if yes , then we should drop the kontakion or our interpretation of the event in Memra . if no , then what's the difference with the case of the patristic and liturgically proven vision of the father in daniel's one ?

as Apostle Paul stated, the image of the invisible God? then we should take the fundamentalistic interpretation that claims that the vision of Abraham was Christ and two angels ! which is definitely wrong ... but the father distinctly appeared as an angel , and in the baptism of Jesus his voice was obvious while jesus was in the water.
the verse refers to the truth of the trinity that the Son is the Icon of God due to his Divine consubstantiality and his manifesting role as the Word... but this doesn't mean that the father is not a complete distinct (but not separate) hypostasis .

[Herman Blaydoe]

Hmmm. I am not sure that the Trinity actually appeared to Abraham. I am pretty sure that the three angels were symbolic of the Trinity but they were not literally the Trinity. I look forward to correction if I am mistaken.

Herman the not literally a Pooh

[Olga]

Hmmm. I am not sure that the Trinity actually appeared to Abraham. I am pretty sure that the three angels were symbolic of the Trinity but they were not literally the Trinity. I look forward to correction if I am mistaken.

Herman the not literally a Pooh

Yes, Herman, you are correct. This is one of the reasons that it is incorrect to paint the distinctive halo used for Christ around the central angel's head.

[Mina Mounir]

hi Herman.

the three angels were symbolic of the Trinity but they were not literally the TrinityI guess this is the interpretation of the blessed Augustine , not only in that vision but in all Old testament visions , that they are symbolic. for example , the non-burning fire of the burning bush in exodus 3 is seen that it is symbolic , and the angelic appearances are angels and not God.
the Orthodox interpretation , in contrary , is explained in details in Lossky's book ( orthodox mystical theology) states that these are the uncreated manifestations of the bless trinity .. even saint Palamas fought for the interpretation that abraham and the other visions of the old testament didn't see a created creatures , but God himself.
since God is ineffable in his essence , he can take many forms like angel of the lord ( malak yahveh) or a dove , or whatever he sees . but it is him , not it is by him ... this is the great difference between orthodox and augustinian theology.

can we say that one of those forms is the ancient days ?

thanks .

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Herman and others, above you wrote:


Hmmm. I am not sure that the Trinity actually appeared to Abraham. I am pretty sure that the three angels were symbolic of the Trinity but they were not literally the Trinity. I look forward to correction if I am mistaken.

Not only is this true, but the fathers are (especially in the earlier centuries) almost unanimous in understanding this vision to be a revelation of the Son and two angels.

I've explored before - but never found a sufficient answer to - the question as to precisely when icons of the hospitality of Abraham began to be entitled 'the Trinity', since this is not, per se, the interpretation given to them in the early fathers: rather it is a Christological manifestation particularly. If any of our iconographers are aware of the earliest dates of such ascriptions of the icon, I would be most grateful.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Mina Mounir]

dear fr. Mathew,


Not only is this true, but the fathers are (especially in the earlier centuries) almost unanimous in understanding this vision to be a revelation of the Son and two angels.
INXC, Dcn Matthew
is there a source (it would be great if available online) discusses the interpretations of the fathers for that event?

I was searching for online articles , I've found an article for George S. Gabriel :
http://orlapubs.com/AR/R330.html
he answers a question if rublev's icon is "heretical" , and his conclusion is that if he means that he depicts the trinity , then it is so ... but if he means the Son and two angels , then it is not , as he says.

on contrary,
an article of Fr. John Romanides :
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctri ne.01.htm#s13

CHAP. 12.
THE APPEARANCE TO LOT IS EXAMINED.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/im/w.gif"But there came two angels to Sodom at even." Here, what I have begun to set forth must be considered more attentively. Certainly Abraham was speaking with three, and called that one, in the singular number, the Lord. Perhaps, some one may say, he recognized one of the three to be the Lord, but the other two His angels. What, then, does that mean which Scripture goes on to say, "And the Lord went His way, as soon as He had left communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place: and there came two angels to Sodom at even?" Are we to suppose that the one who, among the three, was recognized as the Lord, had departed, and had sent the two angels that were with Him to destroy Sodom? Let us see, then, what follows. "There came," it is said, "two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them, rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house." Here it is clear, both that there were two angels, and that in the plural number they were invited to partake of hospitality, and that they were honorably designated lords, when they perchance were thought to be men.
http://www.romanity.org/htm/im/w.gif22. Yet, again, it is objected that except they were known to be angels of God, Lot would not have bowed himself with his face to the ground. Why, then, is both hospitality and food offered to them, as though they wanted such human succor? But whatever may here lie hid, let us now pursue that which we have undertaken. Two appear; both are called angels; they are invited plurally; he speaks as with two plurally, until the departure from Sodom. And then Scripture goes on to say, "And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that they said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, and there thou shalt be saved,(5) lest thou be consumed. And Lot said unto them, Oh! not so, my lord: behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight,"(6) etc. What is meant by his saying to them, "Oh! not so, my lord," if He who was the Lord had already departed, and had sent the angels? Why is it said, "Oh! not so, nay lord," and not, "Oh! not so, my lords?" Or if he wished to speak to one of them, why does Scripture say, "But Lot said to them. Oh! not so, my lord: be hold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight," etc.? Are we here, too, to understand two persons in the plural number, but when the two are addressed as one, then the one Lord God of one substance? But which two persons do we here understand?--of the Father and of the Son, or of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, or of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? The last, perhaps, is the more suitable; for they said of themselves that they were sent, which is that which we say of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For we find nowhere in the Scriptures that the Father was sent.(1)


fr. Whiteford says that the services of the church confirm the trinitarian ascription :

The services of the Church confirm this:
Of old thou didst clearly manifest Thyself unto Abraham in three Hypostases, one in the essence of divinity; and in images thou didst reveal the utter truth of theology. Thee do we hymn with faith, the three Sunned God who alone hath dominion.: Octoechos, Tone 1, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 3.
“As a sojourner, Abraham was vouchsafed mystically to receive the one Lord in three Hypostases, made manifest in the forms of men.” Octoechos, Tone3, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 6
Just to cite two examples. And so, if we can accept this as icon of the trinity because it depicts a type of theTrinity, why can we not also depict the Ancient of Days as a type of the Father

that's what I found ...

[Herman Blaydoe]

I must say, this quickly gets confusing. Abraham obviously did not recognize the angels as such, he thought they were men. Why would God the Father disguise Himself as an angel appearing as a man?

Further more, I think people are seriously over-thinking this. Three angels = a trinitarian symbol, a symbol of the Trinity, not the actual Trinity. As a symbol, I don't see any contradiction with the odes.

[Kosta]

It is quite correct that Abraham's Hospitality is soley a "type" of the Trinity. Again Abraham does not see 3 angels but 3 men, and one of them is considered to be the Lord but in the scripture we do not realize this until a few paragraphs later. A "type" is nothing more than a historical event which points to a deeper meaning. Hence the veneration of the icon of Abraham's Hospitality passes onto the historical event it represents, not to the Trinity.

I also need to point out the quote by St Niodemos the Hagiorite that many defenders of God the Father depictions point to, (it was quoted in one of the previous posts) which supposedly confirms that the prophetic vision of Daniel is God the Father, is nothing more than an interpolation. This is verified in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy(scroll down to verses 6-7):

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/synodikon.htm

Because many Orthodox peoples are not educated on what makes an icon an icon, and because of a great many ignorant iconographers, certain uncanonical images have always crept into the church. In fact i will show you an image found in St Sophia greek Orthodox Cathedral in Los Angelos. It is a Trinity icon but to make matters wose Christ is depicted as a lamb! This was forbidden by a canon passed in the 6th ecumenical council! I would like responses by priests as to why and/or how such an image can still be painted in todays modern times:

http://www.stsophia.org/photo_tour/stsophiaphototour10.htm

[Andreas Moran]

Not only is this true, but the fathers are (especially in the earlier centuries) almost unanimous in understanding this vision to be a revelation of the Son and two angels.

I seem to recall that Ousspensky cites St Cyril of Jerusalem and St Ambrose of Milan as saying that it was the Trinity that appeared to Abraham. There are also services of the Church (Sunday of the Forefathers is one) which assume that Abraham beheld the Trinity.


I've explored before - but never found a sufficient answer to - the question as to precisely when icons of the hospitality of Abraham began to be entitled 'the Trinity', since this is not, per se, the interpretation given to them in the early fathers: rather it is a Christological manifestation particularly. If any of our iconographers are aware of the earliest dates of such ascriptions of the icon, I would be most grateful.

There are icons and frescoes, in Greece, Georgia and Russia from long before St Andrei Rublev's time which show the Hospitality of Abraham and call it Holy Trinity, even though the central figure looks like the Second Person and the other two angels.

The Moscow Council of 1551 called St Andrei's icon the Trinity and it is worth noting that this did not lend any support to the idea that this icon depicted God the Father since a later Council of Moscow (1666-1667) specifically denounced depictions of God the Father.


I was searching for online articles , I've found an article for George S. Gabriel :
http://orlapubs.com/AR/R330.html
he answers a question if rublev's icon is "heretical" , and his conclusion is that if he means that he depicts the trinity , then it is so ... but if he means the Son and two angels , then it is not , as he says.

St Andrei's icon is not a representation of the three hypostases of the Trinity but is a theological expression of the Trinity to serve particular purposes. It is not an icon of the Second Person and two angels; that would negate the entire meaning of the icon. Since the icon was solemnly approved by a Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and since Andrei Rublev is a saint of the Orthodox Church, there can be no question that this icon is heretical - the very idea is nonsense. An early copy of the icon (the original is in the State Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow) is on the iconostasis of the Holy Trinity church at the Holy Trinity St Sergius Lavra, and the Lavra doesn't do heresy.

[Olga]

Friends, please be patient with me. I am in the process of scanning printed material into digital document format which hopefully should dispel any lingering notions that (a) God the Father can be portrayed as the Ancient of Days, and that (b) the icon of the Holy Trinity as painted by Andrei Rublyev (St Andrei of Radonezh) is somehow an "innovation", and therefore suspect in its canonicity.

Suffice to say for now that there is nothing in Andreas's latest post which is out of order.

[Mina Mounir]

well , i just want to say something if possible :
1- I'm not a fan of considering everyone has a different viewpoint with me as " ignorant" . again , we should have a capacity to accept the difference, this is a forum ( we share ideas) , not an ecumenical council.
2- considering the angels of Abraham as merely angels is like considering the Angels appeared to Jacob as an angels " representing " jesus ... etc. this is not an orthodox teaching but pure augustinian teaching used to deny the energetic apparition of God in the old testament , I even quoted some of the posts here to some greek professors friends in thessaloniki and they were shocked. the service hymns are crystal clear...
3- I guess if we want to achieve a certain progress , we should face the provided materials and solve them, for example , the Whiteford's article provided valuable materials : Patristic and liturgical ... I guess that we need to say if the fathers were wrong or not , simply. and if the Daniel vision trinitarian or not... and i don't think that denying the apparitions of God in the old testament and considering rublev along with the fathers of the church as " innovators " will be a solution.

anyway, that was my idea and thanks for all the helps here.


Mina

[Mina Mounir]

by the way , about the energetic manifestations ... I just wanted to say that there is another opinion about the idea and not only the literal interpretation of considering the angels are merely angels or men ... just to add an opinion , not to substitute or deny any opinions.

Dear Olga, thanks for providing the article u r scanning , I think this will be useful since it will be downloadable. :)

[Andreas Moran]

I have read carefully the article by George S Gabriel. It is shot through with misunderstanding about St Andrei's icon and contains blatant inaccuracies. For example earlier models were entitled 'Holy Trinity'. It is often said that St Andrei's icon was the first to depict the scene as he did; I read this only a few days ago in an Orthodox journal. It is simply not the case. There are many icons and frescoes which did not include the figures of Abraham and Sarah; a fresco by St Andrei's master, Theophan the Greek is an example. As Olga has said, St Andrei's icon is not an innovation iconographically. St Andrei's icon was made at a time when there was a great deal of heresy in Russia concerning the nature of Christ and the dogma of the Holy Trinity. Some could not understand and therefore could not accept the concept of the triune God. Also, the various Russian principalities were engaged in constant hostilities and this threatened the security of Russia, faced as it was with the threat from hordes in the east. St Nikon and St Andrei were concerned to make a dogmatic statement about the Holy Trinity to counter heresy; the icon is a piece of dogmatic exegesis. They were also concerned to produce an icon which would express Trinitarian love in a way which would inspire fraternal love among the Russian princes. In both these aims it succeeded (and continues to succeed as to the first aim). Such are the explanations of this icon from numerous competent commentators over a very long time.

[Andreas Moran]

Just to point out that some of the ground has been covered in the thread 'Andrei Rublev'.

[Andreas Moran]

I seem to recall that Ousspensky cites St Cyril of Jerusalem and St Ambrose of Milan as saying that it was the Trinity that appeared to Abraham. There are also services of the Church (Sunday of the Forefathers is one) which assume that Abraham beheld the Trinity.

I found the references: St Cyril in 'Contra Julianum'; St Ambrose in 'De Excessu fratris sui satyri'. Also, St Augustine in 'Contra Maxim', and St Maximos the Confessor speaks of the 'threefold manifestation of God': Quaestiones ad Thalassium, 28, 10-15. Also there is this: 'Of old you were clearly seen by Abraham triple in hypostasis but one in the nature of the Godhead' - Paraklitiki, Sunday, Canon for the midnight office, tone 1, ode 3, troparion 1, and also in tone 3, ode 6, troparion 1 (a work of St Metrophanes of Smyrna, 9th century). The Trinitarian meaning of depictions of the Hospitality of Abraham goes back at least to the mosaics at S. Maria Maggiore and at S. Vitale and arguably to the Roman catacombs - there is a fresco of the three angels in the Via Latina catacomb.

It is right to say, and I think Fr David said this in the thread on Andrei Rublev, that we should not try too hard to identify, in St Andrei's icon, Who is Who. I asked my wife about this. When she was studying for her PhD in art history at Moscow State University, she studied this icon and still has a book she used which is a compendium of commentaries on it. It is said by some that St Andrei may have deliberately left it unclear Who was Who in order to emphasize the unity of the Trinity. Some also said that even if the icon were viewed in a more narrowly Christological way, each Person of the Trinity is with the Others so the trinitarian meaning is still present.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

In response to Olga's comment, I suppose I should be clear that (and I hope this was already quite clear) I'm not questioning the ascription, not deeming it an 'innovation'; historically, I am simply curious as to when it starts to be ascribed thus.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

The Trinity mosaic at San Vitale, Ravenna, is especially interesting because of the three loaves shown. The eucharistic symbolism as been much commented upon.

233

We might also recall the appearance of the Holy Trinity to St Alexander of Svir in 1508. From reading the life of the saint there is no doubt it was the Trinity in the form of men which appeared to him because they said as much to him and ordered him to build a church to the Trinity. Naturally, there are icons of this event, unique in the lives of saints as far as I know.

[Eric Peterson]

Thank you very much, Andreas, for your posts here.

St. Alexander of Svir is one of my favorite saints.

I wonder if you are familiar with Elder Zachariah of St. Sergius Lavra. He died in the 20s and was one of the last monks to be go. He hung on, living in the walls, after the Soviets expelled everyone, and died on the day before they came to arrest him. In his life "An Early Soviet Saint," a samizdat publication, it states that he received a visitation like unto Sts. Abraham and Alexander of Svir. I would be very interested to know "the other half" of his story, particularly his veneration in Russia.

[Olga]

Here is some relevant information to the iconographic portrayal of God the Father and the Holy Trinity:

"The Council of the Hundred Chapters (Stoglav), Moscow, 1551

Chapter 41, question 1:

On the icons of the Holy Trinity, some represent a cross in the nimbus of only the middle figure, others on all three. On ancient and on Greek icons, the words "Holy Trinity" are written on the top, but there is no cross in the nimbus of any of the three. At present, "IC XC" and "The Holy Trinity" are written next to the central figure. Consult the divine canons and tell us which practice one should follow.

The Reply: painters must paint icons according to the ancient models as the Greeks painted them, as Andrei Rublev and other renowned painters made them. The inscription should be "The Holy Trinity." Painters are in no way to use their imagination. '

The Great Council of Moscow, 1666-1667

Chapter 43: On the Iconographer and the Lord Sabaoth:

We decree that a skilled painter, who is also a good man (from the ranks of the clergy) be named monitor of the iconographers, their leader and supervisor. Let the ignorant not mock the ugly and badly-painted holy icons of Christ, of His Mother, His saints. Let all vanity of pretended wisdom cease, which has allowed everyone habitually to paint the Lord Sabaoth in various representations according to his own fantasy, without an authentic reference ...

We decree that from now on the image of the Lord Sabaoth will no longer be painted according to senseless and unsuitable imaginings, for no one has ever seen the Lord Sabaoth (that is, God the Father) in the flesh. Only Christ was seen in the flesh, and in this way He is portrayed, that is, in the flesh and not according to His divinity. Likewise, the most holy Mother of God and other saints of God ...

To paint on icons the Lord Sabaoth (that is, the Father) with a white beard holding the only-begotten Son in His lap with a dove between them is altogether absurd and improper, for no one has ever seen the Father in His divinity. Indeed, the Father has no flesh, and it is not in the flesh that the Son was born of the Father before all ages. And if the Prophet David says, "from the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you" [Ps 109/110: 31], such generation is certainly not corporeal, but unutterable and unimaginable. For Christ Himself says in the Holy Gospel, "No one knows the Father except the Son."

In chapter 40, Isaiah asks: "What likeness will you find for God or what form to resemble His?" Likewise, the holy Apostle Paul says in chapter 17 of Acts: "Since we are God's offspring, we ought not to believe that the Godhead is the same as gold, silver, or stone shaped by human art and thought." St. John of Damascus likewise says: "Who can make an imitation of God the invisible, the incorporeal, the indescribable, and unimaginable? To make an image of the Divinity is the height of folly and impiety" [On the Heavens, Book IV, "On the Image"]. St. Gregory Dialogos forbade it in a similar way. This is why the Lord Sabaoth, who is the Godhead, and the engendering before all ages of the only-begotten Son of the Father must only be perceived through our mind. By no means is it proper to paint such images: it is impossible.

And the Holy Spirit is not, in His nature, a dove: He is by nature God. And no one has ever seen God, as the holy evangelist points out. Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove at the holy baptism of Christ in the Jordan; and this is why it is proper to represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, in this context only. Anywhere else, those who have good sense do not represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, for on Mount Tabor He appeared in the form of a cloud, and in another way elsewhere. Besides, Sabaoth is not the name of the Father only, but of the Holy Trinity. According to Dionysius the Areopagite, Sabaoth is translated from the Hebrew as "Lord of Hosts." And the Lord of Hosts is the Trinity. And if the Prophet Daniel says that he has seen the Ancient of Days sitting on the throne of judgment, that is not taken to mean the Father, but the Son at His Second Coming, who will judge all the nations with His fearsome judgment.

Likewise, on icons of the Holy Annunciation, they paint the Lord Sabaoth breathing from His mouth, and that breath reaches the womb of the Most Holy Mother of God. But who has seen this, or which passage from Holy Scripture bears witness to it? Where is this taken from? Such a practice and others like it are clearly adopted and borrowed from people whose understanding is vain, or rather whose mind is deranged or absent. This is why we decree that henceforth such mistaken painting cease, for it comes from unsound knowledge. "

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

I'd like to round this out with the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the commentary of Saint Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain and some patristic references.

I don't particularly like what is called the New Testament Trinity but the battles that wage among the Orthodox over it are unnecessary -although I am sure they will go on until Doomsday. We should be enormously happy that while other Christians have to fight over major issues such as, is Christ really divine, can Father Daniel marry Father Joe, all we find to fight about are really minute things.....

Anyway here are a few things which balance the slew of modern arguments against identifying God the Father as the Ancient of Days.


The Seventh Ecumenical Council:

"Eternal be the memory of those who know and accept and believe the visions of the prophets as the Divinity
Himself shaped and impressed them, whatever the chorus of the prophets saw and narrated, and who hold to the written and unwritten tradition of the Apostles which was passed on to the Fathers, and on account of this make icons of the Holy things and honour them."

"Anathema to those who do not accept the visions of the prophets and who reject the iconographies which have been seen by them (O wonder!) even before the Incarnation of the Word, but either speak empty words about having seen the unattainable and unseen Essence, or on the one hand pay heed to those who have seen these appearances of icons, types and forms of the truth, while on the other hand they cannot bear to have icons made of the Word become man and His sufferings on our behalf."


St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in his prolegomena to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, sums up the Council's decrees on this subject as follows:

"The present Council, in the letter which it sent to the Church of Alexandria, on the one hand blesses those who know and accept, and therefore make icons of and honour, the visions and theophanies of the Prophets, as God Himself shaped and impressed them on their minds. And on the other hand it anathematizes those who do not accept the iconographies of such visions before the incarnation of God the Word. It follows that the Beginningless Father must be represented in icons as He appeared to the Prophet Daniel, as the Ancient of Days."


NB: It follows that the Beginningless Father must be represented in icons as He appeared to the Prophet Daniel, as the Ancient of Days."


-oOo-

And, from Vladimir Moss:

"The term "Ancient of Days", like "God", is applicable to all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Therefore there is no contradiction between allowing that Christ can be called "the Ancient of Days", as in the hymnology for the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord, and believing that "the Ancient of Days" in the vision of Daniel is God the Father.

Hieromartyr Hippolytus of Rome (P.G. 10, 37),

St. Athanasius the Great (V.E.P. 35, 121),

St. John Chrysostom (P.G. 57, 133; E.P.E. 8, 640-2),

St. Gregory Palamas (Homilies 14, E.P.E. 9, 390),

St. Cyril of Alexandria (P.G. 70, 1461),

St. Symeon of Thessalonica (Interpretation of the Sacred Symbol, p. 412), and

St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite (The Rudder, Zakynthos, 1864, p. 320; Chicago, 1957, p. 420)

all agree in identifying “the Ancient of Days” in the vision of Daniel with God the Father.

They interpret the vision as portraying the Ascension of Christ ("the Son of Man") to God the Father ("the Ancient of Days"), from Whom He receives the Kingdom and the Glory, together with the power to judge the living and the dead. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria writes: “Behold, again Emmanuel is manifestly and clearly seen ascending to God the Father in heaven… The Son of Man has appeared in the flesh and reached the Ancient of Days, that is, He has ascended to the throne of His eternal Father and has been given honor and worship…” (Letter 55, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 77, Washington: CUA Press, 1987, pp. 28, 29)."

Source: Vladimir Moss, "The Icon of the Holy Trinity" The usual caveats apply about Vladimir's writings but in this case he is accurate.

[Mina Mounir]

this is pretty interesting symmary of tradition's support of depicting the divine persons as they revealed themselves to us ,, humans.
thanks father Ambrose

[Kosta]

I'm going to have to offer a rebuttal to Vladimir Moss article. It is quite misleading and lacks scholarship. That this person in some strange way has become a supposed 'credible' apologist for God the Father depictions, needs to be answered.

We must recognize the difference between interpreting Daniel's vision of the Ancient of Days as God the Father, and trying to equate that particular interpretation of scripture to the painting universally known as the NEW TESTAMENT Trinity icon. Its like comparing apples and oranges.

Regardless of how hard Vladimir Moss attempts to tie the NT Trinity painting to Daniel's vision of the Ancient of Days, there has never been painted an Icon which depict this vision. It does not exist, no iconographer has painted it nor claims that Daniel saw this vision (with a dove hovering overhead, nonetheless), if so why has it come down to us as the New Testament Trinity and not as 'Daniels Trinity'. The closest thing to an Old Testament Trinity is the icon of Abraham's Hospitality which Rublev has made famous. The closest thing to an icon of Daneils vision is the River of Fire icon, about the last Judgment which depicts an enthroned Christ on judgemnt day (dan 7.10). On the other hand depicting Christ as the Ancient of Days and as a white haired/ bearded Pantocrator was quite common and is found on the domes of ancient churches. We also have the ancient icon of Christ as the Ancient of Days depicting the vision described in Revelation with the 7 candlesticks on Patmos. God the Father depictions are modern western types originating during the renaissance.
Theres another argument to add, that is the scriptural interpretation that the Ancient of Days in Daniel is God the Father became less and less frequent amongst the Church Fathers, as the book of Revelation became more and more accepted as divinely inspired scripture. The east as a whole did not accept the Book of Revelation as canonical till after 500 a.d. it only was accepted bit by bit after many centuries. Not only is the Apocalypse of St John the earliest reference to claim that the Ancient of Days is Christ by parraleling the description of a white haired/ bearded Christ with the vision of Daniel' Ancient of Days but (Rev 1.14, Dan 7.9) the second earliest christian writing outside of the NT to depict the post-Ressurected Christ as white haired is the early 3rd century martyrdom of the Passion of Perpetua & Felicity.
Both, the vision of John in the Apocalypse, and the vision of Perpetua, teaches us that Christ is the white haired Ancient of Days. This brings us to that passage by St Nikodemus in his prolegomena which many supporters of God the Father images point to as evidence. Unfotunately the final sentence in the paragraph is nothing more than an interpolation, a forgery. It is not of St Nikodemos, but added onto the end of the paragraph to justify this very false icon type. The final sentence even sticks out like a sore thumb and contradicts what the 7th Ecumenical council said pertaining to the 'prophetic visions'. In fact that the final sentence is a forgery and thus false is easily proveable by simply reading the Synodikon of Orthodoxy:

"Those who know and accept and believe the prophetic visions, as the Divine Himself gave them shape and form, which the chorus of prophets behold and explain, and who, strengthened by the written and unwritten tradition of the Apostles, continuing to the Fathers, therefore express holy things in images and honor them:
Those who understand Moses, who said be attentive to yourselves on that day, when the Lord God spoke on the Mt Horeb, you heard the sounds of words but you saw no likeness. And know how to answer rightly; that if we see something, we truly see, as the son of Thunder taught us; He who was from the Beginning, whom we heard, whom we saw, whom we beheld with our own eyes, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of Life, and to these we bear witness. And again, as the other disciple of the word, we ate with Him and drank with Him, not only before his Passion but also after His ressurection; those who are able to
distinguish the precepts in the Law from the teaching of grace, and see that he is invisible in the former, but seen and touched in the latter. And that therefore what has been seen and touched is to be depicted in icons and worshipped:
AS THE PROPHETS SAW, as the Apostles taught, as the Church has recieved, as the Teachers express in dogma, as the inhabited world understands with them, as grace illumines, as the truth makes clear, as error has been banished, as wisdom makes bold to declare, As Christ has assured, so we think, so we preach, Honoring Christ our true God and His Saints in words, in wiritngs, in thoughts, in sacrifices, in Churches, in Icons.... "

Claimimg St Nokodemus wrote, "It follows that the beginningless Father must be represented in icons as he appeared to the Prophet Daniel"... means he was completely ignorant of what the Synodikon taught, yet borrowed the same phraseology from it!

[Mina Mounir]

well there is an important point u mentioned , Kosta , which is that the book of daniel is less inspired than the revelation... the question is : is it true or not ...
besides, if u r right , should we then confess that the services of the church are wrong ?
thanks

[Herman Blaydoe]

well there is an important point u mentioned , Kosta , which is that the book of daniel is less inspired than the revelation... the question is : is it true or not ...
besides, if u r right , should we then confess that the services of the church are wrong ?
thanks

I'm not sure it comes to that. Revelation is more "complete" than Daniel, since the Apostle John had the advantage of being AFTER the revelation of Christ, that does not mean that Daniel is any less inspired.

The author of the Book of Daniel wrote what he knew, but we have the advantage of knowing a little more than he did. The Book of Daniel was written before the revelation of the Trinity was manifested, how could its author know he was writing about the Son at the time? He only knew God as Unity, not God as Trinity. If we ASSUME that God as Unity is God the Father specifically, do you not see a possibility for misinterpretation? It is not that he wasn't inspired, but that he wasn't given the whole picture at the time.

And I don't see that as making the services of the Church in error.

Herman the often erroneous Pooh

[Kosta]

The thing is that the Moss article is in error. His only defence for God the Father depictions are based on the opinions of a few Church Fathers who interpret the scriptural verse to be of God the Father.

Unfortunately the 7th Ecumenical council, the Liturgical texts, the NT and the Iconography of the Church all make it clear that depictions of God the Father are not canonical and that the Ancient of Days is to be portrayed as Christ.

Even the portion of the 7th council which Moss quotes from in his article proves this when it says, "...while on the other hand they cannot bear to have icons made of the WORD BECOME MAN and his sufferings for us."

In my first post i provided a link to an icon found in St Sophia Greek Orthodox Cathedral in California, with the most uncanonical icon i have ever seen. I think all can agree it is uncanonical yet it still found its way into the church. Here is the link again of a Trinity painting with Christ portrayed as a sheep:
http://www.stsophia.org/photo_tour/stsophiaphototour10.htm

[Kosta]

I'm not sure it comes to that. Revelation is more "complete" than Daniel, since the Apostle John had the advantage of being AFTER the revelation of Christ, that does not mean that Daniel is any less inspired.

The author of the Book of Daniel wrote what he knew, but we have the advantage of knowing a little more than he did. The Book of Daniel was written before the revelation of the Trinity was manifested, how could its author know he was writing about the Son at the time? He only knew God as Unity, not God as Trinity. If we ASSUME that God as Unity is God the Father specifically, do you not see a possibility for misinterpretation? It is not that he wasn't inspired, but that he wasn't given the whole picture at the time.

And I don't see that as making the services of the Church in error.

Herman the often erroneous Pooh

Yes, this is what i meant. The book of Revelation wasnt considered canonical by many in the very early church, that began changing as the heresy of chiliasm was dying out. Once it was accepted as scripture, interpreting Daniel's Ancient of Days as God the Father became less and less frequent. The constant teaching of the Church is that the Ancient of Days mentioned in Daniel is the second person of the Trinity. The only evidence to suggest otherwise is the interpretive opinion of some Church Fathers. But this interpretation is contradicted by the services of the Church, the NT and canonical iconography.

As mentioned in the text of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, it says the prophets saw the pre-incarnate Christ not God the Father, and this is not limited to Daniel 7. According to Isaiah (6.1,5) he saw God as well. No defender of God the Father depictions use the Isaiah verses to prove the canonicity of the NT trinity painting, even as the triple holy hymn is used in those verses. The controversial trinity painting is not based on OT visions at all (if it was it would not come down to us being known as the new testament trinity), its simply a modern rendition with scant theological value, and never existed in the first 1500 years.

[Andreas Moran]

The Reiging icon of the Mother of God (Derzhavnaya) is a miraculous icon and yet appears to show the Father, albeit not as a white-haired old man but more like Christ with a very long beard. I assume it is not Christ since He is shown as a child in His Mother's lap. I can only speculate on this and say that God is not constrained in how and through whom and what He acts.

253

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Andreas and others, you wrote:


The Reiging icon of the Mother of God (Derzhavnaya) is a miraculous icon and yet appears to show the Father, albeit not as a white-haired old man but more like Christ with a very long beard. I assume it is not Christ since He is shown as a child in His Mother's lap.

This is an interesting question, since the 'Reigning Icon' of the Mother of God is somewhat unique. However, I wonder whether the figure at the top really is meant to be God the Father? Let the truer iconographers give some first-hand responses; but from my own vantage point, it is not certain.

Here is a slightly higher-resolution image of the 'Reigning' icon:


http://www.monachos.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1267



To my eye (and I regret that I did not have the opportunity to venerate the icon first-hand when it was in Britain recently), the figure at the top seems to represent Christ enthroned - Christ the 'Ancient of Days'. While it is not clear enough to be made out definitively, it does look to me as if His corona has a cross within, which would remove all question. But even without certainty on this, the figure at the top of the icon seems to follow the normal stylings of Christ as the Ancient of Days (in particular, the way His hair flows over His shoulders). Further, the fact that the figure at the top of the icon 'mimics' the image at the centre - which is clearly the infant Christ - with His right hand in blessing and left indicating the orb of monarchial authority, seems to offer the image of Christ reigning from heaven as He reigns in His mother's regality (and icons in which the same subject appear multiple times on the same panel are not rare).


It is interesting to compare the imagery in this icon, with copies of the 'Reigning' icon. Take, for example, this Russian copy:


http://www.monachos.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1271



This rendition (apart from being not very good) seems unclear in various ways. Although the quality of the scan is poor, there is clearly a three-letter inscription in the corona behind the figure at the top -- almost certainly reading 'o wn', which would properly identify the Son. Properly. But it is also the case that several so-called icons of the 'New Testament Trinity' (i.e. 'The Old Man, the Young Man, and the Bird') give this same subscription - improperly - to the Father. So it is unclear. The garments worn by the figure in this image are not usual, either to depictions of Christ incarnate or Christ as Ancient of Days; so one is left wondering.


By contrast, we have this:


http://www.monachos.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1268



Once again the resolution is low, and as such I cannot make out any clear inscription; but the figure at the top is here clad in the traditional iconographic garments for Christ (though interestingly, not Christ as Ancient of Days).


The more traditional attire of Christ as Ancient of Days is seen in this rendition of the 'Reigning' icon:


http://www.monachos.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1270



Here the figure at the top of the icon is quite clearly the Ancient of Days - with the expected styling of the hair, the radiant white garments, etc. Yet we must ask: does this iconographer correctly read the Ancient of Days as Christ? or as the Father? I cannot tell from the image alone. The diamond in the corona makes me suspicious that it may be the latter.


Finally, one additional rendering:


http://www.monachos.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1269



I offer these as examples, simply out of curiosity over the point: namely, whether the 'Reigning icon' as it is interpreted by later iconographic copies, is indeed an icon that attempts to portray God the Father (which is canonically inappropriate, even if God may yet work wonders through the error); or if it more rightly portrays Christ as Ancient of Days - in that case making the icon unusual only inasmuch as Christ appears twice. But this is not so uncommon. As a comparison, I show the below icon of the Dormition, where the Mother of God is depicted no fewer than three times on the same panel, in different 'states':


http://www.monachos.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=182&pictureid=1272



All that said, I look forward to the comments of learned and prayerful iconographers.


INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

We're going to Moscow next week so I'll try to have a close look at the original; could there be a cross in the halo?? In the copy below, the figure is clearly Christ.

254

[Andreas Moran]

As a matter of interest the original is here:

255

[Giorgos]

dear fr. Mathew,

is there a source (it would be great if available online) discusses the interpretations of the fathers for that event?
Mina says:
I was searching for online articles , I've found an article for George S. Gabriel :
http://orlapubs.com/AR/R330.html
he answers a question if rublev's icon is "heretical" , and his conclusion is that if he means that he depicts the trinity , then it is so ... but if he means the Son and two angels , then it is not , as he says.

on contrary,
an article of Fr. John Romanides :
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctri ne.01.htm#s13

--------------
Dear Mina,
The citation that you does of Fr Romanides is not indeed of Fr. Romanides. Is a citation of Blessed’s Augustin book DE TRINITATE that Fr. Romanides does, and refutes.

[Olga]

A VERY belated reply to queries on the identity of the figure in the upper border of the icon of the Reigning Mother of God (Derzhavnaya):

As we know, the portrayal of God the Father as a bearded old man is canonically and doctrinally wrong It was God the Son who became incarnate and visible, not God the Father. Many over the years have attempted to justify the presence of a bearded figure in the border of icons (alternatively, often seen in an upper corner of many icons) as being of Christ as the Ancient of Days. We also know that the Mother of God is always shown in the presence of Christ, either holding Him as a child, or in His adult presence in icons of Gospel narrative. Icons of the Virgin of post-Gospel history such as Bogolyubskaya and the Visitation to St Sergius of Radonezh have a motif of Christ (or, fittingly, in the St Sergius icon, the Holy Trinity) in the upper border, fulfilling this requirement.

Fr Matthew, you wrote:



(and icons in which the same subject appear multiple times on the same panel are not rare).


Where this is acceptable is in narrative icons, such as the Transfiguration of the Lord. There are many versions which show Christ and the three apostles ascending and then descending Mt Tabor, along with the central depiction of the transfiguration itself, as is expressed in the Gospel and the hymnody for the feast. The other which comes to mind is the icon of the Nativity of the Lord, where the newborn Christ is shown wrapped in swaddling clothes in the cave, and also being bathed by the midwives.

The Derzhavnaya, being a variant of the Enthroned type, indeed shows the Virgin with Christ, as expected. This, therefore, leaves us with a problem: If the figure in the upper border is indeed God the Father, then we know this is not canonically correct. If the figure is Christ the Ancient of Days, then it is incongruous and theologically confusing. It is the same problem found in images of Christ Holy Wisdom, which show an enthroned androgynous winged “Christ”, flanked by the Mother of God and St John the Baptist in an attitude of supplication, and a figure of an adult Christ above them, His hands raised in blessing. Does this mean that there are actually four divine hypostases? Similarly, why have two “Christs” present in a "portrait" icon of the Mother of God? Doesn’t make sense.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0B2_znWmA9k/SRZoACqvkBI/AAAAAAAAAoo/KYznvd_1bOc/s400/%7B%7DSophia,+Wisdom+of+God+-+September+8.jpg

(In some versions, such as the one above, we even see a third image of Christ: the Mother of God holding Christ Emmanuel in a mandorla over her body, adding further to the confusion)

Hence, it almost doesn’t matter whether the figure in the Derzhavnaya is Christ or God the Father. Neither is satisfactory in the strict canonical sense. However, as I have expressed at various times on the forum, I acknowledge that there are indeed icons of the Mother of God which fall short of canonical composition, but which have been shown to be miraculous. The profusion of western imagery in the Orthodox world in recent centuries, almost obliterated traditional iconography, and such images, in many communities and regions, was practically all that was available for several centuries. Perhaps for this reason, despite the deficiencies of such images, God saw it fit to manifest His grace through a number of them.

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

AThe Derzhavnaya, being a variant of the Enthroned type, indeed shows the Virgin with Christ, as expected. This, therefore, leaves us with a problem: If the figure in the upper border is indeed God the Father, then we know this is not canonically correct. If the figure is Christ the Ancient of Days, then it is incongruous and theologically confusing. It is the same problem found in images of Christ Holy Wisdom, which show an enthroned androgynous winged “Christ”, flanked by the Mother of God and St John the Baptist in an attitude of supplication, and a figure of an adult Christ above them, His hands raised in blessing. Does this mean that there are actually four divine hypostases? Similarly, why have two “Christs” present in a "portrait" icon of the Mother of God? Doesn’t make sense.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0B2_znWmA9k/SRZoACqvkBI/AAAAAAAAAoo/KYznvd_1bOc/s400/%7B%7DSophia,+Wisdom+of+God+-+September+8.jpg

(In some versions, such as the one above, we even see a third image of Christ: the Mother of God holding Christ Emmanuel in a mandorla over her body, adding further to the confusion)

Hence, it almost doesn’t matter whether the figure in the Derzhavnaya is Christ or God the Father. Neither is satisfactory in the strict canonical sense.

I find myself unable to agree with your objections to multiple images of Christ in the icon. This is in fact a faithful reflection, in our iconographic deposit, of our liturgical deposit.

For example, there is the sublime prayer recited by the priest at Liturgy:

"In the grave with the body, in Hell with the soul as God, in Paradise with the thief,
and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit, art thou, O Christ, who fillest all things
and art thyself uncircumscribable."

The simultaneous and multiple presence of Christ taught verbally in our liturgical tradition finds a legitimate visual expression in the iconographic tradition. It may be "confusing" and seem "not to make sense" but it emphasizes the divinity of Christ and His uncircumscribability, the divine possibility inherent in Him to be manifest in every place at once.