[Page 155]

The priest and deacon approach the holy icon of Christ, kiss it, and say,

"We do homage to thy most pure image, O Good One, entreating forgiveness of our transgressions, O Christ-God; for of thine own good will thou wast graciously pleased to ascend the Cross in the flesh, that thou mightest deliver from bondage to the enemy those whom thou hadst fashioned; With joy hast thou filled all things, O our Savior, in that thou didst come to save the world."

In like manner they also kiss the icon of the Birth-giver of God.

"O Theotokos, in that thou art a well-spring of loving-kindness, vouchsafe unto us thy compassion.  Look upon the people who have sinned. Manifest thy power as ever; for trusting in thee we cry aloud unto thee, Hail! as aforetime did Gabriel, Chief Captain of the heavenly, Bodiless Powers."

[Office of Oblation, Orthodox Liturgy]

[Page 154 = blank]

[Page 155]

CHAPTER TEN

No Graven Images

The earliest Christian art was primarily symbolical.  Christ was represented by a fish (Greek Icthus) or a young shepherd.  The letters of Icthus stood for Iesous Christos, Theou Huios, Soter (Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior).  The Church was represented as a ship, the hope of salvation by an anchor, and immortality by a peacock.  Scenes from Holy Scripture were not merely illustrative but also typical – e.g., Jonah’s adventure symbolized death and resurrection.

In the eighth century, both the iconoclasts and iconodules appealed to the sacred text of Holy Scripture (the Septuagint), for both believed it to be the written words of God.  They agreed that this Bible uniquely portrays the Word of God incarnate, Jesus Christ, and his Father, who is the invisible, ineffable God of all glory, wisdom and power – the God who is named Yahweh in the Old Testament.  Further, they agreed that idolatry, the worship of images, is absolutely condemned in Holy Scripture.

Where they did not see eye to eye was on the distinction between an image (an objectively descriptive word) as an idol (which has a pejorative overtone), and an image as an icon (Greek, eikon, an image as representational art).  And this disagreement was related to what they took to be the theological implications of the taking of manhood by the Son of God.

[Page 156]

Each side agreed that God as Godhead is pure, eternal and ineffable Spirit and cannot under any circumstances be represented in human art.  Thus, we shall begin our brief examination of Holy Scripture with the statement of Jesus (often cited by the iconoclasts) that God is Spirit.  Then we shall note the condemnation of idolatry and the restricted use of material objects in divine worship in the Old Testament.

In his conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well Jesus said, "God is Spirit" (John 4:24). Some people of a philosophical disposition have supposed that the statement "God is Spirit" is a metaphysical and ontological definition of the eternal nature of the invisible deity.  Though God (according to philosophical theism) is eternal, uncreated, pure Spirit, the meaning here has less to do with eternity and more to do with the relation of eternity to space and time.  "God is Spirit" is the same general kind of statement as two others found in I John – "God is light" (1:5) and "God is love" (4:8).  In all three statements it is God in relation to us, God acting with respect to us, which is being affirmed.  John is telling us how the Father really is or truly acts towards us in history on a personal, relational basis.

Jesus is not attempting to speak of God-as-God-is-in-himself (which for Greek Christians is pure theology).  His message is of God as God-is-towards-and-for-us (the Trinity in the economy); the Father is the One who gives the Spirit (John 14:16), and it is in and by the Spirit that the Father relates to human beings as his creatures.  Therefore, "God [the Father] is Spirit" in the sense that, as the invisible God [who is in himself pure Spirit], he makes himself known through the medium of the Holy Spirit, whom he actually sends into the world.

True worship also is in the sphere of "Spirit."  Human beings who worship their Creator and Lord must worship "in spirit [Spirit]," as those who are reborn by water and the Spirit (John

[Page 157]

3:5) and who have been baptized with that baptism in the Spirit of which John the Baptist spoke (John 1:33).  It is necessary that they worship in this way, for no other approach is acceptable to the Father. Genuine worship must be prompted, energized and brought to fulfillment by the presence and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit.

And there is a further necessary component! True worship is also "in truth."  John’s Gospel makes it very clear that the Spirit and the Word (the Son) exist and work in perfect harmony in God’s economy of grace.  Jesus as the Word (1:1) is also the Truth (14:6), who reveals the very reality of God (8:45; 18:37).  In fact, the Spirit is "the Spirit of Truth" (14:17; 15:26; 16:13) in his relation to the Word made flesh.  And Jesus is the Truth, who reveals the Father, who does the will of the Father, and who makes access to the Father possible for sinners by his sacrificial death as the Lamb of God.  He is the Son of the Father who becomes the man of flesh and blood.  Thus true worship must be offered to the Father through (i.e., according to the Truth which is) Jesus and in the Spirit, who is given by the Father and who rests upon and takes from the Son.

It would be false to conclude from John 4:23-24 that worship must only be spiritual, confined to the heart, and without any outward expression of form or ceremony.  The apostolic church worshipped through the ministry of Word and Sacrament; and it is highly probable that John 6:53-58 refers to the Eucharist as a primary means of worship.  To worship in spirit and in truth is to worship the Trinity by the Trinity.  Those who believe on the name of the Son, and who are born from above by the Holy Spirit, worship the Father through the Son and in the Spirit.  And they do so because the Father, through the Son and by the Spirit, has not only created them but also revealed himself to them.

[Page 158]

the light shining in darkness. Jesus is "the light of the world" while God, the Father, is "light."

This is the message we have heard from him [Jesus Christ] and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.  If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin (I John 1:5-7).

Obviously the Lord our God, as the true and only God, is, of necessity and always, Light both in himself as the transcendent God, and in his relations with the world as its Creator and Redeemer.  It is the latter which is in view here.  The whole context of I John makes it clear that "God as Light" is not a philosophical, speculative statement about the being and nature of deity, but is a declaration of God’s relation to the world as Savior.

In the Old Testament, light is used to symbolize truth in contrast to error, and righteousness in contrast to wickedness (Ps. 36:9; Ps. 119:130; Is. 5:20; Mic. 7:8b).  Thus, in Hebrew terms to say that "God is light" is to confess that he is absolute in his glory, in his truth and in his holiness.

The Father is light, the incarnate Son is the light, and believers are called to live and walk in the light and have fellowship one with another and with the Father through his only Son.  But, we ask, how is this walking and fellowship possible? John answers, "You have been anointed by the Holy One" (I John 2:20; cf. v. 27); that is, you have received the gift of the Holy Spirit.  For a man to see the light, to have the light shine in his heart, and to walk in the light, he needs the illumination of the Holy Spirit of light.  In other words, Light shines upon and within him from the Father, through the Son and by the Spirit.

God is Spirit, God is Light and God is Love.  When we read that "God is love" (I John 4:8) it is the word agape which describes God.  God is love in that he wills that which is the best

[Page 159]

for his creatures and he commits himself wholly to achieving this end.  Further, it is not only that God is the source of love, but that all of his intentions and activity are loving.  We read in I John 4:7-12:

Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God.  He who does not love does not know God; for God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him.  In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins.  Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.  No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

In this paragraph, the verb (agapeo) and the noun (agape) occur fifteen times.  The logic of love is very obvious. God, who is the Father, is love in that he sent his only Son into the world to be the expiation for human sins.  "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).  Yet, God’s love is not merely a past determination to do good which was completed by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  God is still love in that his Son, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead and is alive for evermore, willing the good of all mankind and believers in particular.  Further, God is still love in that he abides in those who believe. "By this we know that God abides in us, by the Spirit, which he has given us" (I John 3:24).  The Holy Spirit dwells in the souls of the faithful, and it is by his inspiration and power that love is perfected in them and believers are enabled to love one another, thus fulfilling the command of Christ.

The Father loves the Son; the Son loves the Father; and the Holy Spirit is the presence and expression of the love of the Father and the love of the Son.  The Father loves the world and sent his only Son into the world; the Son also loves the world

[Page 160]

and gave himself as a propitiatory and expiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world; the Spirit brings the love of the Father and the Son into the hearts of those who believe, so that they may love God and one another.

In himself as the blessed, holy and undivided Trinity, God is pure Spirit, uncreated Light and holy Love; towards the world and revealed in the incarnate Son, the Trinity is also acting as Spirit, revealing as Light and acting in Love.  The Son of the Father become Man is the Image (eikon) of God the Father (II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15).  God, who is by nature invisible, comes to visible expression in the incarnate Son.  The Son alone is the image of the Father, for as the incarnate Word he is the unique, perfect, material representation of the Father.  As the Image of God, Jesus Christ was bodily and physically present with men on earth.  As the Image he was seen, heard, touched, and addressed.  Therefore, any use by Christians of icons (images) as representational art had to be justified in relation to the Incarnate Son as the Image of God.

Because the Father is ineffable and invisible, and because the incarnate Son is the one and only Image of God, idolatry is wholly forbidden in the New Testament (e.g., I John 5:19-21).  This is entirely what we would expect when we recall that in the Old Testament, idolatry is thoroughly condemned by the Law and the Prophets.

"I am the LORD, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to graven images," declared Isaiah (42:8).  "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.  You shall have no other gods before me.  You shall not make yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you

[Page 161]

shall not bow down to them and serve them, for I, the LORD, am a jealous God..." (Ex. 20:2-4).

Three words – LORD, Jehovah and Yahweh – are used in English to render the tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew consonants, YHWH, which is the unique Name of the God of Israel.  As this Name was treated with ever more and more reverence, the Jews ceased to pronounce it during the latter part of the Old Testament period.  So we are not completely sure today just how it was originally pronounced. "Yahweh" represents the generally accepted modern attempt to recover the original pronunciation of the tetragrammaton.

YHWH is to be taken as a form of the verb haya, "to be."  In the light of this, it is appropriate to see two meanings arising out of this Name.  First of all, from Exodus 3:14-15, YHWH as the Name (revealed to Moses) is a positive assurance of God’s acting, aiding and communing presence.  The "I AM" will be always with his covenant people.  He who is now will be also. In the second place, and based on the declarations of Deuteronomy 4:39, I Kings 8:60 and Isaiah 45:21-22, YHWH is the only God who actually exists and there is no other.  YHWH is the one and only Deity, who is both above and within his creation; all other gods are but creatures or the projections of human imagination.

Probably the most well known text in Judaism is the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4-5:

Hear, O Israel, Yahweh, our Elohim, Yahweh is One, and thou shalt love Yahweh thy Elohim with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind.

Concerning this fundamental confession, Walter Kasper has written:

[Page 162]

unqualified uniqueness.  For by his very nature God is such that there is only one of him.  From the nature of God as the reality that determines and includes everything his uniqueness follows with intrinsic necessity.  If God is not one, then there is no God.  Only one God can be infinite and all inclusive; two Gods would limit one another even if they were somehow interpenetrated.  Conversely: as the one God, God is also the only God.  The singleness of God is therefore not just one of the attributes of God; rather his singleness is given directly with his very essence.  Therefore, too, the oneness and uniqueness of the biblical God is anything but evidence of narrow-mindedness.  On the contrary, for precisely as the one and only God, he is the Lord of all peoples and of all history.  He is the First and the Last (Is. 41:4; 43:10ff.; 44:6; 48:12; Rev. 1:4, 8, 17).  (The God of Jesus Christ, pp. 239-40)

Such a living God cannot and must not be presented in images and idols!

Images (normally as idols) were common in Egypt and the ancient near East.  They were of two types, either anthropomorphic (in human form) or theriomorphic (in animal form).  A molton image was made in a cast from copper, silver or gold.  A graven image was carved from stone or wood and wood images could be overlaid with precious metals.  Israel was commanded not to worship either an idol of a heathen god(dess) or an image (idol) of Yahweh himself.  Thus, alongside the condemnations of idols of heathen gods (Jer. 10:3-5; Hos.11:2) in the Old Testament, there are condemnations of the use of images of Yahweh – the golden calf (Ex. 32:1-8), the image (Ephod) made by Gideon (Judg. 8:26-27), the golden calves of Dan and Bethel (I Kgs. 12:28-30) and the calf of Samaria (Hos. 8:6).

Moses, who personally experienced the glorious and awful presence of Yahweh on the mountain and whose face shone with light as a result of the encounter, recalled the revelation of Yahweh at Mount Sinai when he told the Israelites: "The Lord

[Page 163]

spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice" (Deut. 4:12).  They saw no form and thus they were never to make an image of Yahweh.

The prophets recognized that idols were nothing for they were images of gods who did not exist (Is. 2:8; 40:18-20; 41:6-7; 44:9-20).  However, there was more to idolatry than false knowledge.  Demonic, evil forces were at work in idolatry and thus the worship of graven and molten images constituted a real spiritual danger (Is. 44:6-20).  Thus, an idol is an abomination to Yahweh (Deut. 7:25), and a detested thing (Deut. 29:17; 31:6).

Yet, while the rejection of idolatry is constant and uncompromising in the Law and the Prophets and the Writings (e.g. the Psalter), the religion of Israel was not spiritual in the sense that it was wholly inward, an affair of the human spirit.  It was spiritual in that Yahweh was understood to be the transcendent, holy LORD, who was above and beyond the reach of Israel, and who therefore could only be reached when he himself set up the means for communion.  This of course he did in what is called the covenant whereby Yahweh was the God of Israel and this people worshipped and served him alone as their God.

Within the means that Yahweh appointed for that spiritual worship and service were physical symbols of his presence and relation to Israel.  Here we immediately think of the Tabernacle (Temple) and the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 10:8), which were constructed through the specific help of the Spirit of Yahweh.  The Ark was a rectangular box made of acacia wood, overlaid with gold, whose lid (the "mercy seat") was a gold plate surrounded by two antithetically-placed cherubs with outspread wings.  Inside were the two tablets of the Law, a pot of manna and Aaron’s rod (Deut. 10:1-5).  Yahweh met his people at the Ark.  "There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, and from between the two cherubim, I will speak with you" (Ex. 25:10-22).

[Page 164]

The Ark served as a symbol of the presence of Yahweh with his people.  It was not worshipped but it served to remind the people of the Lord their God and of the worship and service he required.  The sculpted icon of the cherubim fulfilled a liturgical ministry.  Before the Incarnation, all artistic expression of the heavenly is limited to the angelic world due to the fear of idolatry.  (See note at the end of the chapter.)

Thus, while the Old Testament proclaims the invisible, holy, and transcendentally glorious reality of Yahweh, who alone is true God, and while it condemns all idolatry, it also without any hesitation proclaims the right use of created matter in the worship and service of God.  Further, it does assert (in the early chapters of Genesis) that man, as male and female, is made in the image and after the likeness of God (e.g., 1:26).  Man is not the image but is made in the image.  Such an assertion leaves open the question as to who is the image!  We have to wait for the Incarnation to know, as the New Testament teaches, that the Son of God, the Word made flesh, is the one and only Image of the Father.  And in this knowledge we also know that the purpose of the Incarnation is to conform those who are made in the image to the Image, to become like him (Rom. 8:9; I Cor. 15:49; II Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10ff.).

What neither the Old nor New Testaments specifically address is whether or not it is admissible to make icons of the Incarnate Son or of those who bear his image and likeness (his Mother and the Saints).  The Old Testament does, however, legitimate the use of material symbols as aids to the pure worship of Yahweh in spirit and in truth. Naturally, the iconodules made much of this in their appeal to the Bible.

[Page 165]

In all the major Bible Dictionaries there are articles on "Yahweh," "Idolatry," "Image(s)," and "Worship."  Likewise, in the major books on the theology and religion of the Old Testament the subject of idolatry is treated.  Philip E. Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1989) is filled with stimulating thoughts.  Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ (New York: Crossroad, 1984) is also very stimulating.  There are chapters on the portrayal of YHWH in the Old and New Testaments in Peter Toon, Our Triune God (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996).

In the Orthodox Church the icons of Christ’s resurrection develop the symbolism of the Ark.  On a slab, representing the empty tomb and the lid of the Ark, is the abandoned winding sheet; and, on the ends of the slab, two cherubim stand facing the women who bear myrrh.  Thus the "throne of mercy" reveals in Christ its real meaning. Via the icon, Yahweh appears on the "throne of mercy" and speaks from it.

On Orthodox Sunday, the feast of the icon, two passages from the Gospels, which speak of angels, are read – Matthew 18:10 and John 1:51.  They are seen as teaching that (i) the many-eyed angels possess the gift of contemplating the Divine Light, and (ii) that after the Incarnation Christians receive this angelic gift expressed so powerfully by the icon.

[Page 166 = blank]

[Page 167]

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Iconoclasm Rejected

Not a single one of the writings of the iconoclasts has been preserved in its original form.  We only know of the content of this literature where it has been preserved as part of the reply of the iconodules.  Likewise, since the iconoclasts destroyed images wherever they found them, there have been preserved few examples of icons in churches and monasteries from the period of the controversy.

Those who destroyed, and those who made and preserved Christian representational art, had much in common – commitment to the dogma of the Trinity, acceptance of the authority and the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and belief in the divine right of kings (emperors), for example.  Also, with specific reference to images, both sides were in agreement over some basic principles and uses.

Each, for example, accepted that material objects can be a contact point between the praying man and the merciful God.

[Page 168]

The iconoclasts restricted this materiality to the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the water of Baptism, the oil of Chrismation and the wood of the cross.  In contrast, the iconodules included the whole of sanctified, representational art.

Then, also, each side was concerned about the large numbers of illiterate and unsophisticated members of the Church and their instruction in the holy Faith.  All knew the power of art to inform the devotion of the people.  For the iconodules representational art served as a holy book for the illiterate, for it proclaimed the Gospel message in pictures.  For the iconoclasts, who remembered the use of such art in paganism and who heard the denunciation of Islam against all images, the pictures proclaimed a false message concerning the true identity of the Lord Jesus Christ, his Mother and the Saints.  They reintroduced paganism and idolatry!

Further, each side proclaimed that Jesus Christ is the Image of God and that man is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27).  All were committed to this doctrine even though they made opposing deductions and applications from it in terms of the pictorial representation of Jesus Christ.

Finally, each side appealed to the Fathers and thus to antiquity.  And, as we would expect, each side found evidence for its cause.  During the first three or four centuries, Christianity was a minority Faith in an Empire where polytheism was the norm and where images/idols of the deities were worshipped.  In this context, Christian writers condemned idolatry, citing the Scriptures of the Old Testament.  Not unexpectedly, there was little representational art produced by Christians!  However, when Christianity became an official, and then the official, religion of the Empire, the way was open, with the defeat of paganism, to develop Christian representational art, and to distinguish icons of Christ and the Saints from idols of the gods and goddesses of the defeated paganism.  In this new art, the prohibition against any representation of the invisible, ineffable God (Yahweh, the Father) was constant.

[Page 169]

The Emperor Leo III, the Isaurian, began a campaign against the cult of icons in 726. His son, Constantine V, who became Emperor in 741, also led a campaign to remove and destroy icons as well as to paint over art on church walls.  Crosses, however, were allowed to remain.  These Emperors, and also their successors, were of Semitic rather than Hellenic background.  Their tradition did not have within it the cultic importance of the image.  Further, they were engaged in war with Islam, which destroyed all images in its path.  Thus, they were obviously aware of and sensitive to the charges made by Muslims about the supposed idolatry of Christians, who, it was said, worshipped icons.

The theological sympathies of Constantine V were more with the Monophysites than the Chalcedonians and he actually published under his own name a doctrinal statement on behalf of iconoclasm.  Insisting that the prosopon of Christ is made up of both divine and human elements, he opposed representational art because it only presented the human nature.  Thereby, he said, it severed that nature from his divine nature and negated the unity of Christ as one hypostasis and one nature.  Thus an icon is a false image of Christ, who being both God and Man cannot be presented in an art form because Godhead by its very nature cannot be circumscribed.  The only true image of Christ is that which he instituted – the sacramental Bread and Wine, his Body and Blood of the Holy Eucharist.

To press his doctrine and policy upon the Church and Empire, Constantine V called a Church Council which met in the Palace of Hieria, north of Chalcedon, from February to August 754.  The Epitome of the Definition of this Iconoclastic Council was agreed by the Bishops in August, 754.  It begins its theological claims in these words: "Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator.  The Mosaic Law and the Prophets cooperated to undo this ruin; but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own Son, who

[Page 170]

turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth."

Against this background the Statement continues: "We [the 338 members] found that the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation – namely, the Incarnation of Christ – and it contradicted the six holy synods [i.e., Ecumenical Councils]."  The truth of the matter is that Jesus Christ is One Person, God made Man, and consequently, an icon of Christ is an image of God and Man.  Thus in his foolish mind, the painter, in his representation of the flesh of Jesus, has depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented.  He has mingled what cannot be mingled.  Therefore, he is guilty of a double blasphemy – making an image of the Godhead and mingling the Godhead and the manhood.  Further, anyone who uses the icon is also guilty of blasphemy.

In terms of Christology, the Council taught that the manhood of Christ, being the humanity of the Logos, was completely assumed by the divine nature and totally deified.

For it should be considered that the flesh [of Jesus] was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine.  How could it now be separated and represented apart?  So is it with the human soul of Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the dulness [thickness] of the flesh.  As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead remaining undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his voluntary passion.  For where the soul of Christ is there is his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is there is his Godhead.  (Percival, Seven Councils, p. 544.)

Here are echoes of the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon ("without any separation") and of the two wills and energies of

[Page 171]

the Council of Constantinople III, but the theory of communicatio idiomatum is pushed to an extreme limit.  Thereby, the real humanity and manhood of Christ is minimized and deification is exaggerated.

The Statement goes on to claim, as the Emperor had done, that "the only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ is bread and wine in the holy Supper.  This and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to represent his Incarnation."

And then, with reference to representational art depicting the Saints, the Epitome states:

Christianity has rejected the whole of heathenism, and so not merely heathen sacrifices, but also the heathen worship of images.  The Saints live on eternally with God, although they have died.  If anyone thinks to call them back again to life by a dead art, discovered by the heathen, he makes himself guilty of blasphemy.  Who dares attempt with heathenish art to paint the Mother of God, who is exalted above all heavens and the Saints?  It is not permitted to Christians, who have the hope of the resurrection, to imitate the customs of demon-worshippers, and to insult the Saints, who shine in so great glory, by common dead matter. (Ibid., p. 544.)

In short, God has forbidden the making of graven images in the Ten Commandments and this prohibition remains in force!

Next, it forbids the production and demands the destruction of "every likeness which is made out of any material and color whatever by the evil art of painters."  Then a series of anathemas are declared among which are the following concerning icons of Christ:

8. If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (charakter) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colors, let him be anathema!

[Page 172]

tion, the Substance or Person of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he, the Word, cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!

13. If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with the Word, and thus separates it from the Godhead, let him be anathema!

Then with respect to Mary, Theotokos, and the Saints, are the following anathemas:

15. If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, let him be anathema.

16. If anyone shall endeavor to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colors which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, let him be anathema.

17. If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, let him be anathema.  (Ibid., pp. 545-46.)

These make clear that the Eastern Christian Iconoclasts were not like Western Protestants of a later time since the former, unlike the latter, regarded the intercession of the Saints as an important part of the Faith.

At the beginning of what eventually was recognized as the Seventh Ecumenical Council, certain bishops who had supported the cause of iconoclasm confessed their sin and error, asking to

[Page 173]

be received back into the communion of the Catholic Church.  These confessions indicate both what was central to the iconoclasts and to the iconodules.

Bishop Basil of Ancyra confessed his faith in the Holy Trinity and proceeded:

I ask for the intercessions of our spotless Lady the Holy Mother of God, and those of the heavenly powers and those of all the saints.  And receiving their holy and honorable relics with all honor, I salute and venerate these with honor, hoping to have a share in their holiness.  Likewise also the venerable icons of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the humanity he assumed for our salvation; and of our spotless Lady, the holy Mother of God; and the angels like unto God; and of the holy Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and of all the Saints – the sacred icons of all these I salute and venerate. (Ibid., p. 533.)

Among his anathemas were these:

[Page 174]

As we would expect, what these anathemas condemn is that which the Emperor Constantine V and the Council of Hieria had approved.

The official anathemas of the Council of Nicea II were brief and to the point, making very clear what was the error and the sin of iconoclasm and what was the essence of iconodulism.

If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.

If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.

If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his Saints, let him be anathema.

If anyone rejects any written or unwritten traditions of the Church, let him be anathema.

Eventually iconoclasm fell, and when this occurred it fell like Lucifer, never to rise again in the Catholic Church of the East.

In his fascinating book, The Art of the Icon (1990), Paul Evdokimov provides a good summary of the nature of Iconoclasm and writes:

[Page 175]

sented, the prototype, in his iconographic image.  Once this conception was accepted, the icon fell into the category of profane art, since it was obviously not a sacrament.  From their point of view, the claim that icons were a sacred art simply clothed them in superstition and even heresy.  It was therefore necessary to choose between a photographic likeness, as we would say today, and a symbolic likeness.  The two were mutually exclusive.  The iconoclasts could only conceive of an art that was realistic and reproduced the visible of the visible, thus making a copy of the visible.  They could not see that the icon portrayed the "visible of the invisible," and the invisible in the visible.

And he continues:

The only adequate image of Christ was, therefore, the Eucharist because it was consubstantial (homoousios) and identical (tauto) with him in nature (kat’ousian).  Now the Eucharist is a miracle in which the cosmic matter of bread and wine are changed into the heavenly matter of the transfigured body of Christ.  But the miracle of the metabole, or transformation, takes place without producing any likeness or resemblance...  The visible bread is simply stated to be identical with the invisible heavenly body, but the operation gives no place to any visual manifestation.  The Eucharist cannot in any way be an icon for it is uniquely the Lord’s Supper which must be consumed and not contemplated (pp. 193-95).

It is obvious that the iconoclasts and the iconodules were unable to agree because their whole foundation of thinking was different.  They were working from different theological and philosophical principles.

[Page 176]

For the texts used in this chapter see Percival’s edition of the Seven Councils.  Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, and Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Thought, and Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, also have useful material on iconoclasm as well as suggestions for further reading.

[Page 177]

CHAPTER TWELVE

Orthopraxis Explained – Veneration of Icons

The connection between the dogma of the first six Ecumenical Councils and that of Nicea II is the Incarnation.  Because the eternal Son became Man, the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was revealed.  In, by and through the Son we know the Holy Triad.  Further, because of the Incarnation, the veneration of icons is rendered both valid and good.  Since the Son of God took flesh and dwelt among us, the invisible became visible and thus, it was possible to depict him by representational art.  The Council of Nicea (787) upheld the veneration of icons as an inevitable result of the Incarnation.  The Son is the Icon of the Father.

The veneration of icons was not a new development in the eighth century when iconoclasm waged war on iconodulism.  In fact, there are two canons of the Quinisext Council (692) which illuminate the situation concerning veneration of images/icons in the Greek-speaking churches before the rise of iconoclasm.

[Page 178]

First of all, Canon 73 speaks of the veneration of the Cross:

Since the life-giving cross has shown to us salvation, we should be careful that we render due honor to that by which we were saved from the ancient fall.  Wherefore, in mind, in word, in feeling giving veneration (proskunesis) to it, we command that the figure of the cross, which some have placed on the floor, be entirely removed therefrom, lest the trophy of the victory won for us be desecrated by the trampling under foot of those who walk over it.  Therefore those who from this present represent on the pavement the sign of the cross, we decree are to be excommunicated.

Veneration of the Cross is by the mind and heart, through words and action and with the senses (bowings, kisses etc.).

In the second place, Canon 82 speaks of the veneration of icons.

[Page 179]

was wrought for the whole world.  (Percival, Seven Councils, pp. 398, 401.)

Commenting on this Canon, John Meyendorff wrote:

The negative attitude of the Quinisext Council towards symbolism, and its emphasis upon the concrete and historical reality of the incarnation as the authentic foundation of the art of images, made it inevitable that the debate started by the iconoclastic decree of Emperor Leo III should immediately become a Christological debate; the problem was already posed within the framework of a theology of the incarnation.  (Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Thought, p. 178.)

Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople under Leo III, had a clear view of the relation of icons to Jesus Christ.

In eternal memory of the life in the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, of his passion, his saving death and the redemption of the world, which result from them, we have received the tradition of representing him in his human form, i.e., in his visible theophany, understanding that in this way we exalt the humiliation of God the Word (Cited by Meyendorff, Ibid., p. 178).

Thus, an icon is not an image of the incomprehensible and immortal Godhead, but of the human character of the incarnate Word and Son.

Also, during the reign of Leo III another, and now justly famous, defense of iconodulism was made.  In his monastery of St. Sabbas in Palestine and under Arab rule, John of Damascus wrote his On the Divine Images: Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine Images.  St. John had no doubt that we are "to use all our senses to produce worthy images of Christ, and we sanctify the noblest of the senses, which is that of sight.  For just as words edify the ear, so also the image stimulates the

[Page 180]

eye.  What the book is to the literate, the image is to the illiterate.  Just as words speak to the ear, so the image speaks to the sight; it brings us understanding" (I. 17).

Icons are not only permissible but right and good because of the Incarnation, claimed St. John, who also explained:

In former times, God who is without form or body, could never be depicted.  But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see.  I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take his abode in the flesh; who worked out my salvation through matter.  Never will I cease honoring the matter which wrought my salvation!  I honor it, but not as God. (I. 16)

Later, St. John provided a definition of an image.

An image is a likeness, or a model, or a figure of something, showing in itself what it depicts.  An image is not always like its prototype in every way.  For the image is one thing, and the thing depicted is another; one can always notice differences between them, since one is not the other, and vice versa.  I offer the following example: An image of a man, even if it is a likeness of his bodily form, cannot contain his mental powers.  It has no life; it cannot think, or speak, or hear, or move.  A son is the natural image of his father, yet is different from him, for he is a son and not a father.

Thus, he rejected the argument of the iconoclasts that an image is of the same essence as its prototype.

St. John also provided an explanation of the nature of worship.  First and foremost, there is absolute worship which is adoration, reverence, thankfulness and confession offered to God, and to God alone.  That is to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the very God from whom proceeds the Holy Spirit.  He is the source of all glory, all goodness, unapproach-

[Page 181]

able light, incomparable sweetness, boundless perfection and who alone as the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity is worthy to be adored, worshipped, glorified and desired.

In the second place, there is worship in a relative sense (= veneration).  For example, when God rests in holy persons, who by grace have become likenesses of himself, then these persons (e.g., the Theotokos and the Saints) may be offered relative worship.  As St. John put it: "Since they are truly gods, not by nature, but because they partake of the divine nature, they are to be venerated, not because they deserve it on their own account, but because they bear in themselves him who is by nature worshipful" (III. 33).

Also holy objects may be venerated – e.g., the holy sites in Jerusalem, Judea and Galilee, relics, the book of the Gospels, the Emperor and, of course, icons.  "We venerate images: it is not veneration offered to matter, but to those who are portrayed through matter in the images.  And any honor given to an image is transferred to its prototype" (III. 41).

Those who embraced iconodulism were those who of necessity held that the Son of God truly and really became man, a real man.  They set aside not merely Docetism, but also all types of Monophysitism.  Thus, when the Bishops made their declaration concerning icons at the Ecumenical Council of 787 they began with a strong affirmation of the reality of Jesus depicted in the Gospels:

[Page 182]

many respects, but especially in this, that so the Incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely imaginary, and brings us a similar benefit.  For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another’s message.

Then the Bishops made it abundantly clear that, while they agreed with iconoclasts in venerating the sacred cross, they also firmly believed in the production of representational art to depict Jesus Christ, the Theotokos, the Saints and the Angels.

[Page 183]

ence (aspasmon kai timetiken proskunesin), not indeed the true worship (latreiav) which is fitting (prepei) for the Divine nature alone; but to these, as to the figure (tupo) of the holy and life-giving Cross, and to the holy Gospels, and to the other sacred objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom.  For the honor which is paid to the picture (eikon) passes on to that which the picture represents, and he who reveres (proskunon) the picture reveres in it the subject represented.

It is important to note that the word used to denote the veneration of relative worship offered to the icons is proskunesis, which was used of the honor and reverence paid to the memorials and portraits of the Emperor.

[Page 184]

the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church, or who turn to common uses the sacred vessels of the venerable monasteries, we command that they be deposed if they be Bishops or Clerics and excommunicated if they be monks or lay people.

Then come the anathemas against iconoclasm which are printed in chapter eleven above.

The content of this decree concerning images/icons may be summarized by saying the following:

1. The offering of adoration (latreia) to any created person or thing is idolatry and is forbidden by God.

2. The sacred pictures, the icons, are to be given veneration (proskunesis) according to holy tradition.

3. The icons are useful for instruction in the Faith.

4. The icons are required to preserve the truth that Jesus Christ is a real Person with true manhood and he was not merely a fantasy, theory or idea.

5. The veneration given to the icon passes on to the person, human or angelic, whom the icon represents.

6. The Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and truly Man. In his Godhead he is uncircumscribed, but in his Manhood he is limited and thus may be portrayed in painting, mosaic or other suitable materials.

The translator, Dr. Henry R. Percival, to whom we are all greatly indebted for his work on the Seven Councils, makes the following comments in his introduction to his translation of the Decree of Nicea (787):

[Page 185]

and the offering of incense.  But the Council was most explicit in declaring that this was merely a veneration of honor and affection, such as can be given to the creature, and that under no circumstances could the adoration of divine worship be given to them but to God alone.  (Percival, Seven Councils, p. 526.)

Then, to make the distinction between veneration and worship as clear as possible, Dr. Percival added:

The Greek language has in this respect a great advantage over the Hebrew, the Latin and the English; it has a word which is a general word and is properly used of the affectionate regard and veneration shown to any person or thing, whether to the divine Creator or to any of his creatures, this word is proskunesis; it has also another word which can properly be used to denote only the worship due to the most high God, this word is latreia.  When then the Council defined that the worship of "latria" was never to be given to any but God alone, it cut off all possibility for idolatry, mariolatry, iconolatry, or any other latry, except theolatry.  If, therefore, any of these other "latries" exist or have existed, they exist or have existed not in accordance with, but in defiance of, the decree of the Second Council of Nicea.  (Ibid., pp. 526-27.)

In the light of the lack of exact, equivalent terms for proskunesis and latreia in Latin and English it is not perhaps surprising that the Decree of this Council has been both badly translated and greatly misunderstood in the West.  The simplest way to state the relation of proskunesis and latreia is to picture two circles which have the same center, with the larger (proskunesis) including the smaller (latreia).

[Page 186]

IN SUMMARY

The nature of the icon is very different from that of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist.  Again Paul Evdokimov in The Art of the Icon (1990), provides an explanation which is helpful:

The icon finds its place on a totally different level and thus escapes any charge of idolatry.  The very word icon (from the word eiko and meaning likeness, similitude) suppresses any identification and underlines the difference in nature between the image and its prototype, "between the representation and what is represented."  We can never say that "the icon is Christ" as we say that "this bread is the body of Christ."  This would obviously be idolatry.  The icon is an image which witnesses to a presence in a very specific way: it allows a prayerful communion with the glorified nature of Christ; it is, however, not a eucharistic communion, that is, substantial. It is rather a spiritual communion, a mystical communion with the Person of Christ.

And he continues:

The icon brings about a meeting in prayer, without localizing this communion in the icon as a material object.  The meeting nonetheless takes place through and with the icon as a vehicle of the presence.  In an icon, the Hypostasis, Christ’s person, "enhypostasizes" not a substance (wood and colors) but the likeness.  It is the likeness alone and not the board that is the meeting place where we encounter the presence.

Further, he makes clear the importance of focusing on the "likeness:"

[Page 187]

the Church.  This is how, in truth, the Church sees Christ liturgically... The mystery of the icon resides in this dynamic and mysterious likeness with the prototype, with the whole Christ, a likeness attested by the Church.  (Ibid., pp. 195-96.)

Finally, connecting all this with the doctrine of the enhypostasis developed by Leontius (see chap. 9, p. 146 above) and accepted in the Orthodox Church, Evdokimov states:

The notion of enhypostatos is at the base of the Fathers’ doctrine.  It explains how, through the image, we can invoke the presence of its prototype.  (Ibid., p. 198.)

The documents relating to the Council in Percival, Seven Councils, are invaluable; Meyendorff’s book, Christ in Eastern Thought, is of great help, as is also Leo D. Davis’s historical account in The First Seven Ecumenical Councils.  Finally, see St. John of Damascus, On the Divine Images, trans. David Anderson (Crestwood, NY: St. Valdimir’s Seminary Press, 1980).

[Page 188 = blank]

Next Section        Home Here        SAW Home