Explanation of Iconography

[Tikhon]

I apparently posted this to the wrong forum, but I'm thankful for the person who guided me to this one. Here's my set of questions concerning iconography vs. idolatry. I mean no offense and am making no accusations that Orthodox in any way are idolaters.

I'd prefer that people who are iconodules (forgive the spelling, but those who support iconography) and not iconoclasts answer the following questions, if they can. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian but I have been having internal conflicts about iconography very recently. I know that the icon (regardless of who is depicted) is not a false/pagan god (nor a deity of any sort nor believed to be divine or containing something/someone divine) however these two questions have been lingering with me:

1. Though Christ did became Incarnate (took on flesh as God) what gives us (e.g., Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, High Church Anglicans, etc.) the right to make icons of Him (or the saints) when we've not seen them personally? Granted, an icon isn't meant to portray an exact likeness, but isn't it almost idolatrous to make an image, attach Christ's name to it (e.g., "This is Christ's Icon", "This is an icon of St. Michael", etc.), then reverence it (bowing before, crossing before, kissing it, lighting a candle, incense, etc.) when we don't know what they look like? Given the issue of the Israelites ascribing the name of the True God with a golden calf (i.e., misrepresenting God)? Is it not misrepresentation to make an image and ascribe the name of Christ to it or make a relationship between the two?

2. If not, then what is the definition of idolatry, especially as far as misrepresenting God (the Trinity) vs. that of non-idolatrous iconography that is acceptable to venerate or reverence? How, as Orthodox/Catholics, are we to approach icons?

Orthodox/Catholic answers would be most appreciated.

 

[Anhelyna]

Welcome to TAW , Tikhon - glad to see you found us here.

We do have some resident iconographers - so they should be able to give some help as well as the rest of TAW members

 

[FenderTL5]

Welcome.
First, as a matter of disclaimer, I am relatively new to Orthodoxy coming from an evangelical background.
The icons and the reverence given to the Theotokos are/were a couple of the larger challenges for me. The Theology of Orthodoxy, the teachings about Christ, salvation, Grace, etc has actually filled in many of the blanks that were left unanswered in western thought.

I'm not the best person to ask (your questions), but I do appreciate the question(s). Hopefully someone can answer adequately.

 

[ArmyMatt]

1. Though Christ did became Incarnate (took on flesh as God) what gives us (e.g., Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, High Church Anglicans, etc.) the right to make icons of Him (or the saints) when we've not seen them personally?

that's just it, since He became Incarnate He can be depicted since a real human is depictable. the Israelites had images on cherubim on the Temple and the Tabernacle, which were probably not seen by (at least in the later Temple) those who crafted them.

Granted, an icon isn't meant to portray an exact likeness, but isn't it almost idolatrous to make an image, attach Christ's name to it (e.g., "This is Christ's Icon", "This is an icon of St. Michael", etc.), then reverence it (bowing before, crossing before, kissing it, lighting a candle, incense, etc.) when we don't know what they look like?

no, because the honor given passes to the prototype, which is the one depicted. icons are paint and wood, but they are paint and wood that point us to a spiritual reality. much like how the Bible is ink on a page, but it's ink on a page that points us to heavenly things. reverence does not necessarily mean worship.

Given the issue of the Israelites ascribing the name of the True God with a golden calf (i.e., misrepresenting God)? Is it not misrepresentation to make an image and ascribe the name of Christ to it or make a relationship between the two?

no, because the Israelites made the Golden Calf on their own apart from the Will of God. we make icons to conform to the Will of God, because He has always had holy images to help folks worship Him.

If not, then what is the definition of idolatry, especially as far as misrepresenting God (the Trinity) vs. that of non-idolatrous iconography that is acceptable to venerate or reverence? How, as Orthodox/Catholics, are we to approach icons?

idolatry is worship of an idol, which is an object that is not God worshiped in of itself. it is man worshiping matter as God, which is not the same as man using matter to worship God. we approach them with respect, just like how we approach the Scriptures.

 

[nutroll]

If we want to discuss the issue of iconography from a Biblical perspective, I think the best starting place is with Deuteronomy 4: 15-19:

Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth. 19 And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage.

It is clear from this that the concern is that any image made of God would necessarily be false because men had not seen God. Even making an image of man who had been created in the image and likeness of God would be wrong, because men had not seen God. Furthermore, it is the impulse to worship things, whether they are celestial bodies, or images instead of the True God that is wrong. Indeed, throughout the Old Testament, we see images made. There are obvious ones like the images of cherubim on the ark of the covenant, or images of oxen in the temple, but what about the less obvious images that were used throughout the OT? What about the pillar of fire and the pillar of cloud? What about the burning bush? What about Moses' arms outstretched during the battle against Amalek? These are images of an invisible God. They are, as it were, a painting of negative space to give an image of what cannot be depicted. God is present in the fire, in the cloud, in the prefiguration of the cross, or in the empty space between the Cherubim on the Mercy Seat without being directly depicted, and these are images that God Himself made or commanded to be made.

Now that God has become incarnate, He is certainly depictable, just as any human being would be. The argument against His depiction often comes down to the fact that the Bible does not tell us to make these images. And yet the Bible didn't tell the Israelites to make any of the images they made. The Bible merely records that God told them to make them. These were not the result of the following of Biblical edicts, but rather a response to God's instruction. It is only when we assume that God does not desire to communicate with us outside of the bounds of Scripture that we have a problem. Indeed, if Orthodox Tradition is true (which of course requires us to come to faith in Christ's Church), Jesus Himself made the first icon in the "Image Not Made By Hands" and the Apostle and Evangelist Luke was the first iconographer. So therefore icons are instituted by God and were commanded by God to be perpetuated.

As to not knowing what people looked like and the images perhaps not being correct. We see remarkably consistent depictions going back to the earliest icons we possess. We can't prove that they are based on how people really looked, but unlike in the west, we don't see imagination or live models used to create something new, we see a tradition of preserving what has been handed down. There is no reason to assume that these are not depictions of how people actually looked apart from a cynical or skeptical attitude within ourselves. Furthermore, when a child draws a picture of their family, we don't complain that it doesn't look like Mom or Dad in the picture, we recognize the love behind the picture and we appreciate the likeness that is there. It is not the skill of the iconographer that makes an icon valid, it is the likeness to that person. And we would be better to worry about our losing the likeness to our Creator than whether the icons bear a proper likeness to Christ or the Saints.

Finally, veneration is merely showing respect. For those who practice true worship, there can be no mistaking the veneration of icons for the worship of God. It is a part of how we worship God, certainly, but veneration is not worship of matter. If I bow down to the floor to pull toys out from under the couch, or if I kiss my wife or my children, I am not worshipping a toy or my wife or my children as one should worship God. And yet, when I do these things, I show love toward my family, which is part of how I show my love for God who gave me my family. An action can resemble worship without being worship, and can still be a part of worship at the same time. I kiss an icon to show that I love God who is glorious in His Saints. I do not worship the icon, I do not even worship the Saint, but I thank God for working wonders through the material world, and through His beloved servants.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would also add that when people have uncovered 1st century synagogues, those synagogues have also been covered in imagery and iconography.

 

[buzuxi02]

In the 7th Ecumenical council it was decreed that the Incarnation should be set forth in color including the prophets, apostles, saints, martyrs, angels, holy men and various depiction's to educate, especially the unlearned, of the holy struggles and agonies and bring to remembrance the acts wrought by Jesup and the saints. It was also decreed that the communion of the saints does not cease upon death, since the veil of separation was torn, so not only their remembrance in pictures are profitable , but the veneration now passes onto the prototype and in turn we can have a share in their holiness.

The rejection of icons was seen as a denial of the bodily economy of the Son in the incarnation. A hearken back to docetism. The Father's taught that the Uncircumscribable Logos became man and became circumscribable, so in that way he assumed matter and now we can paint images of what was seen.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Elder Zacharias of Essex says it best when he says that every line of Scripture is another line in the face of Jesus Christ.