The Sánchez Archives TRINITY SUNDAY YEAR A

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

A TRIAD COMMUNICATION

EXODUS 34:4-6, 8-9
2 CORINTHIANS 13:11-13
JOHN 3:16-18

Although the mystery of the Trinity is central to Christian faith and theology, it remains one of the most difficult doctrines to explain. Perhaps because even the most scholarly treatises can only help the believer to approach the mystery and because even the most erudite analyses can only approximate the profound reality of a Trinitarian God, some have resorted to pictorial representations of this most sacred truth.

The earliest known representation of the Trinity is preserved on the “Dogmatic Sarcophagus”, an art work from the mid-fourth century C.E. which can now be seen in the Lateran Museum in Rome. The three persons of the Trinity are portrayed as three bearded males, in the act of creating Eve while Adam lies nearby in a deep sleep.

Paintings from the early tenth century C.E. depict the popular legend that Patrick, apostle to Ireland (ca 389 C.E.- ca. 461 C.E.), used a shamrock in order to teach the Trinity to those he proselytized.

A tenth century artist rendered the Trinity as three virtually identical figures, each wearing a cruciform nimbus. This work is on display in the Bibliotèque Nationale in Paris whereas another late fifteenth century C.E. painting exhibited in the Louvre Museum in Paris images the Father as an elderly figure, the Son as the risen Christ, emerging from the tomb, with the Spirit being breathed forth from their lips as a dove.

Rarely represented in North American folk art, the triune persons of the One God were depicted by David Bixler (1828 C.E.) as present and active in the heart of a pious person.

In 1425 C.E., Andrew Rublev, a Russian monk painted an icon of the Trinity in which three angelic figures are seated around a small table, engaged in intimate conversation. On the table is a chalice, in the background is a tree. The trio of figures and the tree are reminiscent of the visit which angelic messengers paid to Sarah and Abraham at the Oak of Mamre. As they enjoyed the generous welcome of Sarah and Abraham, the messengers announced the unexpected birth of Isaac (Genesis 18) whom Abraham would later be willing to sacrifice if God willed it (Genesis 22). From his knowledge of iconography, Henri Nouwen has suggested that Rublev intended this angelic appearance to prefigure the divine visitation by which God sends the unexpected gift of his son, who sacrifices himself for sin and gives new life through the Spirit.

Rublev wished that his icon would offer his fellow monks a way to keep their hearts centered on God, Father , Son and Spirit, despite the chaotic world of political unrest in which they lived. He wished that those who contemplated his icon would hear its gentle invitation to join the Holy Trio in their intimate conversation and to recognize that “the movement from the Father toward the Son and the movement of both Son and Spirit toward the Father becomes a movement in which the one who prays is lifted up and held secure.” (Henri Nouwen, Behold the Beauty of the Lord, Praying With Jesus, Ave Maria Press, Notre Dame, Indiana: 1988).

Underlying each of these pictorial renderings of the Trinity is one common factor: the human experience of the mystery of God who has chosen to reveal himself as triune. As Karl Rahner explained, the history of the revelation of God’s saving plan puts us in touch, as it were, with the ineffable mystery of the unoriginated God who is called Father, who does not remain in metaphysical remoteness but who seeks to impart himself to us as eternal life and truth. This one and incomprehensible God is unsurpassingly close to humankind historically in Jesus Christ, who is not simply one prophet in a still continuing series of prophets, but the final and unsurpassable self-promise of this one God in flesh and blood, time and space. And this one and same God imparts himself to us in the innermost center of human existence as Holy Spirit for salvation and for the consummation which is God himself.

Without the continuing experience of Father, Son and Spirit in salvation history, humankind would be incapable of conceiving of the mystery which is Trinity. Therefore, this gathered assembly is privileged today, not only in commemorating a doctrine, but in celebrating a communion of Persons who have loved us into being, redeemed us from ourselves and who call us each day to fuller experience, deeper knowledge, and closer union.

EXODUS 34:4-6, 8-9

Marwa Kisare, the first Mennonite bishop of the Luo tribe of Tanzania described his original consciousness of God in this way: “I am five or six years old, sitting outside Mother’s house. The morning is clear, cool; my black skin is soaking in the sun’s early warmth. . . I muse, How has this come about? How is it that I sit here feeling the warmth of the sun? How did I, Marwa come to be a human being? . . . The answer comes as an epiphany. If God would not have been, then I, Marwa, would not have been. . . it came to me that morning that God, in fact, was my reason for being, that beyond village activity and relationships, there was one power in whom all things and all events had their beginning and purpose. . . Nyasay Niakalaga” (David Friend et al. Editor, More Reflections on the Meaning of Life, Little Brown and Company, Boston: 1992) Nyasay Niakalaga is the Luo name for God; it means Creator, Originator, the Source.”

In later correspondence, Kisare attributed this early epiphany and other subsequent ones to the fact that God, who is infinitely beyond the scope of human knowledge and imagining had taken the initiative in choosing to make himself known, and to call Kisare to respond to his invitation to union with him. Throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, this same pattern of communicating is repeated again and again. Reginald Fuller, who has described this pattern as triadic, suggests that today’s excerpted reading from Exodus be understood in that light. “In revelation, whether the revelation of Sinai, or the revelation in the Christ event, the transcendent deity goes forth out of the depths of his own being, in self-communication. He also creates the response to his revelation.” (Preaching the New Lectionary, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville: 1974).

This triadic pattern of communion between Yahweh and Moses can be better appreciated if the reader is aware of its context within the Sinai experience. Exodus 34 is actually the culmination of a dialog which began to unfold much earlier in the book. Having revealed himself to his people as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (3:6) to whom he had made promises of progeny, prosperity and a land of their own, Yahweh also made it known that he knew of the sufferings of his people and would fulfill those ancient pledges. Promising to be ever present (3:12) to his people, he also expressed his desire to lead them to freedom. After revealing himself as “I AM” (3:15), God invited Moses and the Israelites to identify themselves as his own people, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation (19:5,6) and to live in a manner illustrative of their relationship with him. To sustain and preserve their ongoing communion, God gave Israel wise counsel and guidance in the form of the commandments (20:1-17). Israel breached the terms of its covenant with Yahweh (32:1-10); nevertheless, despite the fact that his people had negated his overtures of love and care, God revealed himself as willing to renew the dialog with them and reinstated them in right relationship to himself. It is at this point and against this background that today’s first reading should be considered.

When he first came down from his mountaintop communion with God and discovered Israel’s infidelity, Moses smashed the tablets of the law (32:19). Upon consultation with Yahweh in the tent of meeting and after reminding him of his professed commitment to his people (33:9, 12-13), Moses also requested that God reveal his glory to him (33:18). God’s willingness to restore the dialog with Israel and to communicate himself to them is made poignantly clear by the Yahwist author (earliest of four recognized sources or traditions in Pentateuch).

New tablets were inscribed with the terms of the covenant, viz. the commandments; what Israel had broken, God would heal and forgive. Then in response to Moses’ request to see his glory and thereby to know him more fully, God pronounced his name, i.e. he communicated himself in the essence of his being as Lord, as Graciousness, Mercy, Kindness, Fidelity and Slow to Anger. Centuries later, these essential attributes of God would be spoken in an even more radical fashion, through the incarnation of the Word of God in Jesus.

2 CORINTHIANS 13:11-13

Had the Corinthian community not been so colorful and contentious, we might have been deprived of the wealth of theological, Christological and ecclesiological insights which comprise Paul’s correspondence to them. During an eighteen month ministry among the Corinthians, Paul had succeeded in founding a church of Jewish and Gentile Christians; after departing the city for other missions, Paul maintained contact with the Corinthians via letters (he wrote more than two; see 1 Corinthians 5:9-11) and messengers (Stephanus, Fortunatus, Achaicus, Timothy, Titus, Chloe, etc.). Because fractiousness and a variety of other issues continued to threaten the well being and survival of the church in Corinth, Paul’s letters contain valuable teaching and paranesis (persuasive preaching intended to evoke a moral response) on a myriad of vital topics, e.g. Eucharist, resurrection, spiritual gifts and the appropriate exercise of these gifts, freedom of conscience, communal love, the shortfalls of humanist philosophies, unity and diversity, etc. In his commentary on Corinthians, Kevin Quast remarked, “The difficulties Paul faced in Corinth have proved to be a blessing for the church of Christ everywhere in every generation. . . his responses to the pastoral challenges have guided countless Christian leaders and congregations through their own crises.” (Reading the Corinthian Correspondence, Paulist Press, New York: 1994).

Obviously, this Pauline excerpt was selected for today’s liturgy because it includes a blessing which names the divine trinity of persons, viz. God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. Although trinitarian theology per se would not be defined for a few centuries, Paul’s benediction represents a seminal understanding of this mystery.

Forming the conclusion of what is known as Paul’s second letter to Corinth, these verses offer some measure of relief after a lengthy section of warning and chastisement (2 Cor. 10:1-13:10). Paul took the Corinthians to task for: their lack of confidence in his leadership (2 Corinthians 10:7); comparing his style of oratory to others (11:7); suspecting him of fraudulently collecting money from them (11:16-18); ascribing to “super apostles” and a gospel other than what he had preached among them (11:5, 12:11); losing their initial fervor for Christ (11:2-3) and questioning his authority (11:16-12:13). Accusing them of being unrepentant, of quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit and disorder (12:10), Paul warned the Corinthians that, on his next visit he would not be lenient (12:14, 13:2). Rather, he would take whatever measures were necessary to help them to become perfect (13:9) and do what is right (13:7).

Only at this point did Paul soften his message with a concluding word of encouragement and love which continues to speak to all his readers who may find a little of the Corinthian within themselves. Those who are willing to mend their ways can be sure of the saving graces of Jesus Christ, the ever present love of God and the abiding fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

JOHN 3:16-18

When Aristides, the second century C.E. Athenian philosopher wrote to Emperor Hadrian (117-138 C.E.) he described the early believers in Jesus in this way: “They love one another. They never fail to help widows; they save orphans from those who would hurt them. If they have something, they give freely to the person who has nothing; if they see a stranger, they take him home, and are happy, as though he were a real brother. They don’t consider themselves brothers in the usual sense, but brothers instead, through the Spirit, in God.” Elsewhere in his Apology for the Christian Faith, this so-called “pagan-Christian apologist described Christianity as a ”new nation who alone has a true idea of God who is the creator of all things in his only begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit.” He also insisted that it was due to the supplications of Christians that God continued the world in existence. What Aristides did not include in his writings was the fact that every good and loving action performed by Christians had its origin in God, the very source of love and goodness. So also, the idea that Christians could have a true idea of God was rooted in the fact that God had taken the initiative in revealing himself and in communicating himself to the world in Jesus Christ. Whereas Aristides looked in admiration at believers in Jesus, the fourth evangelist, in this pericope would have us turn our attention at the raison d’être of Christian existence, viz. God himself.

An excerpt from the discourse in which the evangelist explained the significance of Nicodemus’ encounter with Jesus, this short text encapsulates the very essence of the good news. First these words underscore the truth that the initiative of all salvation lies in God: “He gave his only Son.” Second, these lines bear witness to God’s motivation for all his salvific actions, viz. love: “God so loved”. Third, John made it clear that the scope of God’s loving, saving initiative was universal; God so loved the world”. . . Fourth, this distillation of the good news outlined the purpose of the Son’s mission; God did not send the Son. . . to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him and may enjoy eternal life. Included also herein is the only request made of those who have been gifted by the Father’s love and the Son’s saving mission --“to believe” in God and “to believe in the name of God’s only Son.” To do otherwise is tantamount to choosing condemnation.

There is no doubt that the saving self-communication of God to the world in Jesus was an act of purest love, for as Paul pointed out in his letter to the Romans, no one can claim to be worthy or deserving of such an action. ”But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. . . while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son (5:8, 10). Nevertheless, as the fourth evangelist affirmed, even “sinners” and “enemies” are challenged to respond to God’s loving gift. It is this response, in faith, which will determine if that gift will be enjoyed as a saving grace or as a judgment of condemnation. As Stanley B. Marrow has noted, “Whether it is one or the other depends on the free response of the recipient, not on the caprice of the giver.” (The Gospel of John, Paulist Press, New York: 1995). Notice that the Johannine focus on realized eschatology is evident in his assertion that those who refuse to believe are already condemned by their own volition and those who choose to believe have eternal life.

In the trinitarian experience which is Christian existence, a loving God sends forth his Son to save sinners. By the power of the abiding Spirit, believing sinners continue to know both the saving power of the Son and the loving grace of the Father and to share with them, and in them, the present joy and future promise of eternal life.

[NOTE TO USERS: This archive is available for use without charge, but it remains the property of the author and under copyright with Celebrations Publications. Users are permitted to print individual Sunday commentaries for pastoral use, but are prohibited from downloading or copying files or printing any portion of this for sale or distribution.]