Entertaining the Trinity Unawares. (Part II)

The image on the left is perhaps the most famous icon in existence: Andrei Rublev's 15th century "Angels at Mamre," frequently billed as "the Old Testament Trinity". There's much to be said for the icon's artistic arrangement -- the three figures inclining towards one another perichoretically, the openness of the image to include the viewer, etc. There's fine social trinitarian theory to be made or illustrated on the basis of Rublev's work.

As we've already seen, however, the idea that the angels at Mamre were in some way reflective of the Trinity is far less obvious to the passage's Patristic interpreters than to 15th century painters or 21st century theologians. Take, for example, Ephrem ("the Syrian") -- roughly a contemporary of Hilary of Poitiers, albeit rather farther East. In his commentary on Genesis, Ephrem claims that three strangers appeared to Abraham -- but that God appeared to Abraham in one of the three.

This provides a rather satisfying solution to the problem of the passage's three/one//plural/singular address: Abraham welcomes all three -- and indeed, the angels condescend to receiving human treatment as a blessing to Abraham's household -- but worships only one of them, or rather: worships the manifestation of God in one of the angels.

Afterwards, Ephrem intimates, two angels depart for Sodom while the one in whom God appeared to Abraham remains behind to negotiate the city's fate. (Ephrem rather charmingly notes that the angels were sensitive enough to not reveal Sodom's fate to Sarah, lest she be unduly distressed about it.) Ephrem knows nothing of the frequent Patristic theme, according to which the fact that Lot is visited by two rather than three angels is taken as a comment about Lot's moral inferiority to Abraham. Rather, Lot receives a theophany in the same way as his brother-in-law:

"Then two angels set out for Sodom and they went directly to the gate where Lot was sitting to receive stranges who came there. Lot rose to meet them as if to meet strangers, but when he drew near to them there appeared in the second angel the same vision that abraham had seen in the third, and Lot bowed his face to the ground." (XVI.2.1)

The same angel in which God appears to Lot is later also the angel who brings down fire and brimstone upon Sodom; in both cases, as in the instance of the angels' visit to Abraham, the theophany is conveyed by way of a vision that images God -- not the Trinity -- and, evidently, the Father rather than the Son. Interestingly, Ephrem -- as strong a defender of Nicea as Hilary -- does not struggle with the potential incarnational aspects of the appearance, nor does he use the opportunity for exploring the presence of Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Interestingly, at least one pre-fourth century Father nevertheless offers intimations of Trinitarian readings of the text -- Origen of Alexandria*. His is, obviously, not the kind of explicit Trinitarian reading we'll come across in (some of) Augustine and that Caesarius will add -- rather incongruously -- to Origen's account, but Homily IV on Genesis worries the issue of three-foldness like the proverbial dog worrying a bone. Given Origen's commitment to making every word count and his textual perspicacity, this isn't really surprising. Origen thus notes the mystery inherent in the three men and the three measures of flour used to prepare the meal for them. The three men image God -- although the same might be said for the two men that come to Lot. In either case, the mode of arrival -- descent to the sinner, standing before the righteous -- rather than the means of the theophany is the focus of Origen's reading.

The most interesting part of the homily form a Trinitarian perspective is, however, its conclusion. Origen here argues that the inquiry God makes about Sodom has to do with the difference in divine knowledge -- God, Origen claims, only knows those who recognize him. Those who deny him, God chooses not to know. As a result:

"These things, indeed, have been said against those who "speak iniquity on high." But let us give attention to make our acts such, our manner of life such, that we may be held worthy of knowledge of God, that he may see fit to know us, that we may be held worthy of the knowledge of his son Jesus Christ nad knowledge of the Holy Spirit, that we, known by the Trinity, might also deserve to know the mystery of the Trinity fully, completely, and perfectly, the Lord Jesus Christ revealing it to us."

Interestingly, this is almost the first time in his homily that Origen mentions the Trinity, although he makes frequent reference to a mystery in three-ness. Whether the medium simply does not lend itself to theological speculation -- as, indeed, much of this and other homilies is focused on "ethical" readings -- or whether Origen is on some level drawn to Trinitarian readings but uncomfortable expounding on them is hard to say. The very fact that the Trinity appears in this early-third-century reading of the text is, nevertheless, remarkable. By the time Augustine and his De Trinitate appears on the scene nearly 200 years later, the Trinity is, however, set to take center-stage at Mamre.


* At the risk of sounding too much like the product of my academic parentage, I'm firmly convinced that if you scratch most any 4th-, 5th- or 6th century writer, you'll find Origen underneath ... pretty remarkable, considering the witchhunt otherwise known as the Origenist Controversy, and the relative paucity of extant (un-interpolated, un-adulterated) works.