Perichoresis

Under the shade of old terebinths, he sat quietly doing all he could to avoid the heat of the afternoon sun. Worn and tired shoulders ached from the early work of the day, calloused hands from digging and moving stone wiped sweat from his brow, fingers brushing back hair and combing through his beard. Not years of toil, but years of work and many miles shone on his body. Hearing his wife in the tent behind him, he breathed in deep and began to read the paths outlining the surrounding slopes and valleys. Her voice, tuned by time and refined by quiet patience, streamed from her and filled the tent. He noticed that youth was fading from his son’s face as he was leading a small flock of sheep to water with as much skill and attention as a young man. He felt his wife’s eyes resting on him. Her humming had paused, he looked east, back into the tent only to see his wife begin busying herself once again and resume her song. Though his heart was troubled, he was at peace as he resumed his study, surveying the pastures, his flocks and all he had.

Rays of light broke through the rustling leaves as they swayed together in scattered groups, all in a sort of rough but beautiful unison being held, hand in hand, by the motion of the wind. Even on the hilltop where he sat the wind was not obtrusive as it gently moved in from the east. An attentive ear would hear it but without mindful listening the wind would pass by without a word. The laughter of his son drifted by, keeping time at a different cadence than his wife’s song. The sweet smell of leaves and grass was carried across the breeze as it passed through those branches overhead. The ancient trees grew strong on that hill, fed through roots reaching deep underground into wells of fresh water. He gazed east, past the tent, face cooling in the breeze, seeing in the distance where his nephew had settled. Light glinted in his eyes, and he blinked.

Turning west, hand shading his eyes, he saw someone approaching, just cresting over the nearest ridge. He had not seen them the moment before. Brushing aside the mantle that had been settling on his tired bones and wrapping his aged and aching muscles, his heart was glad for company. Rising and letting his wife know to expect company, he set off. Meeting them he bowed down at their feet. It was not one man, but three. He said, “ א̶̶̵ֲ̢̛̞͍̫̗̝̠͕̳̣͇͈̮̈́ͨͧͫ͊ͫ̑ͭ̃ͬ́ͪͥ͆́̀ͤ̈́̍̾̕̕͟͞_̵̶̛̫͙̘̬͇̗͎̖̳̌ͣ͐ͩ̈́̅́͛ͥ̊͢͝͡͞ד̷̵ֹ̢̼̩̺̬̣̻̹̤̹̦͖͎̭͆͋̂͐͌͐ͣ̔͋͑͗͛̄̊ͬͮ͢ͅͅנ̸ָ̧̫̗̱̦̦̟̳͎̝̱̙̯̠̻͕̙͖́ͦͧ͆̋̾̽̿͌ͬ̐̾ͩ́̆ͤ́̃̇ͨ̓ͪ͒͑ͯ͐̄̀ͮ̈̄̾̇̍͋ͤͯ͘͘͟͜͟͞͞ͅͅי̱ͨ̏͠, if I have been found favorable to you, please, do not pass me by. May I welcome you to our tent? Water will be fetched, and I will wash your feet as you refresh yourself from your travels under the trees here. We will fetch a bit of bread for you to be comforted. Please, come with me, your servant, then continue your journey.”

With haste he returned to his tent, “My princess, my wife! Quickly make some fresh bread for we indeed have company. I will go with my son to get a calf prepared and water brought. They will surely be here soon!” He then called for his son to join him as they prepared. They made their way to the cattle pasture. In the distance they saw women bringing water the boy slowed, scanning their faces as they climbed the hill. “Your mother is out in the fields today” the father said, “perhaps we will have time to get her before our company leaves.” The son kept a slower pace as they continued.

Reaching the pasture, they selected the best calf and brought it to a young man to have it prepared. In good time everything was brought together. Bringing butter, milk and the prepared calf to the hilltop where his company was seated below the ancient trees, he set the meal before them. He paused for the first time since seeing them coming over the ridge and waited attentively.

Looking over his shoulder toward his tent, lit with warm candlelight, he answered, “she is in the tent, here with us.” Turning back to the table he saw fresh bread and wine glasses set out for four which had not been there a moment before. A memory from decades earlier flashed in his mind.

“In a year I will visit again,” they said, “and your queen will have a son.”

At this the boy felt his cheeks flush, and ears warm. The boy's father looked to him, then toward the tent. There, in the tent, his queen laughed to herself, too quietly to be heard. “Have they seen me; read the lines on my face? Surely, I have passed my time for motherhood” she thought.

They said, “Why did she laugh? Why is she wondering if the joy of motherhood has passed over her? Is anything too difficult for א̛̙͔̫̹̏͛̂̆͑ͅ_̴ֲ̢̱̩͒̂ͧ̀ͭ̔͋͑̂ͦ̍̋͂̚̕͞_̨̧͍̟̖̖̼̣͙̫̅̋̾͗̈́̆̌̾̃̊̿̚͢ד̵ֹ̩̱̥̩̺̩͓̼̼͓̜̰ͤ̽ͯ͆͌̐̊̊ͪ́̈̆ͣ̚͘͘͡͞נ̴̧͇̙͓͈̙̪͕̩͋͗͊̽ͣ̈́͡_̴ָ̳̝̝̯̻̥̳̙͕̻͉̙̜͇̲͚̂̎̔̑̒̂̿͌̽͊̌̒ͤ̒ͪ̇̏̉͆͂̓̽̔́̓̚̕̚͝_̪͌י̴̗͙͔̞̩̫̼ͯ͂ͬ̎̉͗͊͜͝͞? I will return in one year, and she will have a son.”

Stepping into the opening of the tent, she denied it, “I did not laugh.” Her words came out despite her fear. She wondered how they could have perceived her thoughts or heard her laughter. “Is my heart rolled out before them as a scroll?” she asked herself.

“You did,” they said. From the tent entrance she saw them at the table. Her eyes began to adjust to the night. She saw all eyes on one, heads slightly bowed. Above one, seemingly cloaked in blue and wrapped with red, she saw the branches of the great tree hanging, as if pressing down their ancient weight. The other, similarly in green, was surrounded by freshly blossomed flowers. A breath of air blew into the tent, cooling her burning heart, causing her eyes to well up with tears. She was no longer embarrassed for being exposed before their company. It was not the light from the tent that illuminated the gathering, or any candles at the table. It was not the moon and the stars overhead; it was not the fire smoldering some distance beside them. Their faces provided light, illuminating the bread and wine that remained on the table, her husband and the son.

As one the company rose. In unison they began taking steps beyond the tent, looking east. Leaving his wife and his son, he walked closely beside them. His heart swelled from hearing what they said about his wife. In his mind he turned over thought after thought. Lifting his eyes up to the night sky as they walked, he remembered the pull he felt long ago, deciding to chase an unmistakable echo from afar. He remembered the thick smell of smoke rising from an oven with torchlight beside it, illuminating the surrounding valley. He remembered names given and a covenant made though flesh and blood, his effort to reconcile himself with the one he assaulted, the one he betrayed and the one he had not trusted.

"Perichoresis? What is that?" is maybe, hopefully, potentially, the question you, the reader, may be asking yourself right now. Well, you are in luck! Perichoresis, as I encounter it, is a theological term. Specifically, a Christian Trinitarian theology term used to express the mystical sharing of essential substance, while maintaining distinct personness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The literal translation comes to be something like "going around together," or something. A way people have come to talk about perichoresis is to think of it like a dance.

Hi, that is me. I am Andrew Danglis. I wrote this piece, likely spending way too long perseverating on word choices or descriptions...or anything authors spend time on.

See, reader, this here was one of the first points I struggled over. "Terebinths," in a specific context, the kind of context I am usually in, is a key word that will tell people automatically what this story is a retelling of. But this is not my usual context, and I really do not know how you will consider this specific word. I considered "oaks" or just plain "trees" but, obviously I decided against it. For now, at least. My hope is that with "terebinths" you will maybe catch that I am doing...something...here but not know what it is quite yet. And if you do know right away just because of the title of the piece, then, way to go! Have you thought about going to some sort of further religious education?

To some degree I wanted to keep a dynamic between these characters, well, any characters, physical body, their mind/thoughts, and their heart/feelings. Getting this detail early was my attempt to get that hook set. Body, mind, heart. You can judge how I did. I think I did alright.

Again, my reader, this is another detail to put you on the scent of what this story is if you do not know already. But if you do know already this is a little character detail that will make you feel smart for recognizing. I know I have not set up any time frame for when this piece takes place in terms of the year, so, hopefully it is just a detail for most people reading this, you included.

"Toil," huh? You may be asking, "Really, Andrew," (you can call me Andrew, or Andy, or author, any are fine), "you are making a fuss about 'toil'?" And yes! This was one of the stickiest things for me, alongside the son and mother that you will be reading about in a bit. I originally included a mention that the work had a "good return" and "reward”, but I felt that it was not recognizing or engaging with the troublesome aspects of the main character and how his wealth was acquired. So, I got rid of that, but still wanted to make sure it was clear that they had been profitable in life. Without going so far as using terms like "blessed," which, depending on who you are, you may want me to call this person "blessed," I decided to just ensure that it was not "toilsome" work. And, for me, "toil" is a word that carries a bunch of connotations with it that felt like another very subtle textual element to keep the story feeling Biblical.

I was a little too excited about this late addition of a detail. Reader, if you know who this guy is you may feel like I am beating you over the head with reinforcing these details, but, I don't know where you are coming from, so maybe, perhaps just as if not more likely you could be thinking "Andrew, what is your deal with these details you think are interestesing or important!"

Just noting that, yes, this was an intentional reference to the physical, his body.

Here we have one of the senses being drawn in. I specifically liked "hearing" as it starts pulling a tiny bit toward "dialog," hearing and responding. The interplay between two parties. While most of the actual story takes place through dialog, I still would have liked to include a touch more about this theme in a more explicit way. Maybe it is too explicit as it is?

Reader, I know I am asking a bit of you, but please, give me some grace in tracking all the "he," "him," "his" I must juggle here. No, I am not going to give you the character's name at any point in the story. None of the characters. It was all in my effort to defamiliarize the narrative, and since I made that bed, I need to lie in it. And so do you, unfortunately, so please get comfortable.

I was so glad when I changed this to "read" from "gazing around"! If you've not caught on, dear reader, this is hitting on exactly the kind of theme this piece is trying to engage with, while still being a decent narrative on it's own. In one of my many passes over the text I was trying to find places to drop these kinds of nuggets. This mention and then the other reading mention involving the company reading toward the end are the additions I made that I was most pleased with.

The wife is the one voiced woman in this narrative, so I really wanted to consider how I could ensure she has some sense of agency, at least in so far as the story I am basing this on permits. Having her only known as "his wife" does not feel great, so she does have a nickname that she is refered to as, which is more than the others. Maybe that counts for something? I'm trying here!

Astute reader, I do hope you picked up on the intentional music reference. Perichoresis as a dance, needing music, and here we have the wife providing some humming in the background. While this character is not traditionally identified by song or singing, it felt like it worked well enough for me, and I was able to include the trait of being patient, and older.

This was a detail I was glad to squeeze in. It is a very subtle reference for people like me to enjoy. While I do not explicitly state it, you could piece together that the tent is on the east side of the scene, opening to the west.

I had an extra line here that I got rid of. It was a line about the song this woman is humming, but I just could not get it to sit right with me, so I got rid of it. I thought I could use it to provide more detail about the husband and wife, their history, how they acquired their goods, but I could not work out a phrasing that expressed the severity of their actions, without outright stating them, and not doing that felt like I was excusing them. Which, I guess, by not having the details in at all I am excusing them in a way?

I'll be honest with you: I am still not sold on this "no names" gimmick. To this day I am unsure about the choice. I really liked how Bulgakov did it, but even though I started this piece before reading his work, I did not finish it until after, and now I don't want to just seem like I am copying him, so, no names it is!

Reader, did you catch that little detail? I'll reiterate it for you in case you did not notice. I went right form talking about "his wife" to "his son." I did not go from "his wife" to "their son." A nice little detail to catch, but even if you did not it becomes explicitly clear in a bit.

Again, I'll be honest with you, this little bit felt forced, or something. I needed the son to be doing something for the father to see him so I could easily mention him, but shepherding sheep? I feel like it may be a bit too "on the nose" or something? However, in context it is complimentary to the boy, his skills and his role in the family, despite him not being the son of the wife, which I really appreciated.

This is a detail that I have often overlooked when reading the narrative, I am basing this on, which is why I felt compelled to include it in here. This son has his moment and then does not really get mentioned too much again within this context. Remembering that this son would have been thirteen or fourteen at this point in the narrative, for me, provides an interesting point of tension that could be easily ignored.

I asked for your grace earlier, I don't know if you heard me or not, but I understand that all this "he," "his," "him" stuff can be a bit to juggle. It was a challenge figuring out how to keep it straight while writing too. But, if it was not clear, this "he" is the older man, the father.

Remember: perichoresis is likened to a dance, and here I have that harmony being broken. I felt this was a clear, yet subtle way to reinforce that the son is not hers, and that tension exists there. However, I wanted to be very careful not to cast the son in negative light in any sense.

I mentioned before that the arrangement of this scene was one of my favorite details. The tent is to the east, opening to the west. Reader, if you are wondering why that detail is so dear to me you can look it up. I don't think I'll clarify any further.

As a way to communicate a bit of tension surrounding the son, I felt like this was not very charged, but still effective. But I don't know. I know who these characters are supposed to be, and maybe you don't. Maybe this is just needlessly confusing? I did get to mention the music element again!

Heart. See that? I did it! I landed another "heart" reference. Body, mind and heart. I also wanted to communicate some sort of regret, or acknowledgement from the father about this element surrounding his son.

Sitting on a hilltop in the shade to be protected from the mid-day sun, even with the unspoken issue of his son, there is still peace. Reader, this "peace" was important to me to mention as it felt appropriate, and perhaps even "honorable" to include.

I made my attempt here to again incorporate "reading" language into the narrative. Even though this feels a bit clunky, I think resurfacing the theme was important enough to warrant it.

Reader, thank you for sticking with me and reading this far! Here again I am making an appeal to a sort of dance imagery, which is made more explicit in the next part of the sentence. I wanted to use the scene setting to help push the theme I am going for, and I was really pleased with this sentence.

"Hand in hand," I don't think I can get much clearer with dance language! And, to give it a little extra I mentioned the wind (and will a few more times in this paragraph!) as a subtle reference to the Holy Spirit. I know I have said something like this a few times already, but this is one of the sentences I felt most pleased with in terms of effectively setting the scene while layering on the thematic imagery I am aiming for with the piece.

Wind coming in from the east, are you catching it yet, or is this just too specific to my usual context to even register as a reference?

Here, in personifying the wind, I am again connecting it to the Holy Spirit.

This is also continuing my effort to make mention of aspects of the body, keeping the physical present while making appeals to the heart and mind. The three are working in unison.

I struggled with the phrasing of this line, but felt it landed in a decent place. This detail again attempts to keep musical language and the dance forefront to the story. In this case it is the most explicit reference to the strain between the wife and the son. By having their tunes dissonant in some sense, it is the most clearly stated here.

Yet another reference to the physical senses, I wanted the scent to be "sweet”, so it was notably pleasant.

Circling back to the dancing branches overhead! As an author I have never worked on developing a landscape, or much of a setting, for any piece, so this entire opening was a challenge. I'd like to think I was successful in creating cohesive and potentially too thematically densely packed opening paragraphs.

"Ancient" was just dropped in here to help pull your mind back into the past to help connect what this narrative is a retelling of. If you have not put it together yet.

Ancient trees, oaks, really, growing strong on "that" hill? In a story titled "Perichoresis"? I know I am the author here, but I'd have known what this story was from the title! It isn't some big secret, and if you know what it is, great! And, if you don't, that is great too! I know I said it before, I did want to make this a defamiliarized narrative, so if you are on your toes a bit, I think I have had some measure of success!

Remember up in the first paragraph when I mentioned the man "digging and moving stone"? This is a direct connection back to that detail. This man dug wells. These trees are "planted," in a way, by streams of fresh water to grow and be nourished. As I keep saying, this may be too close to my usual area of reading and interest, but this all could...maybe, should, be setting off sirens in you mind!

Here, again, is the scene: the tent to the east, opening westward. The song of his wife streams out of the tent. Obviously, I am a tiny bit of a nerd, or something, for this kind of thing, but I am still happy about including this detail. I hope you did not find it too overbearing or confusing!

Nothing fancy here, just another physical reference!

...Please, please, please tell me you got it! Well, I know you can't actually "tell" me, but, please, I hope you have an idea who these characters are! An old husband and wife, with flocks and wells, a son that is not from the marital union, a specifically mentiond nephew! I tried as best I could to make it obvious as I could without using names!

This was originally just a throwaway line, but after reading and re-reading this narrative I grew to really appreciate it, and the pivot point it acts as in the narrative. Up until this point everything has been normal, nothing out of the ordinary. And then there was a flash of light, eyes blinking, and suddenly things are different. I even like it as a potential subtle reference to the appearance of the company. Just because I've not patted myself on the back at all for my work here, I'll go ahead and take this chance to do so. I came back to this line and thought "Andrew, that was smarter than you thought!"

I guess I did this more than I thought, but again, the tent is to the east, opening westward. And, really, this is not an important detail for this narrative, but I really like it in the larger context the original story is from.

Another body reference. That is all. No, I don't have a full paragraph for you to read on this one.

This "someone" provided me with the most challenging aspects of this piece. More challenging than the son and the wife, more challenging than navigating the way the man and wife enriched themselves. Even more than the "he," "him" stuff! More than anything else, this "someone" mixed so many issues that I struggled with how to manage. I think I did a decent job with it; with one aspect I feel is a bit forced as an exception.

This detail, with the flash of light earlier really came together for me. I was not sure how I was going to have the company arrive, but this worked out perfectly. A happy accident!

Reader, this is almost certainly one more instance of me being unreasonably excited about a word choice because of the extra connotations it carries. "Mantle" does not strike me as that commonly used of a word, specifically in this kind of context. It is very much a Bible word. Here, having the man brush off his old mantle as he is about to recieve a new one (in some sense) was one of those moments in writing that felt "right." Like I had unlocked some extra depth I had not reached previously

This is the most tired the man is described as. Right at his pivot point in the narrative.

A little phrase, seemingly just a passing comment, but this one is doing a ton of work! See how I included his "heart"? I have mentioned his body and senses many times, but I did not include his heart or feelings as much as I had hoped to be able to. Then, as a clue to who this character and this scene is I mention his excitement to have company. This is a clue to any reader that may not have placed the story yet!

If you missed it before, I mentioned that the "someone" provided me with the most challenges in writing this narrative. Here I take on refing to the "someone" as "company." As you continue to read you will see me make liberal use of "they" and "them" as, in this case, intentionally ambiguous pronouns. I recognize that this exacerbates my tension with using "he" and "him" language thoughout the text, it was very difficult to keep the language clear but not repetitive. You will be the judge of my success.

See? Just look at a few words from here, it just continues and remains a challenge throughout the remainder of this narrative.

I make an earnest effort to be faithful to the source narrative as it was written, not a translation (I do not know the language), but maybe "retelling" of sorts. I obviously have made changes and added details not in the original text, but I try to keep "me" from being too "in" the text. I try maintaining some distance as the author, while providing some color and recontextualization through defamiliarizing the narrative. Here, having our main character bow before the company you may notice how similar this exchange is to the original. I deviate less here than any other part.

Again, utilizing an ambiguous pronoun in this context. Fortunately, "feet" refers to any amount more than one foot!

Here it is. Three persons yet one God. Sharing one substance, yet three distinct persons. Trinitarian theology is tough, I will not pretend to have it figured out. Yet, I did strive to maintain a theologically sound, Orthodox, account of this narrative. This is why the company was so specifically difficult. I did not want to let a word here or there turn this into a heretical narrative that denies an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

As I mentioned earlier, one aspect of how I managed the challenge of the "someone" felt forced, and this is it. In the narrative the man makes a specific name reference here, and, for good or bad, I felt that I needed to keep that. However, without using names, this was my solution. I strongly considered using the name in the original language but felt that it could take from my efforts to defamiliarize the narrative.

"Favor" in this context, for one to "have favor" or view someone as "favorable" seems very specific to the context of the larger original narrative. I kept it not only to remain faithful to the souce, but also because it felt like a clear sign for where the narrative comes from.

"You" is still ambiguous as a pronoun!

Reader, as with most of this section I was bound by my goal of faithfully depicting this scene and not deviating too far from the source. When deciding to take this up as a piece I did not anticipate how difficult I would find it to not bring the narrative over verbatim. Being an "author" of these words and adding "me" to the narrative was not something I was particularly interested in doing, so I avoided it where I felt I could. All that said, reader, just to say that this phrase, "pass me by" is true to the source.

Within the historic and cultural context this detail makes sense and is not confusing or out of place at all, but for us modern readers the idea of washing the feet of people visiting as an act of hospitality does not have a direct point of comparison.

I was glad that this detail was in the original narrative, being able to make the reference back to the tree felt like a good way to keep the tarative tied together considering the time spent developing the setting. And, in this case, I did not have to put too much of "me" into the text!

...And right after being glad I did not have to fuss too much with the narrative, here is where I made an intentional change. I made this a "we" instead of just a statement of the items that can be fetched. As you will see I have the father take his son with him to do this work, which provides some of the largest deviations I make from the original narrative.

"Andrew, I swear, are you really...?" you may be asking, and yes, I really will! This mention of bread is in the original narrative, and I love the inclusion. It fueled my choice to include two elements that may be completely confusing for those less versed in these narratives. Reader, you can be sure I will let you know when those parts come up! Whether I clarify the confusion or not, well. Read ahead.

This language is taken directly from the original narrative. I did try not to put too many words in any characters mouths that were not there. Especially the visitor. I felt very uncomfortable changing anything they said.

Fortunately, this "they" exists in many of the translations of the narrative, so keeping the ambiguous pronoun was easy! I kept this going forward, which simplified how I was going to have them refered to in narration. I still struggled with how the characters would refer to them.

Names are important. Or, they can be imporant, and they are important in the context the narrative comes from. Here I begin to refer to the wife with a nickname, which no other character receives. This was done very intentionally as I do want to have the primary woman character to have special, positive, distinction. This nickname comes directly from thier actual name as well. You will notice it does change a bit at one point, which again was very intentional.

While this bread is from the original text, I was glad to make the mention again. I know, I know. I am aware that it is one of those things that I get excited about that I don't think anyone else cares about. But I like it, and I wrote this story, so you are stuck reading it!

Reader, do you see my challenge? How is the man meant to refer to the essential oneness yet distinct persons of God as expressed in Orthodox Trinitarian theology while trying to quickly tell his wife they have company? This was the best I could do. I think it is clunky, but at least it is not heretical, which is something I did make specific effort avoid. In reading different commentaries on this narrative the language surrounding maintaining an Orthodox Trinitarian understanding was one of the primary areas being discussed. I had to tread carefully!

I am certainly adding this bit to the narrative. This one is all me. I know, on one hand I am continually going on about how I do not want to add too much of "me" to the narrative, and then, on the other hand, here I am specifically incorporating the son throughout the narrative when he is not included in this part of the source narrative at all. Well, in the broader narrative that I am pulling this one scene from, the son is a key element in what happens right before. They are central to the events and are included, by name, just a few sentences before where my narrative begins. I did not find it to be too much of a stretch to then continue with him being involved even though he does not specifically appear in the text I am drawing from. Also, I very intentionally had the man refer to the son as "my son" to continue to establish that this young man is not from their marriage.

Ambiguous pronoun, again! "They" can be singular or plural!

Yes, this is my addition, and it is something I am specifically pointing toward. When I usually engage with the narrative, I had never given much thought to what this son would have been experiencing. I understand I am doing interpretative work here, and, yes, adding myself to the text. I am at least a little uncomfortable about it, but I was careful, and I do not feel I overstep a boundary in my handling of the text.

I am treading very carefully here, choosing my words to not bring up a tension I do not have space in the story to untangle, as it is not a primary theme I wanted to work with, but I did feel I needed to indicate and suggest that tension in some ways. I do not use the term "servant" here for these women, or "slave." Instead, I just state what they are doing, and it is implied that they are in some sort of service for the husband and wife. This hits on the tension I mentioned way up in the first paragraph about how they acquired their flocks. I do not feel like I, in some sense, need to "protect" the people in the narrative. I do want to be clear about the reality they lived. But I did not feel that I could fully engage with this beyond the roundabout, circumspect means I have.

While not elegant, and perhaps not believable, I kept this in for the purpose of being able to set up an explicit reference to the boy's mother.

Because I brought the son into the story and tried to make it clear that he was not the son of the husband and wife, I made this statement here. For those that know who these characters are it would be something they could have put together earlier. If you do not know who they are, well, I'm sorry because I still won’t give you their names!

They will not. I wanted the father to have something "neutral" to say about the mother, and to not completely exclude her from the possibility of joining the company, but that is not where this narrative goes.

This was a clumsy attempt to close out this narrative thread, and to give some voice to the son. With him slowing his pace I attempt to communicate that he is saddened that his mother will not be joining them immediately. I chose not to fuss with this bit too much because the last third of the narrative demanded more time and attention due to its complexities and the changes I had in mind to make there. Even on reflection I do not think I would change this line much.

Hello again. How are you holding up?
Yeah, I know. This is all a bit much.
I don't know if you have seen the other times you had the chance to, I don't know, get some peace and quiet while reading, so I will give you a chance here. Just a quick click on the button below and all this extra noise will go away, and you can read without the distractions.

A minor change, but the original term, "fattened calf," felt a little off for me. Yes, it helps cement the context of the narrative, but this still communicates a similar message while removing a contextual term. I don'tknow. Maybe I should have just kept the original phrasing.

"Servant" is how this is oftened rendered, but again, I wanted to side-step this issue a bit. While "servant" may be accurate to a degree, I am not sure if that is the term we would use today and while I am touching on the marginalized characters here I am not going that far on the theme.

This section of the original narrative, really from when the husband departs to begin getting everything prepared to when they sit down, is very abbreviated and choppy in te original narrative. There is not much attention paid to the interstitial moments which when expanded into a longer narrative can become more of an issue. I struggled with how to get from point to point without adding too much and still being consistent in voice.

I had considered changing these elements a bit, maybe adding honey, or something like that. However, my desire to keep the narrative moving to this next portion took priority, so I kept this essentially similar to the source material.

And here we are. Reader, we have ascended the hill and are back on the top with the trees. Right back to the start.

Ugh, back to this "he" and "his" business again. I tried a few alternatives to mentioning the company, but none of them felt right to me. I tried "the company" and "their company," both as options to clearly make the company belong to the other characters in the narrative as well, but I was not happy with how it read.

And this again, too. Company. I still do not have a better word that is singular yet can refer to a group. Why did I feel so compelled to tackle this narrative? No one made me! This was my choice!

Back to the trees. They really put in a ton of work! One of my favorite parts involving the trees is coming up!

With all the different characters coming together the pronouns became even more tricky. In this case, I am very grateful for "they" and "them" as options!

This is a quick little moment to catch our breath. The caracters get thier first moment to breathe, I was able to take a moment to just pause before this next section. It was needed.

First, I know I have said this about a good number of things, but this time I am serious, I wanted to make the utmost effort in not significantly changing these words. More than any other changes that could be made, or that I did make, this was the area where I moved with the most caution. As God speaking, I certainly did not feel comfortable adapting a narrative and making God say something different in it. I was already dancing carefully around the Trinitarian language, and now it is God speaking? Even now I feel a bit uncomfortable having written these parts.

As noted, I did not want to change the words of God, and here, I do not significantly do so. In the narrative God asks for the mans wife by name, and as I mentioned before, this nickname is directly from the wifes name. I feel it is also important to note that the wife is the one character God calls by name in the narrative. This is true in my retelling and in the original narrative.

Keeping with being grateful for the originial narrative, the use of "they asked" is also lifted from there. While writing I was thinking about how I would work though having three as one speak, but that was solved for me!

Reader, forgive me. I put this detail in just to set up a little moment coming up. The only reason I had the man look from the table is for some confusing touches I could not help but add. The additions are all me too!

This was me. I was going to bed one night while writing this piece and this idea popped into my head, and I could not shake it. I specifically left out any mention of wine at any point in the narrative or bread being brought to the table just to help set this up. "Okay? Way to go, I guess?" may be your thought, and that is fine. I love the detail!

Again, this is all my inclusion. This reference to an earlier event in the man's life is not in the original narrative, and is one of the main reasons I included the mysterious sudden presentation of bread and wine. I am at peace with this element being entirely for me, and my enjoyment. Now, you may be asking "Andrew, you did not want to put words in God's mouth, but actions?" And yes. I know. I think that since this kind of action is ascribed to God in other places, and that it provides this character a second Eucharistically -coded moment it felt admissible. This memory coming to his mind (which is another intentional heart body, mind, heart reference) takes place a decent bit earlier in this person's journey, and in it a different mysterious figure brings a type of Eucharistic meal for them.

I was able to keep the consistent "they" for the speaker, and I kept the identification of "I" from the original text. Again, this was some of the most challenging language to navigate, and it was always easier when the choices were made for me!

Here is the "name change" I mentioned. Going form "princess" to "queen" is meant to point toward who this character is, point toward their own name change they received and continue in my effort to elevate this person in the narrative. But, reader, you may be interested to know that this change does not happen within the original narrative, but earlier. I did move it here, and, in doing do, add words to God in this narrative. Of course, I am going to try to excuse it as, and explain why this case, like the other cases I made changes are justified, that they are within reason because of surrounding textual material. Aside from all that, I liked pointing out in this selected narrative I am retelling the change from being "just" a "princess" to a true "mother of nations."

I think I mentioned it somewhere before, I cannot recall, but this boy is not present in the original narrative at all, and here I have him placed in the inner circle of characters. He is experiencing this moment with his father, hearing about a new son coming that, I assume he would have realized, would take at least some of his place. In all my years reading this narrative I had never put too much thought into how this boy, of thirteen or fourteen, would have felt in this time. This human moment felt powerful to me.

Reader, see, I tried to keep the characters in a group of three. While you were reading my piece you may have put that together or picked it up from my comments. This, I believe, is one of the two most explicit exchanges that connect the three main characters as a trio. During the character introductions I have a moment almost exactly like this. Do you remember? The father is looking at his son, then back to his wife in the tent when she has stopped her humming. Here again we have the father, looking to his son and then to his wife.

The focus in the narrative shifts at this point from the father to the wife. You will see in a bit yet another big departure I take from the original narrative, though I feel mostly justified in that. Of course.

In the original narrative there is less detail filling the space from the original comment about her having a son, and this laugh. By adding the element of the son and father I was concerned that the immediacy of the laughter would be lost, but I think I kept it close.

Again, "they" was a very useful pronoun!

The question of being "seen" by God is full of meaning in the larger context of this person's full narrative, as well as in the broader Biblical narrative. This question is yet another detail I slipped in. The next question too. I know, for all my claims to have been exceedingly careful with handling the text I keep poking and prodding, adding little, yet significant, bits to the narrative at nearly every turn!

Reader, here again I very intentionally include a "reading" reference. I had written this line in a few different ways that did not include the reference, but was not happy with how it landed. Then it suddenly came together in my mind. How could I have missed the easy connection between lines on someone's face from age and reading?

This is the only question she asks at this point in the source narrative. The way she asks it there has a different flavor though, which I intentionally took out and added elsewhere. This woman wanted to be a mother, and wonders if the joy and pleasure of motherhood has passed by her. For the few lines any character has in my retelling I felt like it would have felt a bit too patriarchal for me to have had some of her few words express that. Which, I get, is my editing thoughts or words attributed to her, which is also patriarchal. I'm trying, I really am!

Internal thoughts, I am dealing with the mind again. This being a thought is right from the original narrative, so it was nice that it lined up!

More than any other moment, this is where I felt the clunky pronouns. Reader, I am relying on your grace and understanding to have not been too thrown off by this! The question asked is essentially verbatim. While in the original narrative this question is specifically directed at the husband, here I kept it just as a general question.

Here is where I placed the woman's longing for the "joy" of motherhood. I understand that, first, I did add these words to God, which is something I claimed to not want to do very often, second, I realize that having this statement come from God may make it ultimately patriarchal. God, in this case, is attributing "joy" to the woman's experience of motherhood. And, sure, I see how that can be an issue. However, I ask for you to be charitable and sympathetic toward a reading that would take it as God positively affirming the woman's desire.

In my world, the context I am usually in, this phrase would be yet another one setting off alarm bells, which is why I put it here! This is not natively in the narrative, but as a phrase for someone missing an opprotunity, or excluded from something being "passed over" is very potent and heavy as a keyword to the broader narrative this is part of.

As with the last time I did this treatment, I did not want to remove the personal name reference made, but did not want to include the name. So, sorry, this is what we are stuck with. It is in some sense thematically on point too, where God has a personal name not to be written or pronounced. I am giving a nod to that. This is an instance where I like the idea, I am going for more than the execution of the idea. Maybe you will like it. Really, one of my concerns was if my rendering The Name like this is ultimately less reverential than using the typical alternatives. As a very small practical note: there is a full space in the text before this name, the text treatment on the name just hides it a bit!

Up to this point the wife is being spoken about yet is not a direct part of the conversation. Both in my retelling and the original narrative she does speak, though, as you will see, I have her become more directly involved.

This one change provides me with the opprotunity to make what I consider one of the largest departures from the original narrative, even though it is one of the changes I feel most comfortable with. In the base narrative she responds from the tent, I have her step into the opening so she can be directly engaged in the conversation and, my hope, is to elevate her role in the narrative even more.

The phrasing I used here may feel as though she is more defiant than the original text makes it seem, which is not my intent. Regardless, she does deny that she laughed.

I attempt to cut the potential harsh tone her words could have been read by including this detail here. She is noted to be afraid in the original narrative, so I am not taking liberty with including it, though the way I place it is a bit different.

Her questions here are entierly added by me. I put this here as another mention of a characters thoughts. Again, attempting to work in some sort of set of three: body, mind, heart.

Again, a specifc reference to the heart.

And here we have reading being referenced again! This is one of the reasons I included her thoughts in this way so I could sneak in this reference!

With this line the original narrative pivots, though I now transition to my greatest departure.

While this is not the biggest departure, this detail is a significant addition. In the original narative there is not a mention of the wife seeing their company in this scene. In having her view them I open the door for her role to be elevated even further than the husband in my retelling.

Here begins my biggest departure, yet one I feel very comfortable making. I could write an essay on this short paragraph. "Andrew, I think it is clear you are writing an essay on it!" you may be saying. And, yes, in some measure I am, though I could go on even longer than I will hold myself to here! What follows is essentially a short description of a popular icon, which I will not name, though it is easily found. That is why I feel comfortable making this inclusion. In the icon, both the husband and wife are present at the table serving the company, which means I am within the bounds of Orthodox tradition in permitting this revelatory moment. Though, in my telling this specific revelation is only given to the wife. In the icon I base this on the three guests who are seated and being attended to by the husband and wife. In Trinitarian theology there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Iconographers use visual cues in their work to indicate which seated person is which. The Father is always the one to which the others gaze, often with their heads slightly bowed in reverence.

I did not want to give absolute concrete physicality to the company, which is wht I have them "seemingly cloaked" in specific color. This one is the representation of Jesus Christ. In iconography blue is a color indicating divinity, and red is a color for humanity. Jesus Christ is depicted wearing blue to indicate the divine nature, and with an outer wrapping of red for the humanity he takes on by being incarnated.

A second visual cue that is often implemented in this icon is the tree branches reaching over the representation of Jesus Christ. This identified image is meant to allude to the cross on which Jesus will suffer and die. In this case I add the personification of the tree pressing down to add to that allusion as I know iconographic interpretation is an esoteric bit of knowledge to call on and the added detail could help illuminate the reference a bit.

Finally, there is the Holy Spirit, cloaked in green. In this context the green calls to mind things such as renewal, refreshment and new life. Within Orthodox Christianity the Holy Spirit is often refered to as the Creator or Giver of Life.

Here I make that connection between new life and the Holy Spirit explicit.

Again, as with most parts of this story I wrote, this is very intentionally phrased. Referring to the breeze coming into the tent as a "breath” connecting the last figure with the Holy Spirit even more, as well as providing more of a sense of the life-giving presence the wife finds herself before.

After the death and resurrection of Jesus there are several Biblical accounts of his interations with his followers. In one such account the people he was with say "did not our hearts burn within us" as they spent time with Jesus before they realized who he was. The wife's "burning heart" is a direct reference to that experience, while also serving as yet another "heart" reference and a desciption of her emotional state. Here she is experiencing a divine revelation, one reserved just for her in the narrative, though she may not realize it, as those followers of Jesus did not know they were walking with Jesus until after he...watch this...broke bread with them in a sort of Eucharistic meal.

This breath of air, cooling her heart, stimulates an emotional response. Here the wife is meant to be seen having some sort of understanding of what she is seeing and experiencing.

I felt it to be very important to express in some way that the wife did not experience judgement or condemnation as she had just defied and lied to God and then has this encounter. Rather, this experience was transformative, positive and healing.

All these details about other sources of light are just to set up this next element. But. I guess maybe...

I decided to go a little further here. There is a Jewish tradition that these characters may have been involved in worship of these celestial bodies before they received their revelation of God. Also, the sun, moon and stars are commonly associated with pagan religions aside from any other potential connection the reference may have. In this case I did include them as a slight nod toward the light of revelation not coming from them.

The vision of eternity in Christianity is one with no need for the light of the sun, as all of creation will be lit by God. Here I am referring to that vision by having the faces of the company illuminate the meeting.

Yes, my dear reader, I cannot help myself but to point out the bread and wine again as a Eucharistic meal!

While the father and son do not have the full revelation that the wife has, they are still within the illumination coming form the company. This moment felt "apocalyptic" to me. Where there is a pause in reality and an "apocalypse," as in, "a revealing," occurs. The section is the largest deviation I take from the original narrative as written, though, as I commented before, I felt comfortable with taking this route as it is expressed in Orthodox iconography. Though, I do have my own elements added such as the light, the bread and wine and the son being present.

Here the narrative takes the final turn. I considered ending my retelling here but ultimately felt it would have been too abrupt. The challenge I faced was how to close the meeting without immediately opening the next element of the original narrative, which is far beyond the scope of what I wanted to tackle writing. It also would introduce a slew of new challenges to overcome. I think that, while not perfect, the end I landed on is better than if I had not done anything, though, if you or any other reader does not know who these characters are yet, it may be confusing!

After going through pointing out individual characteristics of the company I was glad to get back to the safety of this word!

This is dance language. I did not forget to keep that!

No, no. I am not going to start making a point about like "Hey! Look! The tent, and the scene! East and west, it is all important!" But I will say, remember I made a specific reference to the husband's nephew settling to the east. It is a major clue to who these characters are, and for what happens in the subsequent narrative I did not want to touch.

Using "he" here, rather than a name, is yet another instance where I feel the choice to not use names in the narrative became clunky. I felt like I had to include the entire first part of the sentence just to make clear who the "he" is reffering to. A name would have been so much easier!

Yet another heart reference! I almost had his hear "burn" here, but I decided against it. I wanted that to be a special reference reserved just for the wife.

I did not do this as much as I had hoped to be able to, but I metioned I liked the idea of incorporating "dialog" language, and here, I have the man responding to what he heard. This happens in a few other places, but I am not sure I did that theme justice.

See? I did the "heart" just a bit ago, now I am on "mind." Who could have a guess about what will be next?

Did you guess it? Here is the physical "body" reference! With that said, I did intentionally phrase this as a "lifting" of his eyes, which is a subtle allusion to language found in a few Psalms about God providing.

As I close the narrative, I refer to the other encounters this character has had with God. This is meant to establish that the man does recognize, to some degree, who the company is. In this first memory they are remembering the initial call they received to leave their home country and begin their journey. Remember, reader? Way up in the beginning I made a mention of miles of wear his body shows?

This second memory is certainly more confusing than the first one with no context. If you know who this character is you may be able to place the scene, if not, let me confuse you more: imagine being in a deep sleep and a furnace with a torch beside it passing between sacrificed animals. That is the scenario I am making a reference to here.

I chose this word only to harken back to the illumination language that was used during the meeting, making sure to establish that the company and the memories being brought up here are connected.

In this memory the hisband and wife are given new names, which is why I felt comfortable having God refer to the nicknames of the wife.

Using the word "covenant" here is yest another major indicator as to who this character is. I am pretty sure you gathered who this story is about a long while ago, but if you have not...God is making covenants with someone. A very specific sign of the covenant in this memory is the removal of very specific flesh.

I can, and have, written at least one piece examining this specific act, the reasoning behind it and how to make sense of it in a broader context. I had always been confused by the mandate, so I did a decent study on it and was able to gain an understanding that I did not previously have. While I will not go into a full examination of the topic here, I will say this specific act is meant to be a symbolic act of submission and as an action to reconcile themselves with parties they wounded. Those parties are all present in this narrative intentionally.

This is the mother of the son in the narrative. Saying he "assaulted" her is a "polite" way to say he did, in fact, rape her. The mother was a servant (or, slave) they had acquired. Given that dynamic alone the act of impregnating her would amount to being rape. In the shedding of his blood, and this specific flesh, he recognizes that he used it and his body wrongly. Now, if this is in any way reconciliatory, I cannot judge. Though, I do believe there is a clear argument to be made that it is the intention of the act.

This is his wife. In the narrative it is his wife's idea for him to attempt to have a son through the servant. However, they had a promise from God that they would have a son. In betraying his trust in the promise they had been given he betrays his wife. As an aditional note, that narative is coded similarly to Adam an Even taking of the fruit in Eden.

Finally, this is God. In his attempt to fulfill the promise God made to him and his wife, the husband demostrated that he did not trust God. Again, the removal of that specific flesh is a constant sign and reminder to this man, his descendants, and those that choose to join his family, that the part of the body was used wrongly. It was used to oppress, to injure. It was not used, for lack of a better phrase to work with the point I am making, to be a "blessing" to the world as the promise had been.

Reader, thank you. We have come to the end, so I will clue you in on the secret of who the story is about. This is the narrative of Abraham and Sarah hosting the visitors as found in Genesis 18. With that in mind, the son is Ishmael and his mother is Hagar. In the original brief narrative, I explore through this retelling there is no mention of Ishmael and Hagar, though the narrative of the covenant of circumcision takes place immediately before this. In that narrative Ishmael is named specifically as one that is circumcised, with that in mind I did not feel it was too much of a stretch for me to continue his presence in the narrative that follows. I understand that any amount of time may pass between passages in scripture, though if read one after another Ishmael could very well still be on a reader’s mind.

Hey, reader. I get it. This is all a bit much, and we are only done with the first paragraph! How about this, if you want click the button here to turn all this off. You don't need to, but you can. I won't be able to tell if you have or not!

Woah, it looks pretty crowded here! If you need to declutter a bit, you can go ahead. It will be our little secret. Well, your secret. I won't know if you press the button or not. A simple click of the button will clean this up, and...well, it will keep me quiet.

Perichoresis

By Andrew Danglis