Icon of the Holy Trinity and its purpose. Icon of the Holy Trinity, what does it help with?

Orthodoxy is perhaps the only Christian denomination in which icon veneration is very developed. Moreover, if Catholics respect sacred images, then numerous Protestant churches The Orthodox are unanimously accused of almost idolatry.

In fact, for a believer, an icon is not an idol at all, but a reminder of another world, of saints and God. The phrase “to venerate an icon” carries a slightly different meaning than “to venerate God.” An icon can be compared to a photograph of a loved one, which is carefully stored in or hung on the wall. No one considers a photo to be an idol or a replacement for the original, even if a lot of attention is paid to it.

In many religions there are no icons, and any images are prohibited for a completely reasonable reason: no one has ever seen God, so how can one depict the indescribable?

Orthodox icon painters also do not invent anything, and, according to the rules, only what was material is depicted on icons.

But what about the “Holy Trinity” icon, because no one has ever seen God! This is not entirely true. We saw our God in human form. Jesus Christ is God and man. So at least the second Face can be depicted. The Holy Spirit also had some incarnation. He appeared several times in the form of a white dove. It wasn't a real dove, of course, but it could be written that way.

So, the two Persons of the Trinity are depicted, but for completeness, God the Father is not enough. The “Holy Trinity” icon cannot exist without the Father.

Icon painters found several ways out of this situation - more or less successful. For example, there is an icon of the Holy Trinity, a photo or reproduction of which is located in every prayer corner. On it, God the Son sits on a throne, above Him is God the Holy Spirit, and is indicated by a certain icon of outpouring grace. There is another option, which is usually called Catholic, where God the Father is arbitrarily depicted as an old man, and God the Holy Spirit as a dove. Everyone admits that it is non-canonical, that is, it does not correspond to the Orthodox rules of icon painting, but it came into widespread use back in the 19th century.

The most famous icon “Holy Trinity” was painted by Rublev.

This depicts a moment from the Old Testament story when three angels came to Abraham. According to the interpretation, this was God, or maybe Andrei Rublev used only an image. In any case, the icon is a unique work not only of icon painting, but also of theological thought. Rublev’s “Holy Trinity” icon is not only that moment at the tent of Abraham, but also the eternal council. This idea is suggested by the contents of the bowl on the table. It (according to many interpreters) contains the sacrament, that is, the Blood of Jesus Christ. This is the moment of a certain prophecy about the future, about the incarnation of the Son of God and about His suffering. It is this mysterious meeting that is called the eternal council.

The “Holy Trinity” icon is mysterious; it has a huge number of symbolic details, by which one can determine that Andrei Rublev designated a certain Person of the Holy Trinity with each Angel. Discussions about it are still ongoing. This image is now kept in the temple at the Tretyakov Gallery. Here it is under guard, but you can venerate it, pray to God and light a candle.

However, in Orthodox icon painting there are images deep meaning which are not so easy to immediately understand.

One such example is the icon of the Holy Trinity. Not only are there several various options this image, it is still not always clear who exactly is depicted on it. Let's try to understand this difficult theological issue.

Who is the Holy Trinity and what are its icons?

The dogma of the unity of the Holy Trinity is one of the most complex and at the same time fundamental postulates Orthodox faith. According to him, we believe in One God, who is represented in three persons or hypostases - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Each of the hypostases is God, and God inextricably contains all three persons. There is no hierarchy in the Trinity; God the Son is God to the same extent as God the Father or God the Holy Spirit.

Icon of the Holy Trinity

To understand completely this teaching It’s beyond the power of a simple layman; the best theologians in the world are racking their brains over this. Christendom. For an ordinary ordinary person who believes in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is enough to understand that the One God has three persons, each of which is equally God. Canonically, icons can only depict what was revealed to people. Thus, a great miracle was revealed to humanity to see the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, therefore we have a large number of icons with his holy face.

About the icons of Jesus Christ:

As for God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, apparently they never appeared to people. There are places in the Bible where the Lord sent his voice from Heaven, and also the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. These are all physical manifestations of the other two hypostases that humanity has. In this regard, there is no icon that natural form would depict the Holy Trinity (as, for example, there are icons of Christ that reliably replicate His appearance).

All images of the Trinity are deeply symbolic and carry a great theological load. One of the most famous images is “The Hospitality of Abraham.” It depicts a scene from the book of Genesis when the Lord appeared to Abraham in the guise of three angels. It was then that one of the angels announced to Abraham about the imminent birth of his son.

In this image we see three angels sitting at a table and Abraham and Sarah serving them. In the background you can see the Oak of Mamre, the home of Abraham himself, and the mountains. The essence of this image is that symbolically the secret of the Trinity Lord was revealed to Abraham and Sarah under the guise of three angels.

Appearance of the Holy Trinity to Abraham

Icon of St. Andrei Rublev

The essence of the Trinitarian Divine nature is most fully revealed in the image of St. Andrei Rublev. Perhaps this is the most famous and revered icon of the Holy Trinity in our church. The artist abandons the images of Abraham and Sarah, the angels sit alone at the table. They no longer eat the food, but seem to bless it. And there is no food as such on the table anymore - only one cup remains, which symbolizes communion and the Holy Gifts.

Many researchers have tried to unravel the order in which the Monk Andrei Rublev depicted each hypostasis of the Lord. Most experts agreed that in order to emphasize the unity of the Trinity, the artist did not indicate where anyone is depicted.

By and large, for a simple Christian believer it makes no difference where each entity is located. We still pray To the One God, and it is impossible to pray to the Son without also praying to the Father or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when looking at an icon, it is best to perceive the image as a whole, without dividing it into three different figures.

Even the image itself seems to emphasize the unity of all the characters - the figures of all three angels fit into an invisible circle. In the middle is the Cup, which symbolically points to Christ's Sacrifice for all mankind.

It is necessary to mention that there are various non-canonical attempts to depict the three hypostases of God. The mystery of the Christian understanding of God has always attracted many researchers, and they did not always coordinate their views with the canons of Orthodoxy. Therefore, believers should carefully avoid being carried away by such images. You cannot find such icons in churches; you don’t need to have them at home either.

Icon of the Most Holy Trinity by St. Andrei Rublev

Where should the icon of the Holy Trinity be located and how to pray in front of it

If we talk about temples, then in most of them you can find this holy image. If the temple is consecrated in honor of the Holy Trinity, then the main icon will be on the lectern, in a prominent place. Any Christian believer can come to such a temple and venerate the shrine.

Before the image, prayers can be served, and water can be blessed. Such small services give great consolation to the Orthodox who pray at them for what concerns their souls. You can submit notes with the names of relatives and friends, then the priest will offer petitions to God and for them.

Important! The basis of any prayer service is not the fact of submitting a note with names, but a sincere appeal to God by a believer. Therefore, it is very advisable to attend the prayer service in person.

You can also have an icon of the Holy Trinity at home so that you can turn to the Lord in personal prayer at home. For this home, you can equip special shelves for images - home iconostasis. All the icons in the family are placed on it. It is worth remembering that when decorating the iconostasis, the central place should be occupied by the icons of the Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary, followed by the saints revered in the family.

According to Christian tradition, it is customary to install all iconostases on the eastern wall or corner of the house. However, if for some objective reasons this cannot be done (for example, the eastern side is occupied large window or door), then there is no sin in placing household shrines in any other suitable place.

The main rule is that the attitude towards the place where the images are stored should be reverent. You need to keep it clean, wipe off dust in a timely manner, and change napkins. It is completely unacceptable when the owners maintain order, for example, in the kitchen, but at the same time the sacred corner looks neglected and unkempt.

Icon of the Holy Trinity

What does an icon help with?

In near-Christian circles one can often come across the opinion that one can pray in front of certain shrines strictly on certain issues. You can often hear such advice even in front of experienced parishioners and old-timers of churches. This approach does not entirely correctly reflect the essence of the Orthodox faith.

About other famous Orthodox icons:

In all troubles and sorrows in which we ask for spiritual help, only the Lord God can give us an answer. The saints are our helpers who, together with us, can ask the Lord to give us everything we need for our lives. It’s just that a tradition has developed that prayers in front of certain images help in a given situation. But this is not a strict rule, and a person in front of any icon can ask for anything.

Important! The belief that help comes precisely from the icon in front of which a person prays is a pagan approach and distorts the essence of the Orthodox faith.

Therefore, praying in front of the icon of the Holy Trinity at home or in a church, a person can ask for everything that lies on his soul. You just have to remember that you cannot go to the Lord with sinful thoughts, dishonest or obviously bad requests.

Most of the holy fathers of the church say that real prayer is one that does not ask for anything, but only thanks God and entrusts His concern for human life. The Gospel says that not even a hair will fall from a person’s head unless it is God’s Will. Therefore, it is best to stand before the shrine with a repentant heart, humility, and the desire to correct your life according to God’s will. Such an appeal will always be heard and a person will feel grace and spiritual help in life.

Video about the icon of the Holy Trinity by Andrei Rublev

This and the previous images of the Holy Trinity are, strictly speaking, non-canonical, although they are not uncommon.

Icons of the Savior, except Miraculous Image, do not have special names. The Savior is sometimes depicted as a King sitting on a throne and is revered as the image of the Lord

The faces of the Holy Trinity, seated next to God the Father, the so-called. "New Testament Trinity". Some images of the Crucified Christ are realistic, reflecting His physical and mental suffering; others were written in a conventional manner: the Savior’s features were given an expression of serious calm and grandeur. The Moscow Council of 1667 condemned any images of God the Father. The basis for the resolution of the Council of 1667 was the Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. “No one has ever seen God,” says the Evangelist John, “the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed” (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). The Seventh Ecumenical Council considered it possible to permit the depiction of the Son of God precisely because He, “taking the form of a servant, became in the likeness of men, and became in appearance like a man” (Phil. 2:7) and, thanks to this, became accessible to sensory contemplation. As for the essence of God, outside of its revelation in the Person of the God-Man, it remains hidden and inaccessible not only to sight, but also to reason, for God is the One Who “dwells in the inaccessible light, Whom no man has seen and cannot be seen.” can" (1 Tim. 6:16). The Lord, out of His boundless love for fallen people, met the eternal thirst to see Him or, at least, to perceive Him sensually. He “gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16), and “the great mystery of godliness was accomplished: God was revealed in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). Thus, the inaccessible God, in the Person of the Son and Word of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, became a Man accessible to sight, hearing, touch and, as the Church approved at its 7th Council, also accessible to image. Likewise, the symbolic image of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove has a biblical basis, for at the baptism of the Savior He descended on Him in the form of a dove. This image of the Holy Spirit is canonical, as is the image of Him in the form of tongues of fire descending on the apostles. Although the Moscow Council did not allow the depiction of the Lord of Hosts, this prohibition was consigned to oblivion and He began to be depicted as the “Ancient of Days” (i.e., the Elder) on the icons of the “New Testament Trinity” Isa. 6:1-2; Dan. 7:9-13; Rev. 5:11). In the Orthodox East there are icons of the “Old Testament Trinity,” which depict the appearance of God to Abraham in the form of three wanderers. Such an image is quite canonical: God was pleased to reveal Himself in this image, which had a deep meaning. symbolic meaning, and does not pretend to be a realistic reflection of the Personality. This icon has been widespread since ancient times, both in the Orthodox East and in Russia.

The Tretyakov Gallery also houses the most famous work of Andrei Rublev - the famous "Trinity". Created in the prime of his creative powers, the icon is the pinnacle of the artist’s art.

During the time of Andrei Rublev, the theme of the Trinity, which embodied the idea of ​​a triune deity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), was perceived as a certain symbol of time, a symbol of spiritual unity, peace, harmony, mutual love and humility, the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the common good. Sergius of Radonezh founded a monastery near Moscow with a main church in the name of the Trinity, firmly believing that “by looking at the Holy Trinity, the fear of the hated discord of this world was overcome.”

St. Sergius of Radonezh, under the influence of whose ideas Andrei Rublev’s worldview was formed, was an outstanding personality of his time. He advocated for overcoming civil strife, actively participated in the political life of Moscow, contributed to its rise, reconciled warring princes, and contributed to the unification of Russian lands around Moscow. A special merit of Sergius of Radonezh was his participation in the preparation of the Battle of Kulikovo, when he helped Dmitry Donskoy with his advice and spiritual experience, strengthened his confidence in the correctness of his chosen path and, finally, blessed the Russian army before the Battle of Kulikovo.

The personality of Sergius of Radonezh had special authority for his contemporaries; a generation of people during the Battle of Kulikovo was brought up on his ideas, and Andrei Rublev, as the spiritual heir of these ideas, embodied them in his work.

In the twenties of the 15th century, a team of masters, headed by Andrei Rublev and Daniil Cherny, decorated the Trinity Cathedral in the monastery of St. Sergius, erected above his tomb, with icons and frescoes. The iconostasis included the “Trinity” icon as a highly revered temple image, placed according to tradition in the lower (local) row on the right side of the Royal Doors. There is evidence of one of sources XVII century about how the abbot of the monastery Nikon instructed Andrei Rublev “to paint the image of the Most Holy Trinity in praise of his father Saint Sergius.”

The plot of “Trinity” is based on the biblical story of the appearance of deity to righteous Abraham in the form of three beautiful young angels. Abraham and his wife Sarah treated the strangers under the shade of the Mamre oak, and Abraham was given to understand that the deity in three persons was embodied in the angels. Since ancient times, there have been several options for depicting the Trinity, sometimes with details of the feast and episodes of the slaughter of a calf and the baking of bread (in the gallery’s collection these are 14th-century Trinity icons from Rostov the Great and 15th-century icons from Pskov).

In the Rublev icon, attention is focused on the three angels and their condition. They are depicted seated around a throne, in the center of which is a Eucharistic cup with the head of a sacrificial calf, symbolizing the New Testament lamb, that is, Christ. The meaning of this image is sacrificial love.

The left angel, signifying God the Father, blesses the cup with his right hand. The middle angel (Son), depicted in the gospel clothes of Jesus Christ, with his right hand lowered onto the throne with a symbolic sign, expresses submission to the will of God the Father and readiness to sacrifice himself in the name of love for people. The gesture of the right angel (the Holy Spirit) completes the symbolic conversation between the Father and the Son, affirming the high meaning of sacrificial love, and comforts the doomed to sacrifice. Thus, the image of the Old Testament Trinity (that is, with details of the plot from the Old Testament) turns into the image of the Eucharist (the Good Sacrifice), symbolically reproducing the meaning of the Gospel Last Supper and the sacrament established at it (communion with bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ). Researchers emphasize the symbolic cosmological significance of the compositional circle, into which the image fits laconically and naturally. In the circle they see a reflection of the idea of ​​the Universe, peace, unity, which embraces plurality, cosmos. When comprehending the content of the Trinity, it is important to understand its versatility. The symbolism and polysemy of the images of the “Trinity” go back to ancient times. For most peoples, such concepts (and images) as a tree, a bowl, a meal, a house (temple), a mountain, a circle, had a symbolic meaning. Andrei Rublev's depth of awareness in the field of ancient symbolic images and their interpretations, the ability to connect their meaning with content Christian dogma suggest a high level of education, characteristic of the enlightened society of that time and, in particular, of the artist’s likely environment.

The symbolism of the “Trinity” is correlated with its pictorial and stylistic properties. Among them vital importance has color. Since the contemplated deity was a picture of the heavenly heavenly world, the artist, with the help of paints, sought to convey the sublime “heavenly” beauty that was revealed to the earthly gaze. The painting of Andrei Rublev, especially the Zvenigorod rank, is distinguished by a special purity of color, nobility of tonal transitions, and the ability to impart a luminous radiance to the color. Light is emitted not only by golden backgrounds, ornamental cuts and assists, but also by the gentle melting of light faces, pure shades of ocher, and the peacefully clear blue, pink and green tones of the angels’ clothes. The symbolism of color in the icon is especially noticeable in the leading sound of blue-blue, called Rublevsky cabbage roll.

By comprehending the beauty and depth of content, correlating the meaning of the “Trinity” with the ideas of Sergius of Radonezh about contemplation, moral improvement, peace, harmony, we seem to come into contact with inner world Andrei Rublev, his thoughts translated into this work.

The image of the New Testament Trinity in Russian art of the 16th century.

The name of this iconographic excerpt - “Trinity of the New Testament”, as well as the definition of its composition - “Co-throne”, are terms accepted in modern art history literature. In the 16th century, judging by the inscriptions preserved on the icons, this image could be called the words of the Easter troparion “Carnally in the grave”; “On the throne was with the Father and the Holy Spirit,” borrowed from Psalm 109 with the verse “The Lord said to my Lord: sit at My right hand, until I will make all Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” The first version of the inscription, in addition to the famous “Four-Part” icon from the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, which gives a detailed illustration of the troparion, can be seen on the Moscow icon “The Lenten Triodion” (Tretyakov Gallery, inv. No. 24839), where the image of the New Testament Trinity is included in the composition of the Last Judgment. The same inscription was on the one mentioned by V.P. Nikolsky Solovetsky icon New Testament Trinity (XVI-XVII centuries). Examples can be more numerous if we include monuments from the 17th century. The second version of the inscription is visible on the icon " Last Judgment"from the village of Lyadiny (GE, inv. No. ERI-230). S.A. Nepein describes a folding house originating from the Vologda Vladychenskaya Church late XVI V. where in the middle there was an image of the text of Psalm 109:1. The second variant of the name seems to be more rare. In addition, being included in the composition illustrating the Creed, the image of Jesus Christ and the Lord of Hosts seated on the co-throne refers to the words: “and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father.”

The image of the New Testament Trinity in the iconographic type of the Co-Altar in Russian art earlier than the 16th century. unknown Probably, one of the first images of this kind could have been the image on the outer eastern wall of the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, which has not reached us in its original form, but was painted based on traces taken from previous frescoes and parts of the large composition of the Last Judgment in the same cathedral (1513-1515 - 1642-1643). The painting of the outer eastern wall is the only example in Russian art of the 16th century. representative image of the New Testament Trinity. It is impossible to say whether this fresco has retained its original composition in all details. This makes it difficult to resolve the question of the sources of its iconography.

The most favorable material allowing us to trace the formation of the iconography of the New Testament Trinity on Russian soil are images of the Last Judgment. On the Novgorod icon “The Last Judgment” from the collection of A.V. Morozov (Tretyakov Gallery, inv. No. 14458, second half of the 16th century), the Lord of hosts is seated at the top in the center, on his right hand an unoccupied place is left on the throne, which is made especially noticeable thanks to to the second, also empty, foot. On this side of the throne leading edge At the top of the backrest there is a sacrificial cup. Between the cup and the head of Hosts the Holy Spirit is depicted in the form of a dove. On the right is the image of Hosts, but free space there is no one on the throne nearby. Instead, here we see the image of Jesus Christ surrounded by a mandorla. He is shown approaching the throne of God the Father, which contradicts the inscription that speaks of Christ being sent to earth “to judge the living and the dead.” In this icon one can see borrowings from Western compositions. These two scenes on the Novgorod icon in the fresco of the Assumption Cathedral correspond to the “Eternal Council” and

“The Sending of Christ to Earth”, however, the question again arises of how much preserved painting of the 17th century. corresponded to the original composition of the 16th century.

On another Novgorod icon “The Last Judgment” from the Church of Boris and Gleb in Plotniki (Novgorod Museum, inv. No. 2824, mid-16th century) appears that had developed by the mid-16th century. composition of the New Testament Trinity - Christ and the Lord Hosts are seated on a co-throne half-turned to each other, between them is placed the image of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. Christ's garments are revealed and he points to a wound on his ribs. We see a similar image of the New Testament Trinity on famous icon from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. On this icon, the image forms a rich and thoughtful iconographic program. I know of only one icon that repeats this iconographic program - “The New Testament Trinity” in the State Russian Museum (inventory No. DZh3085, 17th century)

During the second half of the 16th century. the image of the New Testament Trinity is enriched with new details, such as the fallen doors of the heavenly gates borrowed from the scene of the “Ascension of Christ” (an early example of the “Four-Part” icon from the Annunciation Cathedral), a throne with the Gospel placed on it and a standing chalice, and a cross and instruments of the passion placed nearby (on icon "Saturday of All Saints" from Stroganov's letter of the late 16th century from the collection of I.S. Ostroukhov, Tretyakov Gallery, inv. No. 12113).

The question may be raised, on the one hand, about borrowing from Western art of both the iconographic scheme in general and individual parts image of the New Testament Trinity, and on the other hand, about the prerequisites that take place in Russian art, opening the way for these borrowings and allowing them to be rethought and organically included in the context of Russian iconographic creativity of the 16th century.

The image of the Trinity on other icons

Baptism (Epiphany). Around 1497

Academician B.V. Rauschenbach. ADDITION

". FACE THE HOLY TRINITY"

The doctrines of the Trinity are among the fundamental ones, and it is therefore not surprising that icons of the Trinity are found very often. Suffice it to recall, for example, the classic Russian five-tiered iconostasis, in which the Trinity icon is placed in the center of the forefathers' row, then in the row of holidays and, in addition, in the local row. It is quite natural that the icons of the Trinity have long attracted the close attention of researchers, especially the icons of the Old Testament Trinity, which have more ancient roots than the New Testament Trinity. Of course, this is due to the fact that the Monk Andrei Rublev wrote his “Trinity”, following precisely the ancient iconography.

If we analyze the very extensive literature devoted to Rublev’s Trinity, it becomes obvious that the authors paid main attention artistic features outstanding creation of human genius. The connection between the icon and the difficult historical circumstances inherent in the time of its painting was not left aside. However, it seems that the theological interpretation of what is shown on the icon is not fully given in these works. IN last years Many researchers turn to the question of which of the angels depicted on it corresponds to which Person. The opinions expressed are very different. Most often, the middle angel is identified with either the Father or the Son, and depending on the choice made, the correspondence of the side angels with the other two Persons is determined. The number of possible combinations here is quite large, and it must be said that the authors provide many interesting arguments to confirm their points of view. But there is still a long way to go to answer this question. Perhaps he will never be found. The most complete and critical examination of this problem can be found in the book by L. Muller.

There is no doubt, however, that the problem of identifying angels and Persons is of a secondary nature. After all, no matter how the question of correspondence between angels and Persons is resolved, the Trinity continues to remain only the Trinity. Only the interpretation of gestures changes, but not the cardinal quality of the icon, which is naturally considered to be the complete expression of the dogmatic teaching about the Trinity. Indeed, in the Orthodox Church, an icon is not just an illustration explaining the Holy Scripture (which is quite acceptable for Catholics), but is organically included in liturgical life. It will be shown below that in Rublev this completeness of expression reaches its maximum. Considering the icons of the Trinity from the point of view of the completeness of expression of dogmatic teaching, it is interesting to trace how gradually this expression is improved and how, as theological rigor weakens when painting icons, it becomes clouded. In addition, the proposed approach allows us to analyze the icons of the Old Testament Trinity and the New Testament Trinity from a single point of view, to compare them essentially, and not attribute them to different iconographic types and, accordingly, consider them separately, without connection with each other.

In order to streamline the subsequent analysis, it is useful to formulate in the briefest form the main qualities that the Trinity possesses according to the teaching of the Church.

1. Trinity

2. Consubstantiality

3. Inseparability

4. Co-essence

5. Specificity

6. Interaction

The six qualities formulated here and related issues were discussed in my previous article. The listed qualities could be called structural-logical, since they define precisely these aspects of the dogma of the Trinity. In addition, the Trinity is also: 7. Saint; 8. Life-giving.

It seems that the latest definitions do not need any comment.

When considering the question of the evolution of the complete expression of the Trinity dogma in icons, it would seem natural to begin with the most ancient examples and end with modern ones. However, another path seems more expedient: first turn to the highest achievement in the matter of such expression - the icon of St. Andrei Rublev, and then move on to the analysis of the types of icons that preceded and followed it. This will make it possible to more clearly identify the features of other icons, the weakening in them of the full expression of dogma, having before our eyes the highest example. Much of what Rublev used goes back to earlier iconographic traditions, but will not be mentioned in the analysis of his Trinity. It will become clear when we subsequently turn to more ancient icons.

The fact that Rublev's "Trinity" carries within itself a highly complete expression of dogma was intuitively felt by many. This is best evidenced by the unpublished work of V.N. Shchepkin, in which he, however, absolutely rightly writes that Rublev created “the direct embodiment of the main dogma of Christianity” and, further, that “the poetic thought about dogma is poured out everywhere in the icon.” . In a similar sense, one can interpret the thought of Father Pavel Florensky that the icon of the Trinity "Rublev". has already ceased to be one of the images of facial life, and its relation to Mamvra is already a rudiment. This icon shows in a striking vision the Most Holy Trinity - a new revelation, although under the veil of old and undoubtedly less significant forms."

Analysis of how completely and in what ways artistic means Rublev embodied the dogma of the Trinity in his icon, will be carried out in the same sequence that was proposed above. The first quality in this series was named trinity . It is possible to show that three Persons make up one God only by depicting them on one icon (therefore, it is unthinkable here what is often done in the icons of the Annunciation, where the Mother of God and the Archangel Gabriel - for example, on the royal doors - are depicted on separate icons that make up in turn a single composition). An additional and very significant technique is the prohibition on the inscription of halos on Persons and the use instead of them of a unifying inscription representing the Triad in the form of a Monad: “The Most Holy Trinity.” Related to this is the prohibition on separating Faces by depicting different halos. The above suggests that, without clearly distinguishing the Persons on his icon, Rublev acted from dogmatic considerations. But if this is so, then the “deciphering” of “characters,” which is now often attempted, to a certain extent loses its meaning, becoming a secondary matter.

The second quality to discuss is consubstantiality . Rublev conveys it extremely simply: the three depicted angels are completely of the same type. There are no visible differences between them, and this is enough for the sensation of consubstantiality to arise. As for inseparability, then it is symbolized by the sacrificial cup located on the throne. The cup is rightly interpreted as a symbol of the Eucharist. But the Eucharist unites people into the Church, and therefore in in this case the cup unites the three Persons into some kind of unity. Such a subtle expert in the theology of icon veneration as L.A. Uspensky speaks about it this way: “If the tilt of the heads and figures of two angels directed towards the third unites them with each other, then the gestures of their hands are directed towards the one standing on a white table, as if the altar, the Eucharistic cup with the head of a sacrificial animal, it constrains the movements of the hands." The sacrificial cup - the semantic and compositional center of the icon - is one for all three angels, and this also suggests that we have a Monad.

Transfer on the icon co-essence presents a very difficult task. After all, this means that the three Persons exist only together (this is evidenced by their inseparability) and always. But “always” is a category of time, and to convey time by the means at one’s disposal art, extremely difficult. Only possible here indirect methods. Rublev very subtly and successfully uses this opportunity. By using all the means available to him (composition, line, color), he creates a feeling of silence, peace and stopping time. This is also facilitated by the fact that the angels have a silent conversation. After all, an ordinary conversation requires the utterance of words, takes time, and if Rublev had depicted such a conversation, time would have entered the icon. In a silent conversation, images and emotions are exchanged, not words. After all, emotions can arise instantly and last indefinitely. No wonder such concepts as “love at first sight” or “eternal love” appeared. Images are similar: a person is able to immediately imagine a beautiful landscape. If you try to convey love or a landscape in words, then it will take time, and it is impossible to adequately convey such subtle feelings as love in words. In this sense, the image and emotions will always be richer and brighter than words. As a result of the totality of the means used by Rublev, it seems that the three angels have been sitting and talking for an infinitely long time and will continue to sit here for just as long. They are outside the bustling and hurrying world of people - they are in eternity. But in eternity time does not flow, it is entirely within it. That which is in eternity truly becomes ever-present , always existing.

Specificity Persons are a kind of opposition to consubstantiality. Consubstantiality does not mean the complete identity of Persons; they are not impersonal. As P.A. Florensky very successfully formulated, the trinitarian dogma makes Persons distinguishable, but not different. In Rublev, specificity is shown very simply: the angels have different poses, they wear different clothes. But the simplicity of this technique allows us to simultaneously achieve the fact that Rublev’s specificity is not striking. He very subtly and restrainedly conveys the differences of the Persons while emphasizing their consubstantiality, which is fully consistent with the teaching of the Church about the Trinity.

Interaction Rublev conveys the faces in the form of a silent conversation of angels. It was already said above that the three Persons not only coexist, but are in close interaction: the Son is born, and the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. But it is unthinkable to depict birth and procession on an icon, especially since, due to the incomprehensibility of God, we do not know exact value words birth And origin and I can’t imagine it. Of course, the interaction of Persons is not limited to these two points included in the Creed, but is more multifaceted. Therefore, depicting interaction in the form of a silent conversation, or rather, an exchange of images and indescribable words-emotions, is quite reasonable as a method of visually representing celestial interaction.

Holiness The Trinity is emphasized by the halos of the three Persons, by the fact that they are depicted as angels, and, in addition, by the fact that in the background of the icon, on the right, a mountain is shown, which also embodies a symbol of holiness.

Vitality characterizes the tree of life located behind the middle angel. This is the appearance that Rublev took on the Mamvri oak tree, in the shade of which Abraham feasted on the Trinity. Thus, an everyday detail - oak - became a symbol for Rublev, appropriate when depicting the mountain world.

Held here brief analysis showed that all the fundamental components of the rather complex trinitarian dogma were conveyed by Rublev with amazing accuracy and precisely by artistic means. Of course, the meaning of Rublev’s icon is not limited to finding worthy visual means for this purpose. Researchers of the work of St. Andrew quite rightly pointed out, for example, that the sacrificial cup on the throne symbolizes the voluntary sacrifice of the Son, and interpreted the gestures of the angels accordingly. They also found that the interaction of the depicted angels (through their poses and gestures) speaks of the love that binds the Persons into Unity. All these and other considerations of this type are certainly interesting, they attempt to understand the life of God in Himself, but they are not directly related to the issue that is being discussed here: the problem of the completeness of the transmission of the Trinity dogma in icons. Concluding the analysis of Rublev's "Trinity", I would like to especially emphasize that, starting from the Old Testament story about Abraham's meeting with God, Rublev deliberately eliminated from the icon everything everyday and secular and gave an amazing image of the heavenly world. This is probably what Father Pavel Florensky had in mind when he said that the icon shows the Most Holy Trinity, and its relation to Mamvre is already a rudiment.

In the time preceding Rublev, all icons of the Trinity were painted according to a type known as the “Hospitality of Abraham.” Not only the Trinity was depicted here, but also Abraham and Sarah treating dear guests, and sometimes the slaughter of a calf by a youth. This immediately reduced the emerging image, bringing it closer to everyday earthly life - it no longer represented the world above, but the world below, which, however, was visited by God. It should be noted here that compositions depicting the Trinity in the form of three angels existed before Rublev, but the absence of Abraham and Sarah in them is explained quite simply: there was not enough space to depict them. Such compositions are found only on panagia, the bottoms of small vessels, and in other cases when the icon painter was severely limited by the size of the field provided to him. As soon as the size of the sacred image increased, Abraham and Sarah inevitably appeared in the field of view.

The first images of the Old Testament Trinity appeared in the Roman catacombs. Of the later images that have come down to us, we should first of all mention the mosaics of the 5th century (Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome) and the 6th century (San Vitale, Ravenna). What is characteristic of all these works is that here the authors were not too concerned with conveying the Trinity dogma through artistic means; they were more interested in strictly following the text of the Old Testament, which speaks of the appearance of God to Abraham: “And the Lord appeared to him at the oak grove of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood against him" (Gen. 18: 1-2). In full agreement with this text, the Persons of the Trinity are depicted as men, not angels. From the Trinity dogma, one can see here only a weakened transmission of holiness (only halos), trinity and consubstantiality. Specificity and distinction of persons are completely absent, just like inseparability, co-essence, interaction and life-giving origin. Later, and by the 11th century everywhere, Persons are already depicted in the form of angels, which indicates a desire to, as it were, strengthen external signs Their level of holiness: a sacrificial bowl appeared on the table at which Abraham’s guests are sitting, but besides it, other “cutlery” is also shown, as a result of which the scene does not acquire the deepest symbolic meaning as in Rublev’s.

The desire to be closer to the text of the Old Testament leads to the emergence of a specific iconography of the Trinity: the middle angel is depicted as sharply different from the side angels; he clearly stands at a higher level of the hierarchy. Sometimes the halo of this angel is made baptized, i.e. tells the angel the signs of Jesus Christ. Such iconography goes back to the interpretation of God’s appearance to Abraham that was widespread in its time, according to which it was not the three Persons of the Trinity that appeared to him, but Christ, accompanied by two angels. The Old Testament text provides the basis for such an interpretation, but then what is depicted is no longer the Trinity (although the corresponding inscription claims this), since here, perhaps, the main thing in the dogmatic teaching about the Trinity - consubstantiality - is clearly violated. Some icon painters, realizing the inadmissibility of departing from the dogmatic doctrine of consubstantiality, make the halos of all three angels baptized, although such a halo is appropriate only when depicting Christ and is completely excluded when depicting the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Over the centuries, the completeness of the transmission of the Trinity dogma, achieved by the 11th century, remains almost unchanged. Only minor enhancements can be noted. The angels begin to interact more intensively, the Mamvrian oak is now depicted conditionally, not as “realistically” as on the Ravenna mosaic, and can be interpreted as tree of life(although in many cases he is not depicted at all). This suggests that icon painters understand the need to depict not only Abraham’s hospitality, but also to convey the dogmatic teaching of the Trinity. It would be possible to consider from this point of view numerous icons of the Trinity of the 11th-14th centuries and for each of them formulate the degree of completeness of the transmission of the Trinity dogma, following the methodology used above for the analysis of Rublev’s “Trinity”. However, such an analysis, useful when studying any individual icon, is of little use when referring to a large array of icons. The fact is that the average statistical conclusion that such an analysis would lead to would only indicate that the level of compliance with dogma in these icons is always lower than that of Rublev.

The appearance of Rublev's "Trinity" in the 15th century was not the result of gradual development, it was a leap, something explosive. With amazing courage, the artist completely excludes scenes of hospitality and removes everything from the background. The table is no longer set with “cutlery” according to the number of people eating - this is no longer a joint meal that can unite members of a single fellowship, but the Eucharist, which unites not into fellowship, but into the Church. Rublev manages to make the person contemplating the icon sees complete trinitarian dogma. In pre-Rubble times, icons, relatively speaking, had to have a commentator who would explain and supplement what was depicted, since their content from the point of view of the embodiment of dogma was always incomplete. Here, for the first time, such a commentator turned out to be unnecessary. It is not surprising that immediately after the appearance of the “Trinity”, Rublev’s iconography - with one or another variant - began to quickly spread in Russia.

The further development of the iconography of the Trinity, in which icon painters tried to “improve” what Rublev had achieved, only confirmed the obvious: if the maximum has been achieved in some matter, then any deviation from it, no matter in which direction it is made, will mean deterioration. Surprisingly, the main and widespread “improvements” of Rublev’s iconography primarily concerned the “setting” of the table. Here again some mugs, bowls, jugs and similar objects appear. In this regard, Simon Ushakov’s “Trinity” from the Gatchina Palace (1671) is very characteristic, almost exactly repeating Rublev’s iconography in form and noticeably departing from it in essence. Not only the numerous “cutlery” lowers the high symbolism of Rublev to the level of everyday life, but also tree of life again becomes an oak tree, under whose shade the Trinity sits. Completely conventional chambers, which in Rublev symbolized the house-building of the Holy Trinity, are transformed in Ushakov into a spatial and intricate architectural ensemble of the Italian type. The entire icon becomes an image of a certain everyday scene, but in no way symbol heavenly world.

Another example typical of the 17th century is the Trinity icon from the Trinity Church in Nikitniki in Moscow. Its authors are presumably Yakov Kazanets and Gavrila Kondratyev (mid-17th century). Everything that was said above about Simon Ushakov’s “Trinity” is visible here: a richly served table under the shade of a spreading oak tree, and the architecture of the quaint chambers in the background, but there is also something new: an appeal to the theme of Abraham’s hospitality, i.e. refusal to depict the world above (where Abraham and Sarah are inappropriate) and a return to depicting the world below on the icon. This is characteristic not only of this icon, but also of icon painting in the 16th-17th centuries in general. One can clearly see (especially in the 17th century) a decline in interest in high dogma and an increase in interest in the possibility of a realistic depiction of people's lives. It seems that the icon becomes a reason for creating everyday scenes using pictorial means. Returning to the icon under discussion, it should be noted that it is highly narrative. Here you can see not only the Trinity sitting at the table, but also a whole story about it: first the scene of Abraham’s meeting with the Trinity, then Abraham washing the feet of three angels, then the main semantic center - the meal and, finally, the departure of the Trinity, and Abraham’s farewell to her . Such a narration shows that the Old Testament text is rather a source of imagination for the icon painter. To create such a composition developing over time from a series of almost everyday scenes is much easier than to do what Rublev managed: to exclude time from the icon and thereby give a sense of eternity.

The deviation from dogmatic teaching in the icons of the 17th century is quite consistent with the lowering of the level of theological thought and weakening of holiness noted at that time. The noted evolution thus turns out to be not an accidental phenomenon, but a completely natural consequence of the ongoing secularization of all life in the country. If we return to the discussion of dogmatic completeness in the icons of the Trinity of that time, what is striking is the increase in the number of icons of the New Testament Trinity, which in previous centuries were a rare exception.

Many theologians rightly noted the danger of rationalizing the Trinity dogma, which often led to heretical constructions. The tendency towards rationalization is, as a rule, based on the desire to make this dogma “understandable” and to reconcile it with familiar ideas. The icons of the New Testament Trinity can be interpreted as a kind of rationalization performed by artistic means. Indeed, instead of the symbolic representation of the three Persons in the form of angels, a more “intelligible” form is used. The Second Person of the Trinity is depicted as is customary on all icons of the Savior, the third Person - in the form of a dove (which, strictly speaking, is only appropriate on the “Baptism” icons). This choice of symbol for depicting the Holy Spirit is quite natural: if it is depicted in the form of a tongue of flame (as on the icons of the “Descent of the Holy Spirit”) or in the form of a cloud (as on Mount Tabor), then the problem of composition of the icon would become practically insoluble. As for the First Person - the Father, here he is shown as the “ancient of days”, based on dubious interpretations of the visions of the prophets Isaiah and Daniel. As you can see, in this case too, the attempt at rationalization, the desire for clarity led, in fact, to a kind of “heresy”, to a departure from the provisions of VII Ecumenical Council. This was understood by many, and by the decrees of the Great Moscow Cathedral (1553-1554), icons of this type were actually prohibited. The ban, however, was not enforced, since the number of such icons was already large, and they seemed to be legitimized by church practice. Related issues are discussed in detail in the monograph by L.A. Uspensky.

In all icons of this type, one notices a departure from the dogmatic doctrine of the consubstantiality of Persons (or at least its unacceptable weakening). If we can talk about the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son depicted on the icon, since both are represented in the form of people, then there can be no talk about the consubstantiality of man and dove. Here again, next to the icon, it is necessary to place a commentator explaining that the Holy Spirit, nevertheless, is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Compared to the icons of the Old Testament Trinity, in which there is consubstantiality visible this is not the case here: the icon painter seems to be demonstrating his inability to convey through pictorial means the most important position of the dogmatic doctrine of the Trinity.

Icons of the New Testament Trinity are usually painted in two types, which are known as “Co-throne” and “Fatherland”. In the icons of the first type, the Father and Son are depicted sitting side by side on a co-throne, and the Holy Spirit is depicted as a dove hovering in the air between them, just above their heads. Since the New Testament Trinity is radically different from those discussed earlier, let us repeat its analysis for compliance with the need for complete expression of the dogmatic doctrine of the Trinity formulated above, bearing in mind the “Co-throne” option.

Trinity shown here, as before, in the form of a joint image of three Persons on one icon. As for the ban on the inscriptions of halos, now it is meaningless, because Persons are depicted in different ways, and besides, as a rule, they have different halos: Christ is baptized, the Father is eight-pointed, the Holy Spirit is ordinary. But the trinity, albeit not as perfectly as before, is shown.

Transfer the most important position trinitarian dogma - consubstantiality- it turns out to be impossible to implement, as was already mentioned above. The same can be said about inseparability . In Rublev, to make this quality clear, the unifying symbolism of the Eucharist was used, but here nothing (except, of course, a conditional commentator) prevents the Persons from “dispersing” in different directions, each according to their own affairs. Coexistence is a quality associated with time, with eternity. It was shown above how subtly and skillfully Rublev managed to convey this eternity, using various indirect methods. There is nothing like it here. Moreover, the icons of the New Testament Trinity provide grounds for denying it. By showing the Father as an old man and the Son as a younger man, the icon gives the right to assume that there was a time when the Father already existed and the Son did not yet exist, which contradicts the Creed. Here again a conditional commentator is needed to deny the absence of co-essence of Persons in the icon. For the icons of the Old Testament Trinity, such a comment is not required - the angels are always depicted as “of the same age.” Specificity The faces are very strongly expressed - they all have a completely different appearance. It can even be argued that this specificity is shown too emphatically, to the detriment of consubstantiality. The icon painter is not able to do what Rublev managed - to show both at the same time. Interaction The faces are depicted, as in Rublev, but weakened - in the form of a conversation between the Father and the Son, in which the Holy Spirit (dove), of course, cannot take part. The holiness of faces is expressed through halos, vitality - has not been identified at all.

If we turn to another version of the New Testament Trinity - “Fatherland”, then almost everything said remains valid here. In icons of this type, the Father seems to be holding on his knees (or in his bosom?) the Son, who is now presented as Christ the Youth (Savior Emannuil). This further enhances the undesirable appearance of the difference in their “ages”, which was mentioned above. Such iconography also tries to convey the indescribable - the birth of the Son from the Father. Perhaps this is just what the interaction of the first two Persons shown here comes down to. The Holy Spirit no longer hovers above, but is visible on a large medallion held in the hands of the Son, and, of course, again in the form of a dove.

As follows from what has been said, the completeness of expression of the Trinity dogma in the icons of the New Testament Trinity is very small, even if we compare them with the “Trinity” not of Rublev, but with the entire totality of icons of the Old Testament Trinity. As for the “Fatherland” icons, here one can see not only an insufficiently complete transmission of dogmatic teaching, but even a distortion of it. As already noted, the composition of the icon speaks of the desire to show the indescribable - the birth of the Son from the Father; but this is not enough; the icon also attempts to show the procession of the Holy Spirit. The medallion with the Holy Spirit - a dove - is held in the hands of the Son, and he himself is held by the Father, and this indicates that the icon is closer to the Creed distorted by Catholics, according to which the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, than to the Orthodox Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father.

Summing up the analysis of various icons of the Trinity from the point of view of the transmission of the Trinity dogma in them, we can state that in different periods the completeness of this transmission was also different. Initially, it intensified; over time, icon painters strove for an ever more complete expression of the dogma, reaching its greatest completeness in Rublev. Then interest in dogmatic teaching begins to weaken, the icons are getting closer and closer to illustrations of texts Holy Scripture, and their theological depth decreases accordingly. Even icons of the New Testament Trinity appear, in which the dogmatic side is of little interest to the icon painter. He now strives to make the icon “more intelligible”, allowing himself what clerk Viskovaty called “self-thinking” and “Latin wisdom.” All this speaks of the decline of church consciousness in the 17th century, however, this is another topic.

The main dogma of Christianity is the doctrine of three persons of one essentially God, who are the Holy Trinity. These three hypostases contained in Him - the Son and God the Holy Spirit - are not merged with each other and are inseparable. Each of them is a manifestation of one of its essences. The Holy Church teaches about the complete unity of the Trinity, which creates the world, provides for it and sanctifies it.

The table decoration also attracts attention. If in Rublev it is limited to only one bowl with the head of a calf, which is also full of symbolic meaning and directs the viewer’s thoughts to reflect on the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God, then in this case the painter emphasized the rich table setting, combined with the exquisite painting of the chairs. Such an abundance of decorativeness is not typical for an icon.

Trinity of the New Testament

The plot of the icons described above is taken from the Old Testament, which is why they are called the “Old Testament Trinity”. But one cannot ignore the frequently encountered images of the New Testament Trinity - another version of the image of the Divine Trinity. It is based on the words of Jesus Christ quoted in the Gospel of John: “I and the Father are one.” In this plot, the three Divine hypostases are represented by images of God the Father in the form of a gray-haired old man, God the Son, that is, Christ, in the form of a middle-aged man and the Holy Spirit in

Options for depicting the New Testament Trinity

This plot is known in several iconographic versions, differing mainly in the position of the figures depicted in it. The most common of them, the “Co-throne,” represents a frontal image of God the Father and God the Son, seated on thrones or clouds, and a Dove, the Holy Spirit, hovering above them.

Another well-known plot is called “Fatherland”. In it, God the Father is represented seated on a throne with a baby sitting on his lap and holding a sphere in a blue glow. Inside it is placed a symbolic image of the Holy Spirit in the form of a Dove.

Disputes about the possibility of depicting God the Father

There are other iconographic versions of the New Testament Trinity, such as “The Crucifixion in the Bosom of the Father,” “The Eternal Light,” “The Sending of Christ to Earth” and a number of others. However, despite their widespread use, debates about the legality of depicting such subjects have not subsided among theologians for centuries.

Skeptics appeal to the fact that, according to the Gospel, no one has ever seen God the Father, and therefore it is impossible to depict him. In support of their opinion, they mention the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667, the 43rd paragraph of which prohibits the depiction of God the Father, which at one time gave reason for the removal of many icons from use.

Their opponents also base their statements on the Gospel, citing the words of Christ: “He who has seen Me has seen My Father.” One way or another, the New Testament Trinity, despite the controversy, is firmly included in the subjects of icons revered Orthodox Church. By the way, all of the listed versions of the New Testament Trinity appeared in Russian art relatively late. Until the 16th century they were unknown.

12 biblical symbols encrypted in Andrei Rublev's "Trinity"

Improvisation is a risky business: they can even be accused of heresy. However, "Trinity" is a clear example of violation church canons. Instead of the traditional multi-figure scene of a meal in Abraham's house, Andrei Rublev depicted a conversation between three angels about how to save the world. Now the icon is considered a masterpiece, and its author canonized

1 BOWL. This is the center of the composition - a symbol of the suffering of Christ, to which he will go to atone for the sins of mankind (the blood of Jesus crucified on the cross will be collected in the chalice). The contours of the figures of the side angels also form the outline of the bowl.
2 HEAD OF TAURUS. Symbol of the sacrifice of God the Son.
3 GOD THE FATHER. According to the German art critic Ludolf Müller, “The Father, as the “beginning and cause of everything,” as the first among equals, bears the signs of power: in addition to the central position, this purple color clothes and a gold stripe over the right shoulder." Tilting his head towards the left angel, the Holy Spirit, God the Father seems to be asking the question that the prophet Isaiah heard in his revelation: “Whom shall I send? And who will go for Us [to atoning sacrifice]?" At the same time, he brings two fingers to the cup, folded in a sign of blessing.
4 AZURE CLOTHES. A symbol of the unearthly essence of God the Father (as well as the other persons of the Trinity).
5 SCEPTER. A symbol of power (everyone sitting at the table has it).
6 TREE. In traditional iconography, this was the Oak of Mamre, under which Abraham rested. In Rublev, the oak tree turns into the tree of life, which God planted in Eden.
7 GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT. In response to God the Father’s question, the Holy Spirit directs his gaze and raises his right hand towards the angel sitting opposite, that is, towards God the Son. It is both a gesture of blessing and a gesture of command. As Metropolitan Hilarion wrote in his Confession of Faith (11th century), the Holy Spirit wants the Son to follow the path of suffering, and at the same time blesses this path.
8 SCARLET CLOTHES. This is an allusion to the biblical story, when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles in the form of tongues of flame.
9 BUILDING symbolizes the Christian church, called the house of the Holy Spirit.
10 GOD THE SON. His humbly lowered head and gaze directed at the sacrificial cup indicate his readiness to fulfill the assigned mission. The right hand of Christ is already raised to take the cup of suffering. “In the position of his legs,” says culturologist Vadim Lankin, “one can notice a hint of the dynamics of standing up: the cloak is gathered together, and its lower edge rises slightly, tucks up, revealing readiness to stand up and go out into the world.”
11 GREEN HIMATIA(a cape over a tunic) - a symbol of the earthly world where Christ will descend. The combination of azure and green in the clothes of God the Son symbolizes his dual nature: divine and human.
12 MOUNTAIN. This is a symbol of the redemption of the fallen world, a prototype of Golgotha, which Jesus is destined to ascend.

In the Old Testament there is a story about how the forefather Abraham received the Lord. In the midday heat, ninety-nine-year-old Abraham sat near his tent under the greenery of the Mamre oak grove. Suddenly he saw three travelers, whom he quickly recognized as the Almighty and two angels. The owner invited the wanderers to rest and refresh themselves. The servants washed the guests' feet, and Abraham's wife Sarah baked bread. The owner of the house himself chose the best calf and ordered it to be slaughtered. At the meal, the Lord predicted to Abraham that in a year he would have a son, from whom the Jewish people would come - “great and strong.”
In Christianity, this plot, called “Hospitality of Abraham,” was interpreted somewhat differently: not only the Lord Yahweh (Judaism does not know a trinitarian deity) appeared to Abraham, accompanied by two companions, but the entire Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit , - and not in the form of wanderers, but in the form of angels. Therefore, Christians also call the meal in the house of Abraham the “Old Testament Trinity.”

This plot was very popular among medieval icon painters: three angels, figures of Abraham and Sarah, a set table, a servant cutting a calf - in general, an illustration of the biblical text. At the beginning of the 15th century, Andrei Rublev also turned to the topic: he was asked to paint an image for the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery (the icon is currently kept in the Tretyakov Gallery). However, something completely special came out of the brush.
Rublev abandoned the depiction of everyday details and focused on the figures of angels, personifying the three divine faces. The artist depicted them talking: the world is mired in evil, who will we send to suffer in order to atone for human sins? This question is asked by the central angel (God the Father) to the left angel (the Holy Spirit). “I will go,” answers the right angel, Christ. This is how the scene of blessing for the atoning sacrifice for the sake of people unfolds before our eyes. St. Petersburg art historian Vladimir Frolov is sure that this is how Rublev wanted to reveal the eternal law of the universe - the sacrifice of divine love. “The lack of additional details,” says the scientist, “reveals the intention and does not allow one to be distracted by the plot of the biblical event.”