Venerating icons

[James F.]

I'm not a Protestant {Some of you know that I'm going to convert to Orthodoxy}, so I have no problem with the ikons. However, would someone please explain to me this verse in the Bible?

You shall not make for yourself a carved image--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 shall not bow down to them nor serve them. Exodus 20:4-5.

I know Orthodox Christians do not worship ikons, but ikons are images of beings in heaven: Mary and the saints right? Doesn't it say not to do that, regardless if we worship them?
God Bless.

P.S What's with spelling ikons with a k? I've been doing it because I saw that Biship Kalistos Ware spelled it that way in his book The Orthodox Way.
Thanks.

[Kris]

This is a verse that comes up frequently with respect to iconography.

First of all, it is important to establish what is meant by image. If we look a few chapters ahead to Exodus 25:18, God commands that "thou shalt make two cherubs graven in gold, and thou shalt put them on both sides of the propitiatory." A little further on, in Exodus 26, God commands images of cherubim to be woven into the tabernacle's curtains.

So clearly the second commandment does not prohibit all forms of imagery (quite the contrary!), but rather idolatry. That is to say, depictions of God/gods and the worship thereof.

So how then can we depict Christ since He is God?

Depiction of God was prohibited because God cannot be seen (and is still with respect to the Father and the Holy Spirit Who were never Incarnate). But in the Incarnation, the Word assumed perfect humanity. It is by virtue of the Incarnation - God becoming man and assuming a depictable humanity - that we can now depict Christ. And since His human and divine natures are inseparably united in a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word, we are not merely depicting Christ's humanity - but God in the flesh.

Since the prohibition of the 2nd commandment is clearly against the worship of idols, one cannot include in this the Orthodox veneration of icons. A clear distinction exists between latreia (worship) and proskynisis (veneration); only the former being prohibited by the verse in question.

I would recommend you read the works of St. John of Damascus on the issue of iconography. Hopefully some of the more able posters here can give you a more detailed answer than what I've given above.

In XC,
Kris

[Herman Blaydoe]

Holy Icons are Holy Scripture in pictures. Our Lord Jesus the Christ took on a body. If cameras had existed in that day, He could have been photographed.

St. John of Damascus, who lived among the image-hating Moslems wrote a great deal on the subject, see here: In Defense of Holy Icons (http://www.balamand.edu.lb/theology/Joicons1.htm)

Even God commanded the decoration of the Tabernacle with Cherubim and the adornment of the Ark with Seraphim. He commanded Moses to lift up the image of the serpent to cure the Hebrews. Is God violating His own commandments?

[James F.]

Thank you Orthodox11. That explains alot. I have another question, though. You said the Orthodox Church doesn't make ikons of God {except for Christ}. I've seen an ikon that depicts the Holy Trinity. Is that a fake?
God Bless.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Oh and, it might be worth mentioning that Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to salute the Flag because they believe it constitutes worshipping an idol. Obviously definitions matter, but why is saluting the Flag OK but venerating an icon "idol worship"?

[James F.]

Thank you too, Herman. I'll read In Defense of Holy Icons.
God Bless.

[Ruth Hrebinka]

James,

I have been told that God the Father is never depicted on an icon, (although I did see one in Russia!). In the US however, I have not seen an icon of God the Father. This is because, I was told, we do not know what He looks like. Christ was a man so we may depict him on an icon. The Holy Trinity icon depicts the three angels that visited Abraham (and seen as an OT revelation of the NT teaching of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Trinity, 3 in 1. If you have seen another icon of the Holy Trinity let me know.

I hope this helps. Also the K or C is just a linguistical variation.

In Christ
Ruth

[Paul Cowan]

James:
I have seen two icons that depict the Trinity. One is of 3 angels of God sitting at table as in the Hospitality of Abraham icon. This is named the Holy Trinity icon though they are obviously angels depicted. If you remember the scripture angels of the Lord appeared to him not God Himself.

The other is the face of an old man (God) with a dove (Holy Spirit) coming from him and rays of light depicting the Son. This is a very western icon and does not depict orthodox belief in the Holy Trinity. See Kris's post above.

I know this gets confusing at times, but try to keep in mind who wrote the icon and when. Many works of art in the 20th century are beautiful pieces, but are they Holy works of art that we can truly call icons or are they fanciful paintings on wood?

Paul

[Olga]

P.S What's with spelling ikons with a k? I've been doing it because I saw that Biship Kalistos Ware spelled it that way in his book The Orthodox Way.
Thanks.

The word icon or ikon is from the Greek word eikona, which means picture or illustration. Modern Greek retains both a secular and a religious meaning to this word. The spelling with a c or a k makes no difference in the meaning of the word as it relates to the holy, liturgical art of the Orthodox Church, despite what some people might think. I have come across the view that ikon should be used when referring to Orthodox religious art as it is "more specific". This is not the case. Historically, the Greek letter kappa was always transliterated into the Latin alphabet as c, not k. It is only comparatively recently (mid- to late 20thC, if I'm not mistaken) that kappa began to be rendered as k.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The so-called "Trinity" icon, picturing an old man, a young man and a dove has more than one interpretation. It is certainly controversial and there are many Orthodox who consider it an aberation. Others interpret it differently saying that the older man is NOT God the Father, but an iconic representation of the "Ancient of Days" which is an OT reference to Christ the Lord. Therefore it shows Christ as the "Ancient of Days" and as Christ Incarnate. It is not beyond the realm of speculation, particularly compared to, say, St. John's description of Christ in his Revelation:

Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last."Revelation 1:12-17

[John Charmley]

Dear Herman,

Thank you for this - very informative.

The 'Trinity Icon' I am most familiar with is the one by St. Andrei Rublev, which was written in about 1410, but that is of three figure, not two and a dove, and is based on the Biblical story about the visit by three Angels to the Prophet Abraham and his wife Sarah. Those more familiar with the Russian tradition will know that such icons were popular among the Old Believers.

The Trinity Icon mentioned by Paul has been the subject of some criticism In recent years and has been characterized as "deception" and "cacodoxy" by some Orthodox writers, especially the Greek-American George Gabriel. The arguments for taking a different view have been put forward in The Holy Trinity in Orthodox Iconography, produced (in Greek) by Nativity skete, Katounakia, Mount Athos, and can be accessed on the internet in a summary by Vladimir Moss at http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/. Again, those more conversant with the Russian tradition will be able to tell me who, if anyone, is in error on this.

In Christ,

John

[Kris]

Thank you Orthodox11. That explains alot. I have another question, though. You said the Orthodox Church doesn't make ikons of God {except for Christ}. I've seen an ikon that depicts the Holy Trinity. Is that a fake?
God Bless.

The depiction of God the Father as an old man and the Holy Spirit as a dove is something that found its way into Orthodox iconography through the Westernizing reforms of Peter the Great, when Italian painters were brought over to Russia.

You will find these types of images in many Orthodox churches around the world, but strictly speaking they are not in keeping with the iconographic tradition of the Church. God the Father should not be depicted as an old man (although Herman's point about the Ancient of Days is worth noting), nor should the Holy Spirit be depicted as a dove in anything other than the icon of Christ's baptism, where He was manifested as such.

[Olga]

It is a common misconception that the Ancient of Days mentioned in the book of Revelation refers to God the Father. The Ancient of Days actually refers to God the Son. Is not the second Person of the Holy Trinity the Alpha and Omega? Is He not the one who was begotten before the morning star? etc.

As well, numerous councils, local and ecumenical, categorically forbid the portrayal in any form of God the Father as an old man or otherwise. The same position is expressed in no uncertain terms by St John of Damascus in his treatise. It was God the Son, Jesus Christ, who allowed Himself to be circumscribed in a human body, and therefore can be properly portrayed in icons, not God the Father.

The Holy Spirit can also be depicted in certain specific icons and in specific forms: as a dove in icons of the Theophany, as the tongues of fire in the icon of Pentecost, and as the cloud of uncreated light surrounding Christ on Mt Tabor in icons of the Transfiguration.

These symbolic representations of the Holy Spirit are only permissible in the particular icons listed, as scripture describes the visible form the Holy Spirit took on these occasions. For instance, it is not correct to show a dove in the ray of light directed towards the Mother of God in icons of the Annunciation.

There is yet another (definitely uncanonical) portrayal of the Holy Trinity, known as Paternity/Paternitas/Otechestvo, which appeared in Russia in about the 15th C or so. It shows God the Father as an old man, seated on a throne. In his lap is seated a young Christ, who is holding in his hands (or in his lap) a round motif like a mandorla, in which is a white dove, representing the Holy Spirit.

[Olga]

The Trinity Icon mentioned by Paul has been the subject of some criticism In recent years and has been characterized as "deception" and "cacodoxy" by some Orthodox writers, especially the Greek-American George Gabriel. The arguments for taking a different view have been put forward in The Holy Trinity in Orthodox Iconography, produced (in Greek) by Nativity skete, Katounakia, Mount Athos.

There are a number of comtemporary Greek writers who defend the so-called NT Trinity image, however, this view is contrary to the mind of the Church on the matter, a view which it has consistently held and clearly maintained through the various councils, ecumenical and local. If these gentlemen are correct, then does this mean the Orthodox Church got it wrong? And so often? Think about it.

[James F.]

The so-called "Trinity" icon, picturing an old man, a young man and a dove has more than one interpretation. It is certainly controversial and there are many Orthodox who consider it an aberation. Others interpret it differently saying that the older man is NOT God the Father, but an iconic representation of the "Ancient of Days" which is an OT reference to Christ the Lord. Therefore it shows Christ as the "Ancient of Days" and as Christ Incarnate. It is not beyond the realm of speculation, particularly compared to, say, St. John's description of Christ in his Revelation:

I always thought the Ancient of Days was God the Father. If it's not God the Father, why in Daniel 7:13 does it mention the Son of Man coming before the Ancient of Days? Isn't "Son of Man" a name for Christ?
God Bless.

[Kosta]

The NT trinity icon has gone thru some "revision" recently. The original icon is uncanonical and thus not an icon at all. The Trinity cannot be depicted and the OT Trinity of three angels taken from Gen 18.3 is not the "trinity" at all but rightfully called "the Hospitality of Abraham" which depicts a "type" of the Trinity.

Lately, i've seen the NT trinity icon "re-packaged". The old man pictured no longer has a triangular nimbus but one with a cross in it. This means the old man is no longer God the Father but Christ as the Ancient of Days. The shape of the nimbus (halo) tells us whether it is an attempt at a depiction of God the Father or Christ as Ancient of Days. There is no need for interpretation.

Originally the icon of the Ancient of Days (11th century), depicted the pre-incarnate Christ as an old man with white hair and a white beard and sitting in His lap is a smaller figure of Jesus as either a child or as a mature Jesus. (This icon was erroneously believed to have been God the Father and cetrain ignorant iconographers painted it and labeled it as "the paternity")

The "repackaged" NT Trinity icon is meant to be a canonical attempt to retain the elements of the New Testament Icon while being faithful to the "ancient of days" theology of Orthodoxy.

The theology behind the Ancient Of Days Icon comes from the Liturgy of the Meeting of the Lord in the Temple. Its meant to depict the economy of the Incarnation as worshipped in this service:

Vespers Tone 1= .."This is He who was born of a Virgin, This is He the Logos, God of God, who for our sakes has taken flesh to save us."

" The Ancient of Days, who in times past gave the Law to Moses on Sinai ,today is born a babe."

Matins tone 4= "The Ancient of Days for my sake becomes a child."

Matins Ode 5= " In a figure Isaiah saw God upon a throne, lifted up on high and borne in triumph by angels of Glory and he cried, 'Woe is me'! For i have seen beforehand God made flesh..."

The above is a sampling of the chants for this liturgy. The economy is echoed thru-out this service of our Church. You can find it in the Festal Menaion, the one i have is by Kallistos Ware and Mother Mary.

[Olga]

Dear Kosta

I may be misunderstanding your post, but simply changing the halo on the figure of the old man in the NT Trinity to the one used for icons of Christ does not make this composition canonical, as there is the little problem of Christ seated at the old man's right, and the dove hovering above both figures. Such an icon would be nonsensical, and hardly a depiction of the Holy Trinity, as in it there would be two "Christs" and a "Holy Spirit".

A proper, canonical icon of Christ as the Ancient of Days, with the nine-bar cross in His halo, and with white hair, is possible, but He should be portrayed alone in this composition.

Your view that the Paternity icon is simply representing the Ancient of Days, not God the Father is simply incorrect, I'm afraid. From the beginning, this image was known as Paternity/Otechestvo. If the old man indeed does represent Christ, then where does the young Christ sitting in his lap fit in doctrinally and theologically? And what of the dove held in the hands of the young Christ? We have the same problem as above. It was always understood that the old man in the Paternity image represented God the Father. The problematic "double portrayal" of Christ is also a feature of two other uncanonical icons which emerged in Russia in about the 16thC, known as "All-seeing Eye of God" and "Holy Wisdom". I would be happy to post more on these icons if people are interested.

The following must be said about Vladimir Moss, the author of the article mentioned earlier on this thread defending the NT Trinity "icon". He is baptised Orthodox, originally under the ROCA jurisdiction, but has recently joined one of the extremist Greek Old Calendarist groups. He is a prolific writer, but great caution must be exercised before giving credence to his views, which, in the main, are certainly not mainstream Orthodox. For instance, his article on marriage has a disturbing Gnostic flavour to it; his account of the origin of the Antichrist in his account of the Book of Revelation contains some howling errors with regard to science, genetics, and UFOs.

His defence of the NT "icon" uses some rather interesting interpretations of iconographic canons which do not conform with the mind of the Orthodox Church. The only defenders of this icon I have come across are Paul Azkoul, and the Matthewite Old Calendarists.

[Herman Blaydoe]

If the old man indeed does represent Christ, then where does the young Christ sitting in his lap fit in doctrinally and theologically?

In a similar place as the Dormition icon which shows Christ holding a young Theotokos over the body of the Theotokos?

http://www.theologic.com/oflweb/images/dormition.jpg

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Herman,

Actually in the icon of the Dormition, Christ is holding or receiving the soul of the Theotokas swaddled.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[M.C. Steenberg]

Vladimir Moss did a good study on some of this, reacting in particular to the interpretation of such icons by a writer called George Gabriel. Excerpting from Moss' article:


"[George Gabriel suggests that] the icon of the Holy Trinity in question is supposed to portray the Prophet Daniel's vision of "The Ancient of Days", the old man with white hair being a depiction of the figure called "The Ancient of Days" (Daniel 7). However, the Ancient of Days, according to the Tradition and hymnology of the Church, is Christ, not the Father. Therefore the icon is based on a false interpretation of the prophetic text."

Though he gives balance and documents that in the literary tradition, there are dual readings of the prophetic text:


"The term "Ancient of Days", like "God", is applicable to all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Therefore there is no contradiction between allowing that Christ can be called "the Ancient of Days", as in the hymnology for the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord, and believing that "the Ancient of Days" in the vision of Daniel is God the Father. Hieromartyr Hippolytus of Rome (P.G. 10, 37), St. Athanasius the Great (V.E.P. 35, 121), St. John Chrysostom (P.G. 57, 133; E.P.E. 8, 640-2), St. Gregory Palamas (Homilies 14, E.P.E. 9, 390), St. Cyril of Alexandria (P.G. 70, 1461), St. Symeon of Thessalonica (Interpretation of the Sacred Symbol, p. 412), and St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite (The Rudder, Zakynthos, 1864, p. 320; Chicago, 1957, p. 420) all agree in identifying “the Ancient of Days” in the vision of Daniel with God the Father. They interpret the vision as portraying the Ascension of Christ ("the Son of Man") to God the Father ("the Ancient of Days"), from Whom He receives the Kingdom and the Glory, together with the power to judge the living and the dead. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria writes: “Behold, again Emmanuel is manifestly and clearly seen ascending to God the Father in heaven… The Son of Man has appeared in the flesh and reached the Ancient of Days, that is, He has ascended to the throne of His eternal Father and has been given honor and worship…” (Letter 55, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 77, Washington: CUA Press, 1987, pp. 28, 29). There are some Holy Fathers speak in favour of the Ancient of Days being Christ in this vision (see The Lives of the Holy Prophets, Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista, 1998, pp. 407-408)."

The point is that iconographically, representing God the Father as a human hypostasis -- whether old and with a beard, or otherwise -- is improper. Icons of the 'Ancient of Days' are, in their best form, explicit in this regard, and identify the old man with his white beard as 'O On' (=Christ) in the nimbus.

There is at least one tradition of interpretation which reads the presence of the young man on the old man's knee in some versions of this icon as indicating the dual-reality of Christ's existence: he is the Ancient of Days who is 'old' in the sense of eternally-existent and before all ages; but he has also become 'young' in the incarnation as human.

There is something appealing in the desire to express Christ's immanence and transcendence in that sort of reading, but I rather think that, more honestly, such icons are a fault of misinterpretation themselves. It is clear, from the inscriptions on some icons of the Ancient of Days, that the iconographer did believe the elder male figure to be God the Father, and it is sometimes so described (as 'The Paternity'), etc.; in which cases the younger figure is clearly the Son, either incarnate or symbolic. But these are deeply problematic icons, from the point of view of canonical presentation. Icons are not meant to portray natures symbolically, but natures as they exist in persons. To portray the Father as an old man is a purely symbolic interpretation, since the father has never been an old man. Similarly, to portray 'paternity' is not really a genuine iconographic trend.

It is not the case that all icons of the Ancient of Days are explicitly of the paternity of the Father -- Kosta is quite right to point out the fact that, in their best iconographic rendering, these are explicitly icons of the Son. The so-called 'Paternity Icon' is, it seems to me, a variant later trend that came about, likely, through a misunderstanding of what the Ancient of Days icon really represents, thus transforming it into something quite different.

INXC, Matthew

[Kosta]

Dear Olga,
Vladimir Moss article makes no sense, based on philosophy. I reject any depiction of God the Father or the Trinity.
What im saying is:
The russian icon known as the paternity is the same exact icon found in miniature in an 11th century greek gospel book, this is the first ever of this icon. The miniature "though" portrays the ancient of days as Christ and seated on his lap is the infant Christ without a dove.This icon became popular in Greece. The russian Paternity icon is uncanonical and was introduced in Russia in the 15th century by those ignorant In Orthodox theology. They saw these popular icons in Greece and erroneously believed they were portraying the Trinity and unfortunately introduced them into Russia using the new nimbus.

In Kastoria Greece (church of Panagia Koumbelidiki) theres a 13th century fresco of the same icon, Christ as the Ancient of Days with a mature Christ in his lap, and the Christ sitting on his lap holds a disc with a dove on it. The inscription on the fresco in greek reads: 'Jesus Christ the Ancient of Days''.

Both of the above greek examples has a cross in the nimbus as well. The russian Paternity icon originated in the 15th century because ignorant iconographers thought the above greek icon depicted the Trinity.

In 1666 Moscow held a council and condemned the paternity icon. About 100 years later a council held in Constantinople condemned depictions of God the Father.

The greek version of the Icon represents the Orthodox theology of the Ancient of Days as worshipped in our services. Theres an Orthodox liturgy known as "the Presentation of the Lord to the Temple" celebrated 40 days after the Nativity. It represents the economy of Christ, who being God became man.

One of the chants in this service reads like this: "The Ancient of Days who in times past gave the Law to Moses on Sinai, appears this day as a babe."

In another part of this service, we chant, "The ancient of Days, a young child in the flesh was brought to the temple by his mother the Virgin, fullfilling the ordinance of His own Law".

The ordinance of the 40th day was to sacrifice 2 pigeons (see Lk 2.24)

Once again the economy of where the Pre-Incarnate Logos become the Incarnate Christ is chanted, "The Ancient of Days for my sake becomes a child, God the most pure recieves purification, that he may confirm the reality of the human flesh which He took from the Virgin".

The purification spoken of is what a mother had to go thru for 40 days after birth and is recorded in Lev 12.2-7. Verse 6 of this OT passage says that a pigeon or turtledove is to be given as a sin offering on the 40th day in the temple.

This is what the theology the original icon depicts.

[M.C. Steenberg]

You must read the text more carefully. He makes the same point as you, vis-a-vis depicting the Father corporeally. I wonder if you've read it closely -- he is not the clearest writer, so finding where he's quoting another's view versus presenting his own, is not always a simple matter. But this blanket summation of his text being 'based on philosophy' seems poorly thought through. His primary source is St Gregory Palamas (whom I think, were he alive in the internet age, would routinely be criticised in on-line fora for being 'based on philosophy').

INXC, Matthew

[Kusanagi]

St Justin says because the Jews were suspectible to idol worshipping God made the commandment for them not to worship carved images.
A saint canonised by the Russians was against the common Holy Trinity icon with the Father depicted but everyone was against him but later he was canonised. IT is mentioned in the book Heroes of the icon.

In my iconography class the teacher said that the Holy Trinity with the 3 angels cannot be called Holy Trinity because there were no references to say they were the Holy Trinity.

But then again the Holy Trinity in the form of 3 angels appeared to St Alexander of Svir so in my opinion i probably disagree with my teacher which i always tend to do.

[Aaron Taylor]

Perhaps I should start a new thread for this, but can anyone tell me precisely where to find the patristic statement that goes something like: 'If I put two pieces of wood together in the form of a cross, I venerate them as an icon of my salvation, but if I separate them, I cast the wood into the fire'? I saw somewhere that it came from St Theodore the Studite...

[Olga]

Perhaps I should start a new thread for this, but can anyone tell me precisely where to find the patristic statement that goes something like: 'If I put two pieces of wood together in the form of a cross, I venerate them as an icon of my salvation, but if I separate them, I cast the wood into the fire'? I saw somewhere that it came from St Theodore the Studite...

Something tells me it may have been St John of Damascus, in his treatse "On the Holy Images". I'll follow it up.

[Olga]

I was partly mistaken. It was not John of Damascus, but St Leontius, bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus, who was the author of the quote, which is found in the third commentary of St John’s treatise, regarding the principle that everyone who honours an image also honours its prototype:

We do not worship as gods the figures and images of the saints. For if it the wood of the image that we worship as God, then we would worship all other wood as well, and we would not throw the image into the fire when the picture fades, as we often do. And again, as long as wood is fastened together in the form of a cross, I venerate it because it is a likeness of the wood on which Christ was crucified. If it should fall to pieces, I throw the pieces into the fire. When a man receives a sealed order from the emperor, he kisses the seal. He does not honour clay, or paper, or wax for their own sake, but he gives honour and veneration to the emperor. Likewise, when Christian people venerate the form of the cross, they are not worshipping the nature of wood; but they see that it is marked with the imprint of the hands of Him who was nailed upon it, and so they embrace and honour it.

St Theodore of the Studion, and other iconodule fathers, may well have said much the same in different words.

[Aaron Taylor]

Thank you very much, Olga. I found the passage!