|
The Orthodox Pages
CHAPTER FIVE ICON LIMITATIONS |
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
ICONS OF THE HOLY TRINITY
Should we have Icons representing the Holy Trinity? Before reaching the answer to this question, let us take a look at three types of Trinity Icons and the biblical text on which their composition is based.
1) THE HOSPITALITY OF ABRAHAM [See plate 10]
In the early Church, the only iconographic representation of the Holy Trinity was found in the Icon ‘The Hospitality of Abraham’ [Phyloxenia tou Avraám]. It is based on the story found in the Old Testament in the book of Genesis, chapter 18: “And God appeared to him [Abraham] by the oak of Mambre, as he sat by the door of his tent at noon. And he lifted up his eyes and beheld, and lo! three men stood before him and having seen them he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and did obeisance to the ground”. The story continues with Abraham preparing food for his visitors and the Lord telling him that his wife Sarah would conceive in her old age and bear him a son. The Icon shows the three angels around the table with Abraham and Sarah serving them with the food they have prepared. In the background, there is a mountain, the oak tree of Mambre and Abraham’s house.
It is clear in this event that Abraham recognized the Lord, but did he recognize all three angels as representing the Holy Trinity or only the central figure as the Lord, or more specifically, the Second Person of’ the Holy Trinity, the pre-incarnate Son of God? Throughout the history of the Church, the Church fathers have often been divided in their interpretation of this event. Some say that all three angels were a representation of the Three Persons of the Godhead, while others accept the general understanding that it was only the appearance of the Word of God, accompanied by two angels. Whichever the case, the Icon does not make a statement claiming to be an image of the Holy Trinity, but has the inscription ‘The Hospitality of Abraham’.
St. John of Damascus, writing in response to the iconoclastic heresy of the eighth century, mentions in his third discourse in defence of the Holy Icons, that in the 5th book of Exposition on the Gospels, by Eusebius of Pamphylia [Caesarea], and in connection with the words “God appeared to Abraham by the oak of Mambre”, the following testimony:
“Even now the inhabitants of those regions near where Abraham worshipped those who appeared to him honour it as a holy place. Indeed, the oak tree is still to he seen there and there is a picture of those whom Abraham entertained reclining at table, one shown on each side and the most august and honourable guest in the middle. Through him is signified to us our Lord and Saviour, whom simple men honour and whose divine words they believe. Hidden in human appearance and form, he showed himself to Abraham the God-loving Forefather, and gave him knowledge of the Father. Thus through Abraham He planted the seed of righteousness in men”.
The testimony by Eusebius is of twofold importance: 1) An icon of the Hospitality of Abraham had existed in the most ancient of times, because the oak tree, which was still to be seen, was destroyed by Constantine in the 4th century and a Christian Basilica was built on this place.
2) Eusebius gives us his interpretation of the event: that only the central figure was the Lord.
There is no doubt that the central figure was the Son of God, and in the icon, He is usually represented wearing the colours ascribed to Him after His incarnation. In some icons He is also given a cruciform halo as another means to identify and confirm that He is the Son of God, but this is a later addition to the Icon and often given to the other two angels. This addition of the cruciform halo actually puts forth a heretical teaching. Firstly, the passion and crucifixion were the attributes of the incarnate Son of God and only His human nature suffered the cross and death. in all the events preceding the incarnation, the Son of God, had only the one divine nature common to all three persons of the Holy Trinity, and so to show the cross in any event before the incarnation, would be to say that the divine nature also suffered and died upon the cross. Secondly, to give a cruciform halo to the other two angels, or any other representation of the Father and the Holy Spirit also leads to heresy, for it was only the Son of God in the flesh who suffered the cross and not the other two persons of the Holy Trinity.
In the 15th century, a Russian monk named Andrew Rublev gave this Icon a new form and meaning. He reduced the historical elements of the event, by omitting Abraham and Sarah, so that the main significance of the Icon was not in the historical biblical event, but in the dogmatic teaching of the Three consubstantial Persons of the Holy Trinity [See plate 11]. The table was no longer the instrument to hold the food of hospitality, but became the altar for the chalice with the sacrificial lamb: symbolizing the voluntary sacrifice of the Son of God and indicating by the gestures of the three angels, the unity of their predetermined will and the divine economy. Although the Icon was the same event of the hospitality of Abraham, it now placed the historical event as a secondary factor to the symbolic representation of the Triune God and subsequently renamed The Holy Trinity.
2) THE PATERNITAS OR FATHERHOOD [See plate 12]
This icon, which developed after the 11th century, depicts the Father as an old man with grey hair, sitting on a throne with the Son of God on His lap who holds a mandorla type discus within which is a dove, representing the Holy Spirit. The Icon has borrowed from the iconography of the incarnation of the Word by a human mother, in an attempt to show the pre-eternal birth of the Son from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and sent by the Son. It is founded on the Gospel text, “The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father” [John 1: 18], and again, “But when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father” [John 15: 26].
Fundamentally, the Icon is purely theological, but Instead of expounding the teaching of the Orthodox Church, It assimilates to the filioque heresy. The ‘filioque’ is an addition to the Nicene Creed [statement of faith] made by the Roman Catholic Church. In its original form preserved by the Orthodox Church, the Creed states, “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified”. The Roman Catholic Church added the words, “And from the Son” so that it now reads, “Who proceedeth from the Father and from the Son”. These few words contributed to the already unstable and fragile relationship between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, and were one of the reasons for the Great Schism in 1054.
The Orthodox Church very correctly anathemised the new Roman Catholic creed on the grounds that canon law strictly forbade any change to the Nicene Creed, but also because the ‘filioque’ caused a change in the relationship between the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity by indirectly suggesting that the Holy Spirit was subordinate to the Father and the Son. It destroyed the monarchy of the Father, for having never been begotten and not proceeding from any other person, He is the Source of the Godhead, but if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father, then the Son also becomes a source of the Godhead and therefore could not be begotten before all ages. This may seem difficult to understand, but any change in Trinitarian Theology has consequences on the whole of the Christian faith, because the dogma of the Holy Trinity is at the very heart of it.
The Greek Church has never sat in local council to condemn the Icon of Fatherhood, but the Russian Church had on at least two occasions found it necessary to question Trinity Icons. The first time was at the Council of 1551 in Moscow, called the Council of the Hundred Chapters. The question of the inscription and the cruciform halo was brought forward by Tsar John the Terrible and referred to the Icon with the three angels which has already been examined in the previous heading “The hospitality of Abraham”. The Council ordained that this image should be painted in the manner of the ancient Icon painters and of Andrew Rublev, that is, without the cross in the halo, and should be entitled ‘The Holy Trinity’, and nothing should be done from one’s own invention. The Council understood the implications of the cruciform halo, but the decision to entitle the Icon ‘The Holy Trinity’ remains questionable.
The second occasion was at the Great Council of Moscow in 1667. The Trinity Icon in question this time was The Fatherhood. The Council forbade this representation in the following terms; “To represent the God of Sabaoth [that is, the Father] on Icons with a grey beard, with His Only Son on His lap, and a dove between Them is exceedingly absurd and unseemly, since no one has seen God the Father. For the Father has no flesh, and it was not in the flesh that the Son was born from the Father before all ages; although the Prophet David says: ‘I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning’- yet this birth is not in the flesh, but is beyond all understanding or expression. And Christ Himself says in the Holy Gospels, ‘Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son…’ This birth, before all ages, of the only-begotten Son from the Father should he understood by the mind, but must not and cannot be represented on Icons”. The same Council also condemned the use of the dove to represent the Holy Spirit on Icons other than the Icon of our Lord’s Baptism.
3) THE GODHEAD IN THREE PERSONS [See plate 13]
This Icon, of western origin, appeared in the 16th century. It shows the Father and the Son sitting side by side with the Holy Spirit, again represented as a dove, in between Them. The Father is depicted as an old man with silver grey hair and clothed in a white garment. His representation is based on imagination, but also on the vision seen by the prophet Daniel: “I beheld until the thrones were set, and the Ancient of days sat; and his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head as pure wool” [Daniel 7: 9]. The text is not altogether clear as to who is the Ancient of days, which has often lead to its interpretation, that he is the Father. Most theologians are opposed to this interpretation and say that the Ancient of days is the Son, and if we look carefully at the 22nd verse of the same chapter, it reads, “until the Ancient of days came, and he gave judgement to the saints of the Most High”. From this verse it is obvious that Daniel’s apocalyptic vision refers to the second coming of Christ, for it is Christ that will come at the end of time and not the Father. Also, the Father hath committed all judgement unto the Son [St. John 5:22].
Having therefore seen three types of Trinity Icons, let us now return to the question posed in the beginning of this chapter: should we have Icons representing the Holy Trinity?
Christ Himself gives us the answer in the Gospels; “No man knoweth who the Father is but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal Him” [Luke 10: 22] ;“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him” [John 1: 18]; “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He which is or God, He hath seen the Father” [John 6: 46]. Christ makes it clear that no man has, at any time, seen the Father. This also takes into account the dreams and visions of the Old Testament prophets as well as the appearance of God to Abraham by the Mambre oak tree. This confirms that Abraham only saw the Son of God accompanied by two angels, for it would be logical to say that, if the pre-eternal Word, having not yet received flesh, could appear us a man, then so could the Father and the Holy Spirit. But if this were the case, then it would be in conflict, with what Christ has said and cause His words to hold no truth. This also applies to Daniel’s vision of the Ancient of days; he cannot be the Father if no man has ever seen Him.
The Holy Spirit depicted as a dove is based on His appearance in the ‘form’ of a dove at the Lord’s Baptism, but this does not give us the liberty to use this form in every other situation that we wish to show the Holy Spirit. It would insinuate that the Holy Spirit is a dove and not the invisible and indescribable Third Person of the Holy Trinity. He appeared in the ‘form’ of a dove only at the Lord’s Baptism and so should only be represented as a dove in that event. He also appeared as a cloud in the Transfiguration and as tongues of fire at Pentecost, but we do not see these forms representing the Holy Spirit in other Icons other than in the events they took place.
All this could be enough to say that the Holy Trinity should not be represented in Icons, but there is still a greater argument against Trinity Icons, for they are actually opposed by the theology of the Icon. Nowadays we tend to take a more relaxed and moderate attitude to what is depicted in the Icon, but this is to forget the iconoclast persecution against the Church, her incessant and steadfast defence for the true faith, and the many saints who gave their lives in martyrdom in defence of the Holy Icon and what it stood for. There can be no doubt that besides The Hospitality of Abraham, there did not exist an Icon of the Holy Trinity before the iconoclast periods, for if this was not so, the iconoclasts would certainty have used it in defence of their own arguments and would probably have been victorious. At that time, the only Icon of God was the Icon of Christ, and this was defended by the dogma of the incarnation: the fact that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity became matter was also the reason He could be represented by matter. If the iconoclasts were to use an Icon of the Holy Trinity as the foundation of their argument, it could not be defended by the incarnation because neither the Father or the Holy Spirit have at any time become incarnate: they remain uncreated, invisible, indescribable and uncircumscribable. Even if we say that an Icon of the Holy Trinity is purely theological, and the figures depicted are only meant to give a symbolic representation of the Divine Persons, as a means to teach in visible form the dogma of the Holy Trinity, it would not be totally acceptable because the Icon does not only serve to teach, but is also used for liturgical veneration. It is an intentional and deliberate form of communication with the persons it represents. To serve its full purpose, the Icon can never be just a symbol, for it represents and in a sense becomes one with the hypostasis of the person. An Icon must be a faithful interpretation of the prototype [original], showing a recognizable image and the name of the person it represents. The name identifies the person or persons and at the same time is a seal of sanctification, for as with the cross and the Bible, the Icon does not need to have special prayers read over it or receive any other form of blessing by a priest to make it holy. It cannot receive any additional benefit from a priest’s blessing or any application of Myron [holy oil]. Some icons have no inscription, which is contrary to the theology of the Icon, for it is the inscription that brings about its sanctification: without it, the Icon remains a common work of art.
The Icon of The Holy Trinity does not have an inscription saying that it is a symbolic representation of the Holy Trinity, but makes a definite statement ‘The Holy Trinity’. If the inscription alone provides us with a direct form of communication with the Three Hypostatic God, then in theory, we could use any symbol to represent the Holy Trinity, or more specifically the Father, as He has never been seen in any form. This may sound absurd, yet no more than the figures already used, for if He has never been seen, how can we show Him in any form whatsoever? If on the other hand, the Icon must show a recognizable image as well as the inscription, then any symbolic representation is a false image and does not provide us with a direct form of communication with the true hypostasis, but only communion with the symbol. With the Icon of Christ, we depict neither His divine nor human nature, but the incarnate hypostasis in which is united His two natures. A nature does not exist in itself, but is contemplated in the hypostasis [individual]. We show His human form incorporating the features of His individual character and veneration of this image is passed on to his actual person and His two natures. The individual character of the Father has never been revealed and so His representation cannot be His hypostasis and therefore His symbolic image cannot transmit any form of veneration to His actual person.
If for many centuries, the Church had no Icon of the Holy Trinity, we can assume that the Icons we now possess were the invention of the human imagination reflecting a desire to see in visible form, what is beyond its accessibility, thereby introducing personal emotions and individuality into the Icon. Officially, there is no feast day for the Holy Trinity, but the Church dedicates the day of Pentecost to the Holy Trinity and as with all feasts, it is customary to bring out an icon for veneration by the faithful. In this situation, what Icon could we use that is not opposed by the theology of the Icon? We could continue to use the Hospitality of Abraham, as this does not state that it is an Icon of the Holy Trinity, but leaves it to the individual to see in the three angels the teaching of the Trinitarian doctrine. This would not be wrong even though we acknowledge that it was only the Son of God accompanied by two angels that appeared to Abraham, for each Person of the Holy Trinity possesses the whole fullness of the Godhead. With this understanding, the most sensible Icon of the Holy Trinity would be the Icon of Christ. Christ said, “No man cometh unto the Father but by me [John 14: 6], and again in reply to Philip’s request “show us the Father” He said, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” [John 14: 9]. If Christ then is the image of the Father, then so too is the Holy Spirit. This does not mean their individual characters are the image of each other, but that they are identical in the divine nature of the Godhead and in the unity of their one will. When worship is offered to Christ’s divine nature through His Icon, it is also offered to the Holy Trinity, for the divine nature is one and the common property of all Three Persons.
Other Icons that testify to the Holy Trinity are the Icons of the Lord’s Baptism and His Transfiguration. The Church sees these events as manifesting the Three Hypostatic God. In the event of the Baptism, Christ was seen being baptised, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove and the voice of the Father was heard to say, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” [Matth. 3:17]. Again, in the Transfiguration, Christ was seen transfigured, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a cloud and the voice of the Father repeated the same words [Matth. 17: 5]. |
|
||
