Icon of 'Christ Emmanuel'

[Andrew Kisliakov]

Dear all,

I'd like to learn about the history and theological interpretation behind the icon of "Christ Emmanuel" - the image of the young Christ (without Theotokos).

In various examples of this icon, I have seen Him portrayed in this form at various ages - from a very young child, through to a mature adolescent.

Andrew

[Nicolaj]

Dear all,

I'd like to learn about the history and theological interpretation behind the icon of "Christ Emmanuel" - the image of the young Christ (without Theotokos).

In various examples of this icon, I have seen Him portrayed in this form at various ages - from a very young child, through to a mature adolescent.

Andrew

This is not an orthodox icon.

In Christ; Nicolaj

[Andrew Kisliakov]

This is not an orthodox icon.

In Christ; Nicolaj


Why not?

I have seen many instances of it in recent days, in various (Orthodox) contexts.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Nicolaj,

Perhaps Olga would like to chime in here. I don't see why Christ Emmanuel is not an Orthodox Icon, I'm wondering what the thinking is behind your personal conclusion? I think it correct to say Christ was an infant, youthful, and older etc, that seems important to me.

Here is such an icon from the late 12th century.

http://www.icon-art.info/masterpiece.php?lng=en&mst_id=147&top_id=&mode=img

Here is another from around the 12th or 14th centuries.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/07/eusb/hob_1987.23.htm

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Olga]

Icons of the type "Christ Emmanuel" have indeed existed for many centuries, though, of course, are far less common than icons of the adult Christ. On the other hand, just because an image or depiction is old or ancient, does not automatically mean it is canonical. The profusion of "old-man" Trinity and Paternity images alone illustrates this. This might seem an odd way of showing the canonicity or otherwise of Christ Emmanuel icons, but please bear with me.

Consider the canons that exist regarding iconography. The overwhelming number are Christological and Trinitarian, just as the major heresies which led to the convening of each Ecumenical Council were distortions of the nature and person of Christ and of the Holy Trinity (coincidence? unlikely). Many canons on iconography are quite specific on how Christ and the Persons of the Holy Trinity are to be depicted, and how they are not to be depicted. We already know that it is incorrect to portray God the Father as a bearded old man.

Perhaps less well-known are the prohibitions on portraying Christ as a personification of an attribute of His. There are a range of images of this sort, including Christ Holy Wisdom, Angel of Blessed Silence (or Great Counsel), etc. The Orthodox Church has rightly denounced these images as uncanonical, as they represent Christ in forms which are contrary to His incarnate self. In many such images, the Christ figure is androgynous or obviously feminine.

It is true that there is much imagery in the OT which refers to Christ in poetic terms. One only needs to look at the hymn God is With Us (S'nami Bog), sung at Great Compline, to see a great number of them. The name Emmanuel, after all, means God is with us. But it must be remembered that these images are prefigurations and shadows of Christ, just as the services of Vespers and Compline are preludes to the Divine Liturgy which commemorates the earthly life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Iconography expresses what has been revealed to us. The infinite God has chosen to come to earth as a human Child, to dwell among us. The prefigurations of the Old Testament have served their purpose, therefore no longer apply. Therefore, the "personification" images are inferior to the revealed, perfect, God Incarnate. It would be surprising indeed if the images of Christ Emmanuel could be considered uncanonical or "not Orthodox". If He can be portrayed as an adult, then why not as a child?

It is also worth remembering that Christ is depicted as an infant or child in icons with His mother, and in festal icons such as the Nativity, Meeting, and Mid-pentecost.

[Paul Cowan]

Dear Olga,

I just got back from the Holy Mountain. (that's another thread) I am sure all will consider them the "holder of the grail" so to speak of our canonical traditions. I visited several monasteries that had quite noticeable to my surprise the icon of God the Father as a gray bearded old man. I am not sure where that fits into the rules and regulations but if they have not white washed their walls of it, perhaps it is a true icon?

Paul

[Olga]

Hello Paul, and welcome back!

These sorts of representations of God the Father (and the other images I referred to in my earlier post) have consistently been regarded as uncanonical for many centuries. They are directly referred to as such in St John of Damascus' treatise On the Divine Images (6th C), as well as at the Quinisext (682) and Seventh Ecumenical Councils (787), and numerous councils of synodal level, such as the Stoglav Council of Moscow (1551) and the Great Council of Moscow (1666-67). This council is particularly important, as it addresses the fallacy of God the Father being the Ancient of Days mentioned in Daniel and in Revelation, thus removing the major plank of the "God as an old man" justification.

Yet such images can be found to this day in good numbers in even such hallowed places as Athonite monasteries. Their presence at Athos does not, in itself, make them canonical. You may recall a recent thread on the iconography of St Joseph the Betrothed, where mention was made of the presence of an icon of St Joseph holding the Christ-child in an Athonite monastery, and the refutation of such an image on the basis of canon, history and theology. Perhaps it is a kind of economia which allows the continued presence of such images in such places; I have long pondered why this is so.

Many, including saints like St John of Damascus, have written about the error of portraying God the Father as an old man. Consider this extract from Leonid Ouspensky's Theology of the Icon:



In the struggle against iconoclasm, the Church defended all of its teaching about our salvation. The kontakion (sermon-hymn) of the Triumph of Orthodoxy is the best example of this. On the occasion of the triumph of the icon, it concisely expresses, in three sentences, the entire economy of our salvation, and thereby, the teaching on the image and its contents. Here is the text of this kontakion:

No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh from you, O Mother of God, He consented to be described, and restored the fallen image to its former state by uniting it to divine beauty. We confess and proclaim our salvation in word and images.

The first part of the kontakion (“No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh from you, O Mother of God ….”) can be summarised in the following way: The second person of the Holy Trinity becomes man, and yet remains what He is, that is, fully God, possessing the fullness of divine nature, hence -uncircumscribable in His divinity, for “no one could describe the Word of the Father”. God assumes the human nature which He created; He borrows the human nature in its totality from the Mother of God, and, without changing His divinity, without confusing it with humanity, He becomes God and Man at the same time: “the Word became flesh so that the flesh could become word” according to St Mark the Hesychast. This is the humiliation, the kenosis of God; He who is absolutely inaccessible to man, who is indescribable and unrepresentable, becomes describable and representable by assuming human flesh.

During His life on earth, Christ reunited in Himself the image of God and the image of the servant about whom St Paul speaks (Phil. 2:6-7). The men who surrounded Christ saw Him only as a man, albeit often as a prophet. For the unbelievers, His divinity is hidden by His form of a servant. For them, the Saviour of the world is only a historical figure, the man Jesus. Even His most beloved disciples saw Christ only once in His glorified, deified humanity, and not in the form of a servant; this was before the passion, at the moment of His transfiguration on Mount Tabor. But the Church has “eyes to see” just as it has “ears to hear”. This is why it hears the word of God in the Gospel, which is written in human words. Similarly, it always considers Christ with the eyes of unshakeable faith in His divinity. This is why the Church depicts Him in icons, not as an ordinary man, but as the God-Man in His glory, even at the moment of His supreme humiliation. This is precisely the reason why, in its icons, the Orthodox Church never represents Christ simply as a man who suffers physically, as is the case in Western religious art.

This possibility of representing the God-Man in the flesh which He borrowed from His mother is contrasted by the Seventh Ecumenical Council with the absolute impossibility of representing God the Father. The Fathers of the council repeat the authoritative argument of Pope St Gregory II, contained in his letter to the emperor Leo III the Isaurian: “Why do we neither describe nor represent the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Because we do not know what He is ... And if we had seen and known Him as we have seen and known His Son, we would have tried to describe Him and to represent Him in art.”

Further to my earlier post on Christ Emmanuel and symbolic representations of Christ, I also reproduce Canon 82 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council of 682:



In certain reproductions of venerable images, the Forerunner is pictured pointing to the lamb with his finger. This representation was adopted as a symbol of grace. It was a hidden figure of that true Lamb who is Christ our God, shown to us according to the Law. Having thus welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the truth transmitted to the Church, we prefer today grace and truth themselves, as a fulfilment of the Law. Therefore, in order to expose to the sight of all, at least with the help of painting, that which is perfect, we decree that henceforth Christ our God be represented in His human form, and not in the form of the ancient lamb. We understand this to be the elevation of the humility of God the Word, and we are led to remembering His life in the flesh, His passion, His saving death and, thus, deliverance which took place for the world.

The necessity of representing Christ in human, not symbolic form is a direct rebuttal to Arianism, Nestorianism, and other heresies which did not regard Christ as fully human and fully God. It is clear from this canon that images of personifications of attributes of Christ, such as Holy Wisdom, are not permitted, but that the proper portrayal of Christ is in His revealed, incarnate form. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to paint icons of Christ at a younger age.

[Andrew Kisliakov]

Dear Olga,

Thank you for your comments. I agree that it seems perfectly acceptable to depict Christ Emmanuel in this form for the reasons that you give.

If anyone has any further comments on the theological significance of the icon, then please let me know.

Andrew

[Nicolaj]

Thanks Paul and Olga for the comments.

I looked up at various Russian pages with tons of pictures of icons to all possible saints and themes. There are many different icons of the most holy Theotokos, even more of Christ, alone, in stages of his life and trinitarian icons, but there are no icons of Jesus as a teen or at a schoolboy age.

As I also have been in rc, I know this is an most venerated picture there. (I don't think they are able to write icons as our Orthodox monks do.)

If anyone has any proof and not just ideas about this I will be glad to be corrected, but for the time I say it is an western (rc) type and there it should stay.

And Paul you are right, I also did find some very ancient icons in Russia with God the Father as a grey haired elder!

In Christ, Nicolaj

[Kosta]

The existence of God the Father depictions on Mt Athos shouldnt be that strange considering , Athos was the vehicle which introduced these uncanonical icons from Russia to the rest of Orthodoxy.

The 'bearded old man Father' entered Russia via western influence and then to Mt Athos via Russian monks. And from Athos into Greece. Hence those who support the depictions of the New Testament Trinity bring up St Nikodemos the Hagiorite. This is basically the only saint they can turn to, using some spurioust text he wrote on the 7th ecumenical council.

The NT Trinity icon appeared in 15th century Russia as a renaisance painting. Many who support the legitimacy of this icon point to Daniel's vision in ch 7. They quote many Father's who interpreted the Ancient of Days as God the Father and the Son of Man as Christ. Only problem is that the NT trinity icon has nothing to do with this vision. There has never been an icon depicting Daniel's vision in Orthodoxy. The best proof against the allegation that this uncanonical icon is a canonical depiction of Daniel's vision, is the icons very name: "NEW TESTAMENT" trinity. The Daniel vision does not portray a sitting Son on God's right side holding a cross nor is there a vision of a pigeon anywhere in the Daniel vision.

Secondly in Orthodox services and icons the Ancient of Days is identified as Christ, as described in Revelation 1.10-18. After the 6th century less and less Fathers interpreted the Ancient of Days in Daniel to be God the Father. The book of Revelation was only gradually recieved as canonical scripture in the East, it took root sometime after 500 a.d. thus before then its influence was limited.

Only Christ can be portrayed as the Ancient of Days along with the white beard because this is how the book of Revelation depicts the post-ressurected incarnate Christ as seen by the Evangelist in the heavenly vision.

[Andrew Kisliakov]

Thanks Paul and Olga for the comments.

If anyone has any proof and not just ideas about this I will be glad to be corrected, but for the time I say it is an western (rc) type and there it should stay.

In Christ, Nicolaj


Dear Nicolaj,

Matthew provided a link to a 12th century example on the following site:

http://www.icon-art.info/topic.php?lng=en&top_id=120&mode=img

(to Matthew - I couldn't view your second example, perhaps you could re-post that)

Also, I found the following example from a byzantine coin of the 8th century:

http://www.doaks.org/CoinExhibition/RepresentationC/Representationchrist6Main.html

I have seen other examples but they do seem to be hard to find on the internet.

Andrew

[Olga]

There are many different icons of the most holy Theotokos, even more of Christ, alone, in stages of his life and trinitarian icons, but there are no icons of Jesus as a teen or at a schoolboy age.

On the contrary, Nikolaj. There is the icon of the feast of Mid-pentecost, which commemorates the incident of the twelve-year-old Jesus becoming separated from his parents during a visit to Jerusalem, and being found by them in the Temple, preaching. (Luke 2: 40-52) This icon shows the young Christ seated in the middle, preaching to the elders of the temple.

It must also be remembered that, even in icons of the Mother of God, He is never portrayed as a mere baby, indistinguishable from any other (as is so often the case in western religious art, though William Bouguereau’s 1888 painting Virgin and Child is a notable exception), but as an all-knowing, divine Child. There are some very rare, very early examples (6th C or earlier), mainly mosaics and a few illuminated manuscripts, of a beardless, youthful Jesus, who appears to be of adolescent or young adult age.

It is worth considering that this way of portraying Christ seems to have vanished from iconography after these centuries, even taking into account the losses during the iconoclastic periods. This cannot be accidental. Once the essential canons on iconography were firmly established by the 7th and 8th centuries, such images disappeared from the “repertoire”, as it were. A possible explanation as to why we do not see “teenage” or “young adult” icons of Christ (apart from a small number of 20th C versions) could be that the revealed, incarnate Christ is known to us as an infant (Nativity, Circumcision, Meeting), then as a young boy (Mid-pentecost, particularly Luke 2: 48-52), and then as a grown man during the three years of His earthly ministry, and the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension. The details of His life from the ages of twelve to thirty are simply unknown to us, despite much speculation on the matter, past and present. Iconography cannot properly portray what has not been revealed.

Orthodox icons of Christ Emmanuel, whether by Himself or as part of an icon of the Mother of God or the abovementioned feasts, always show Him in age between infancy and about twelve, depending on the subject matter of the icon.


If anyone has any proof and not just ideas about this I will be glad to be corrected, but for the time I say it is an western (rc) type and there it should stay.

In light of what I, and others, have written on this thread, I again question the idea that the imagery of Christ Emmanuel is somehow a Roman Catholic form of portrayal, and one which is contrary to Orthodoxy and iconographic canons.

[Nicolaj]

I wrote this


in stages of his life

And that of course also includes Jesus being in the temple, Jesus being baptised, Jesus in the desert, tempted by the devil, and so on.

And here at my desk accompanies me an icon where Jesus can be seen as a baby, yes it is the icon of his Birth!

But this interests me and I will try to find some more examples.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Olga]

I wrote this



And that of course also includes Jesus being in the temple, Jesus being baptised, Jesus in the desert, tempted by the devil, and so on.

And here at my desk accompanies me an icon where Jesus can be seen as a baby, yes it is the icon of his Birth!

But this interests me and I will try to find some more examples.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

I'm finding your posts a little confusing, Nikolaj. On the one hand, you happily accept icons of Christ at various ages, but on the other hand, regard the icons of Christ Emmanuel (where He is portrayed alone, as a young child) as a Roman Catholic import, and "not an Orthodox icon". Is this the case, or am I misunderstanding you?

[Nicolaj]

I'm finding your posts a little confusing, Nikolaj. On the one hand, you happily accept icons of Christ at various ages, but on the other hand, regard the icons of Christ Emmanuel (where He is portrayed alone, as a young child) as a Roman Catholic import, and "not an Orthodox icon". Is this the case, or am I misunderstanding you?

Well my spiritual Father writes Icons himself and he is always very accurate about what true icons are and which are not.
So I look always first in the treasury of the Church which are true Icons and then adopt or reject them.
Western influences and such by hobby painters can not be true icons to be venerated by the believers. They can have value, but that is surely on a different level.
In Christ, Nicolaj

[Olga]

Well my spiritual Father writes Icons himself and he is always very accurate about what true icons are and which are not.
So I look always first in the treasury of the Church which are true Icons and then adopt or reject them.
Western influences and such by hobby painters can not be true icons to be venerated by the believers. They can have value, but that is surely on a different level.
In Christ, Nicolaj

I, and I'm sure many other members on this forum, would be very interested in the evidence and reasoning you spiritual father uses to regard icons of Christ Emmanuel as "not Orthodox". Would you be able to give us more details?

[Nicolaj]

I, and I'm sure many other members on this forum, would be very interested in the evidence and reasoning you spiritual father uses to regard icons of Christ Emmanuel as "not Orthodox". Would you be able to give us more details?

As being still searching more material on the topic, I can confirm that there are icons on Christ as a youngster. I have seen it with my own eyes. But it is the way they are written and the demonstration that is crucial.
In Christ, Nicolaj

[Olga]

I can confirm that there are icons on Christ as a youngster. I have seen it with my own eyes.

The existence of icons of Christ Emmanuel is not in question, Nicolaj.


But it is the way they are written and the demonstration that is crucial.
Could you please provide examples (either posting the images on this forum, or providing weblinks) of icons of Christ Emmanuel which you regard as uncanonical? And, importantly, the reasons why such icons should be regarded as uncanonical?

[Father David Moser]

Could you please provide examples (either posting the images on this forum, or providing weblinks) of icons of Christ Emmanuel which you regard as uncanonical? And, importantly, the reasons why such icons should be regarded as uncanonical?

Haven't we had this discussion before - say about a month ago?

Fr David Moser

[Nina]

Well, I can understand the prudence of Nicolaj and his spiritual father. It is not easy, to live in those parts of the world where many things are passed as Orthodox and are not Orthodox in reality. I have family in several countries in Europe and they tell me many things that are confusing and may mislead easily.

The funniest comment I heard lately, was from some (very good) friends of a side of my family. These friends, being Catholic (and since they know that my fiance is baptized Catholic, but from a Catholic mom and a Protestant dad) asked in which catholic church I plan to get married, since the Patriarch of Constantinople accepted the authority of the Pope, when the Pope went to Constantinople.

[Nicolaj]

Haven't we had this discussion before - say about a month ago?

Fr David Moser

Well, I for my part hadn't finished the topic. But as the Father means the discussion is not worth the time spent on it, I will not bother the forum with my minor ideas, thoughts and so on.

Was the meaning we were about to find out what is meant by saying an icon is orthodox and why but as been said I won't bother anyone here with the thoughts of a darkened mind, who lives as a sinner.

Sorry! Nicolaj the again sinner

[Father David Moser]

Well, I for my part hadn't finished the topic. But as the Father means the discussion is not worth the time spent on it, I will not bother the forum with my minor ideas, thoughts and so on.

I see that Nicolaj has put words in my mouth that I did not utter. I only asked if this was a repeat of the discussion that recently occurred - I put no value, either good or bad on whether or not it should continue (nor do I at this time).

Fr David Moser

[Olga]

Nicolaj, we are all sinners here, nobody is perfect. But we are members of this forum because we can all learn so much from each other. It is very easy to misunderstand another person's words when English is not your first language.

For a while it seemed this thread had reached its course, but Nicolaj’s latest post has revived it. As regulars to this forum would have observed, the matter of uncanonical or dubious iconography regularly appears as a discussion topic in itself, or as part of a broader topic.


I emphasise that I am neither trying to be argumentative, nor drawing attention to myself by my posts. Nicolaj stated in his first post to this thread that the icon of Christ Emmanuel is “not Orthodox”, and later wrote that it is a “Roman Catholic import”. If Nicolaj can provide authoritative historical, doctrinal, canonical or liturgical grounds to show that such an image is uncanonical or contrary to Orthodox belief and teachings, then I am happy to be corrected.

I might add that the mere presence of an icon in a Roman Catholic or other non-Orthodox church does not automatically make such an image invalid in Orthodox eyes. There would be very few RC churches in the world which do not possess an icon of the Mother of God known to the west as Our Lady of Perpetual Help, known to the Orthodox as Mother of God of the Passion (Gk: Amolyntos (Immaculate), Slav: Strastnaya).

.

[Andrew Kisliakov]

Dear all,

I agree that there's still much to be gained from this discussion. If Nikolaj has found something new worth sharing, why not revive the thread? I'm still interested.

I have a further question which may perhaps stimulate discussion along the lines of Olga's last post, which I will place in a separate thread in order to remain on-topic.

Andrew