Establishment of the Rules of Icon Painting.

Iconography, therefore, cannot be considered apart from the total context of liturgy and dogma in the Orthodox Church. Its every detail is fixed by tradition and must conform to ecclesiastical requirements. This is true even for the colors. The very oldest writings of mystical theology (the writings that are ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite — cf. Acts 17:34 — though in fact they belong to the fifth century and were written by some unknown figure in Syria) contain an elaborate system of color symbolism; certain liturgical colors of the earthly Church are related to the colors of corresponding choirs of angels in the celestial hierarchy, and each of the colors is given specific spiritual and moral significances on the basis of its celestial archetype. This tradition of color symbolism was retained in the Orthodox Church and found its way into the monastic manuals on painting. Hence even the coloration of the icons was not left to the imagination of the monastic icon painters, for every color had a symbolic significance. Thus the garments of certain saints always had to be painted in prescribed colors that were in keeping with their spiritual character.

On this score too we can no longer say that the rigidity of icon painting resulted from the meager creative powers of the artists. The very quality that we Westerners expect of them was strictly forbidden by their Church. These Eastern painters adhered to the traditional forms prescribed by the Church not because they could do no better, but because for their souls' salvation they did not dare do otherwise, and because they thought of themselves as humble copyists of celestial archetypes. Thus the iconography of the Eastern Church keeps alive a kind of primitive script used to record archetypal religious experience. It is an art that goes back to the earliest age of the Church, when the power of visionary insight was as yet unbroken.

When we understand the importance of icons in Orthodox worship, we are better prepared to understand the Orthodox religious system, for the concept of icons themselves is a central point of dogma which crops up again and again in all aspects of Orthodox theology. The idea of the image has its counterpart in the relationship between man and God. Man is created “in the image of God”; he carries the icon of God within himself. This belief is so central to Orthodox theology and anthropology, the consciousness that man was imprinted with the image of God from the day of creation is so dominant, that the idea of original sin never could become established within the Orthodox Church in its blunt Western form. Sin manifests itself as a distortion, a damaging, infecting and tainting of the image of God; but it cannot rob man of his original nobility. This is always his because he remains the image of God.

This image-concept also dominates the Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity in the Eastern Church. The divine Logos is the image of the Father, in which he first took form, the “stamp of his nature,” the “radiance of his glory” (Heb. 1:3). The work of redemption by the incarnate Logos, who is an image of the heavenly Father and in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells” (Col. 2:9), consists in renewing the image of God which the first man stained by sin. Christ is the “new Adam” in whom the original image of God of the old Adam is restored. The whole meaning of redemption, then, is linked with this concept of image; the redemption of man consists in man's being renewed in the image of Jesus Christ, incorporated into the image of Christ and thus through Jesus Christ experiencing the renewal of his status as image of God.

The role of the Church is also defined in terms of the image. The Church exists so that its many members may be incorporated into the image of Jesus Christ, the “perfect man” (Eph. 4:12), in that the individual believers are “changed into his likeness” (2 Cor. 3:18). Thus Orthodox theology holds up the icon as the true key to the understanding of Orthodox dogma.

In order to understand the spirit of this liturgy, we must go back to the very beginnings of Christian worship. Before Jesus appeared on the scene, Judaism was in the grip of a fervent expectation of the kingdom of God that was to be ushered in and accomplished by the appearance of the Messiah and Son of Man. These hopes for the coming of the kingdom of God were not couched in terms of theological abstractions: they were hopes of something quite definite and tangible, of a joyous new state of existence. Again and again this hope was expressed in terms of the image of the Messianic meal: the glory to come “sitting down” (literally: lying at table) in the kingdom of God. “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God” (Luke 14:15).

In his sermon on the kingdom of God, Jesus gave a new content to this anticipation. Once more we come upon the metaphor of the Messianic meal, of blissfully lying at table with the raised-up Messiah-Son-of-Man. “And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north and from the south, and shall sit down [lie at table] in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:29). This chosen congregation of the kingdom will serve the Lord at the Messianic meal even in the kingdom of God. “Blessed are those servants whom the Lord when he comes shall find watching; verily, I say unto you that he shall gird himself and make them sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them” (Luke 12:37). The Messianic meal may be likened to a wedding supper at which the Messiah-Son-of-Man weds his chosen congregation, the pure bride. This idea of a wedding also pervades the kingdom-of-God parables of Jesus: the bringer of the heavenly kingdom appears as the celestial bridegroom, the chosen of the kingdom of God are the invited guests, and the congregation itself is the bride.

But this was not only a promise for the future. Jesus was convinced that this promise was already beginning to be fulfilled on earth in his own lifetime, that it was his mission to gather the members of the future kingdom into a fellowship; that in fact the kingdom of God had already appeared with his coming. For that reason, too, the fundamental mood of the fellowship that formed around him was one of nuptial rejoicing over the dawning of the promised Last Days. In speaking to the disciples of John the Baptist, Jesus explained why he did not favor fasting in the words: “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?” (Matt. 9:15).

The supper that Jesus shared with his disciples on the night of his betrayal must be understood wholly in terms of this anticipation of the kingdom of God. Knowing himself to be the Messiah who will be brought to his glory through persecution and death, Jesus unites himself with his disciples here on earth and sits down with them to partake of the Messianic repast. He initiates here on earth a fellowship of the table that extends over into the celestial kingdom.

“I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom” (Matt. 26:29).

Конфликты в семейной жизни. Как это изменить? Редкий брак и взаимоотношения существуют без конфликтов и напряженности. Через это проходят все...

ЧТО ТАКОЕ УВЕРЕННОЕ ПОВЕДЕНИЕ В МЕЖЛИЧНОСТНЫХ ОТНОШЕНИЯХ? Исторически существует три основных модели различий, существующих между...

Что способствует осуществлению желаний? Стопроцентная, непоколебимая уверенность в своем...

ЧТО ПРОИСХОДИТ, КОГДА МЫ ССОРИМСЯ Не понимая различий, существующих между мужчинами и женщинами, очень легко довести дело до ссоры...

Не нашли то, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском гугл на сайте: