11.06.07
Love, Honor, and Icons
Posted in Icons, Love at 1:54 am by whatisassumed
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.” Matthew 25:40
“The honor that is given to an icon passes over to the prototype.” St. Basil
Succumbing to iconoclasm not only means swallowing a heterodox Christology but accepting a deficient Christian life. When we honor an icon of St. John the Theologian, for instance, the honor does not rest with ink and wood but passes to St. John himself, as St. Basil tells us (and more explicitly, the 7th Ecumenical Council). Jesus tells us that the honor paid to one of His brothers, like St. John, is also paid unto Christ in whose image St. John is made. The movement when we venerate an icon is from icon to prototype (who is an icon) to Prototype. This is not to say that this is merely an acceptable practice, but Christ’s words in Mt. 25:31-46 tell us that venerating icons is the very substance of the Christian life by which we will be judged. Icons of Christ are all around us. Some are hungry, some are naked, some are sick, and we need to feed, clothe, and nurse them. Some need to be censed and kissed. In this light the concerns that venerating saints and icons somehow take away from the honor we should pay Christ melt away. It is from this perspective we see that by venerating saints, “even the least of them,” we venerate Christ, their Prototype (“you do it unto me”). It is here we are reminded of St. John’s words that we cannot love God without loving our brothers (1 Jn. 4:8, 20-21) and that to live in love for our brothers is to live in God (1 Jn. 4:7, 16). Indeed, we can’t demand the Lord of hosts without His hosts unless we demand a different Lord; but when we embrace the Lord we embrace His hosts and when we embrace His hosts we embrace the Lord. Far from seeing saints as risks for idolatry, they are icons of God who can pass us into the very presence of their Prototype.
MCO
nathanwells said,
November 7, 2007 at 3:10 am
How does one make the jump from actual people (as referred to by Jesus in Matthew 25) to icons?
I don’t see how Jesus talking about doing things for actual people relates to a person bowing down to an icon.
And on top of that Jesus wasn’t talking about worship in the context – he was talking about feeding and caring for people (loving people).
He did not say “Hey, worship the people around you, because it’s just like you are worshiping me”
Nor did he even mention an “image” or “icon”
Has the “father” you quoted correctly understood the text? Or has he added something to it that does not exist? How can we know if he was not mistaken? Why would God not allow Israel to make an “image” of him to worship?
“He took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” Now when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.” (Exodus 32:4-5)
You notice that Aaron called it a feast to the LORD (the term YHWY). And yet God was very angry. God doesn’t like it when people make images of him and worship them.
What makes you think that making an icon of Jesus and worshiping it is any different? So what if the icon is of the “true” God – God still considers it an idol.
So do you really think Jesus would condone such a thing in the New Testament? He never mentions icons – he mentions actual people. Getting from people to icons is a huge leap – and it was never stated by Christ that if we worship one of those people that it would be like we were worshiping him (or if we “venerate” them, we “venerate” Christ).
The leap is provided by your “father” not by the Bible.
Who will you base your belief on?
Michael O. said,
November 8, 2007 at 12:25 am
Nathan,
Good of you to visit. Please understand that this posting was meant as an edification for Orthodox readers and possibly for non-Orthodox readers to get a taste of what icons mean within Orthodox piety, but this was not meant as an apologetic for the legitimacy of icons. I would never present this at a Protestant church and then say, “See, isn’t it now clear the Orthodox are right?!”
St. Basil’s quote is not from a comment on the passage in Matthew, instead it comes from a passage specifically referring to icons. The connection made between St. Basil’s statement and Mt. 25 is my own doing, not St. Basil’s.
The thing I found interesting was that in Mt. 25 Jesus directs us to persons who are the image/icon of God and says that what we do to them is done to Him, who is the Prototype of that image/icon; that is, the honor paid to the image/icon passes to the Prototype, or the what is done unto the image of God is done unto God. Of course St. Basil referred to painted (or “written”) icons and Jesus was speaking specifically of enfleshed images, but there is a remarkable consistency in the relation between image/icon and prototype on both fronts.
No where did I say anything about worship. We venerate saints and their icons, but we worship God alone. Making a statue of a calf and calling it your god is far from making an image of St. Peter and calling it an image of St. Peter. Also, in the O.T. there was no likeness of God ever seen, so there was no likeness of God to depict; the incarnation made it possible to depict the Logos in His human nature (not His divine). To claim to depict God in His invisible divinity would be idolatry, but we depict persons in their visible humanity; to confuse the icon with the prototype would be idolatry, but that is distinguished (we worship the person of Christ, not His image); to worship that which is not God is idolatry, but we venerate saints and other things, while we worship God alone.
A great place to start getting an understanding of Orthodox theology of icons is St. John of Damascus’ “Three Treatise on the Divine Images” (SVS publishes a copy translated and introduced by Andrew Louth which is especially good). They are readily available, affordable, and highly readable.
Michael
nathanwells said,
November 8, 2007 at 8:46 pm
hmm…my comment isn’t showing up…
nathanwells said,
November 8, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I’ll try it in parts:
I realize this wasn’t directed at convincing anyone – but after seeing this first hand last Sunday I wanted to interact with you on it – I hope you don’t mind
You said, “but there is a remarkable consistency in the relation between image/icon and prototype on both fronts.”
Eh…I don’t see it. And your confusion of the terms image and icon is somewhat disturbing. It makes me feel, as I have felt many times in conversations with the Orthodox, that you are trying to play word tricks with me. The word icon is never used in the Bible, nor is it acceptable to use it as a synonym in English as if it is a legitimate translation of a Greek term (as I have stated before in other places about dynamite and energy). And even with the word “venerate” it makes me feel like you (that being the whole Orthodox church) are playing word games, trying to disguise what is really going on. Why not just come out and say what you mean?
nathanwells said,
November 8, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I realize it is not a big deal to you that the teaching of “venerating” pictures of saints is not in the Bible (because you believe it is a tradition passed down by the apostles), but my only point was I really don’t think you can go from helping real people, to venerating a picture of a person. A picture is not a person. It has no soul. I don’t see how even logically (aside from Biblically) someone could say, picture to human as human is to God. The picture is lifeless. Humans have life. If you do something nice to a picture of me, it does not transfer – my spirit does not reside there – but in a Christian, Jesus could say, “you did it to me” because He is actually in them – His Spirit resides within those who are saved.
I have not studied this – I’m just talking off the top of my head – but it is something to think about.
Thanks for the citation – I will put it on my “to read” list.
Michael O. said,
November 9, 2007 at 7:02 am
Image and Icon are both legit translations of “ikon” (just ask your Greek professor) which is of course a Biblical word. Think about it, if you were conversing with a person in Greek and were talking about the “image of God” you would use “ikon,” and if you were talking about iconography you would use “ikon” not because one time it refers to something like “power” while another time something like explosives (as in the case of dynamis) but because in both cases one is talking about images. When I say “images/icons” it is not to “trick” but to clarify that I am talking about both lest you think I’m talking about one as opposed to the other.
When Sinead O’Connor tore the pope’s photo, the person of the pope did not get torn in half (because icons are not persons), but it was an offense against the very person of the pope because there is a connection between a person and their image. I agree that God is present in humans more than just as an image/icon because human beings and persons are more than just images/icons, but I would also say there is a connection between a person and the image of that person.
nathanwells said,
November 9, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Have you read “De Spiritu Sancto”?
You totally quoted Basil out of context!! He isn’t even talking about “icons” in church.
You are not alone in quoting Basil – it seems many Orthodox quote him in regard to “venerating” icons. Interesting – in reading what he said in context – I get nothing about instruction to “venerate” icons in church at all!
“So that according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the
community of Nature, one. How, then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak
of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the
glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us
is not plural but one; because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now
what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature;
and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and
uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead One, moreover, is
the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one
Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity.”
whatisassumed said,
November 10, 2007 at 12:19 am
You’re not getting an instruction to venerate because it is not an instruction to venerate, it mentions what is the case when one does venerate or honor. He’s trying to discuss the monarchy of the Father, true monotheism, and the equality of the 3 Persons, and in doing so he refers specifically to honoring an image, the honor passing to the prototype precisely because there is a kind of unity between the image and prototype, and connects this with the relation of likeness and form in a work of art. The way likeness and form in a work of art (like an icon) are related is as image is to prototype wherein honor paid to one passes to the other -no wonder the 7th Ecumenical Council also felt comfortable appropriating this quote of St. Basil’s when making a pronouncement on veneration of icons.
Michael O. said,
November 13, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I should probably point out that it is the 7th Ecumenical Council’s use of this phrase from St. Basil which really cements the phrase as definite and exact Orthodox teaching on the veneration of icons. St. Basil’s discussion was a triadological one wherein he referenced images/icons to support his triadological teachings, and the 7th Ecumenical Council’s discussion was an iconographic one wherein they use this same line to explain their iconographic teachings. The council’s use of the phrase, more than St. Basil’s, is the reason the quote is at the forefront of many Orthodox minds when discussing Orthodox theology of icons.