The main history of the Old Testament is full of caring concern for the long-suffering people of God the Father. This closeness was especially evident in the closeness to the prophets, who transmitted God's Word to true believing Christians and those who had just come to know faith in God. On the holy icon of God, the Father is depicted as an old man who sits on a throne in a majestic and calm form.
Both of His hands are raised. His face is fringed with a long gray beard. As in all images of the Savior, his hair falls to his shoulders. The vestment on the icon of God the Father consists of a tunic and a tunic to the ground. All the folds of the old man's clothes are pierced with thin golden rays of the sun, symbolizing the radiation of divine energy forces. Around the head of God the Father is a halo, which is depicted only by God the Father and the Savior.
This ancient icon was banned until some time by the 7th Ecumenical Council, which was convened against the heresy of iconoclasm. In the Russian Church, such images were condemned for the second time by the Great Moscow Cathedral in the 17th century. Today, the icon of God the Father exists in Orthodox iconography, despite the fact that God the Son is sung in church prayers and Orthodox services.
The presence of the icon of God the Father in the churches of Russia
For more than four centuries, the image on Christian icons
God the Father adorns many churches not only in Russia. In addition to the famous and very ancient icon of the Fatherland, icons with His image can be seen on some famous ones. So worth noting ingenious murals Pokrovsky Cathedral in Moscow, where you can see artistic icon-paintings depicting God the Father, whose ancient icon is called the icon of Hosts.
If we discard the incessant disputes of priests and iconographers about the legitimacy of this image, then we can say with confidence that this image is truly one of the main decorations of Orthodox monasteries. Nowadays, new versions of this shrine are being created, skillfully embodied in icons made of amber, icons embroidered with beads or painted with paints, in a typographical way. You can buy an icon of God the Father, created by modern icon painters, in online stores. Old lists of this famous icon can be seen in antique shops, at exhibitions of leading collectors.
Christians around the world consider Jesus Christ not just the Son of God, but the incarnation of God in earthly matter. Indeed, Jesus Himself said:
"He who has seen me has seen the Father"(John 14:9).
It is in the incarnation of God in an image that could be seen that a significant part of Orthodox theologians see the basis of icon veneration. The Orthodox theologian L. A. Uspensky (1902-1987) wrote in his book The Theology of the Icon of the Orthodox Church:
“The image is inherent in the very essence of Christianity, for Christianity is the Revelation not only of the Word of God, but also Image of God revealed by the God-Man Jesus Christ. The Church teaches that the icon is based on the very fact of the incarnation of the second Person of the Holy Trinity».
That is, allegedly, before God was not portrayed only because He was not seen. It turns out that in the 4th chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, the Creator, saying that He did not show himself to people so that they would not make His images for themselves, limited this prohibition to the time of the coming of Christ:
« Hold firmly in your souls that you have not seen any image on the day the Lord spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you become corrupt and make yourselves statues, images of any idol representing a man or a woman» (Deut. 4:15,16).
Now, having seen God in Jesus, people supposedly can already forget the prohibitions of the Holy Scriptures regarding images and images. On this topic, in addition to the above, there are many more lengthy works of the Orthodox Fathers, the meaning of which boils down to the fact that with the advent of Christ, for closer contact with God, it became possible use images of His Son.
However, this theological position is not consistent with the teachings of the Old and New Testaments. The entire Bible is consistent on the issue of idolatry. As we have seen, in the Old Testament the ban on idols and images was given to the Jews at Mount Sinai. God considered this commandment so important that he included it in the Decalogue. Further, Scripture more than once called the idolatry of the people of Israel fornication against the Lord. New Testament continued to warn against idolatry. The Bible ends with a list of sins that will not allow many people to enter Heavenly Jerusalem, among which is the violation of the second commandment of the Decalogue - the veneration of idols.
“Blessed are those who keep His commandments to have them entitled to the tree of life and enter the city by the gates. And outside - dogs and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and everyone who loves and does unrighteousness"(Rev. 22:14,15).
The book of Revelation clearly shows that idolatry will be developed at the end of earth's history. What is the opposite of serving God in the last book of the Bible? Indeed, today on the planet it is already relatively rare to find pagan gods in the form in which they existed in biblical times. However, this sin in the Apocalypse is significant and stands out from the rest:
“The rest of the people who did not die from these plagues did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons and gold, silver, copper, stone and wooden idols who cannot see, hear, or walk"(Rev. 9:20).
If we take into account that according to the book of Revelation at the end of earthly history from God's judgments Babylon has fallen, the great harlot, who made her drunk with the wine of wrath of fornication all nations (see Rev. 18:2, see also Rev. 14:8, Rev. 17:2), it becomes clear that the erring believers before the Second Coming of Christ will be so many (got drunk all nations ). So, to the above idols revered idols of historical Christian denominations may well be included.
The teaching of Orthodoxy regarding icon veneration as a whole is devoid of consistency. On the one hand, the popular church teaches that the image of the face of Christ became pleasing to the Creator, because the second Person of the Divine Trinity was incarnated on Earth in the image of Jesus. On the other hand, according to church tradition, the first icon was not the face of an adult Jesus, but the image of Mary with a baby by Luke. And later, icons became revered, on which there is no image of Christ at all. The naivety of the legends themselves about icons and the time of their appearance are also striking. The first mentions the icon of the Mother of God by the evangelist Luke in the 6th century, the historian Theodore the Reader. He writes that the Empress Eudoxia sent from Jerusalem to Constantinople to her sister Pulcheria an image of the Mother of God painted by the Evangelist Luke. According to church tradition, the icon painted by Luke was in Constantinople until the 15th century. Then, according to one of the legends, before the fall of Constantinople under the Turks, the icon disappeared from there. After that, she miraculously appeared in Russia, transported over the waters of Lake Ladoga. Now this icon is called the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God.
However, it is not easy for Orthodoxy to answer many questions:
Why does the mention of the existence of the icon painted by Luke begin only in the 6th century?
Why was this icon not shown at the councils of 754 and 787 during iconoclasm in defense of icon veneration?
Could Luke have seen the young Mary with the baby Jesus?
If Luke painted a portrait of Mary, then why did the most influential preacher, Christian theologian and politician Blessed Augustine (354-430) write: “We do not know the face of the Virgin Mary, from whom Christ was miraculously born manless and incorruptible”?
If this icon is indeed painted by Luke, then it must be one of the greatest shrines of the entire Christian world. Why is there no pilgrimage of millions of Christians to her?
Why, according to church legends, many icons claim to be Luke’s brush: Merciful (Kykkskaya) on the island of Cyprus, Czestochowa in Poland, Filermskaya in Montenegro, Great Cave on the island of Patmos, Vladimirskaya, Smolenskaya, Blachernae, Jerusalem, Korsunskaya (Ephesian), Fedorovskaya, Madonna di San Luca, Tikhvinskaya in Russia and others? Although the first legends mention only one icon of Luke.
Why aren't independent examinations of this or other icons supposedly of Luke being carried out to establish their true age? After all, if these icons were painted at the time of the writing of the New Testament, then once and for all it will be proved that icon veneration existed in biblical times, and among the apostles, too. Why are examinations not done? Is it because the tradition is very unreliable? Maybe the representatives of the church do not try to confirm it, knowing the result in advance? Indeed, even a glimpse of a specialist is enough to understand that the style and method of writing these icons is significantly different from the catacomb pictorial art of Christians of the first centuries and even from the iconography of the 6th century that has come down to us. And they are very well preserved for the age of two thousand years. The obvious doubtfulness of the legend about the icons of Luke is confirmed by the well-known Orthodox figure Archbishop Mikhail Mudyugin (1912 - 2000), Doctor of Theology, Professor, Rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in his book “Russian Orthodox Churchness. The second half of the twentieth century" (chapter "Icon veneration"):
« Insolvency This apocryphal tradition is confirmed by the number of icons of the Mother of God attributed to the evangelist: there are about two hundred of them, which significantly exceeds the physical capabilities of one person, who is mainly engaged in medical (Col. 4:4), missionary work (he is the companion of the Apostle Paul, see Acts 16: 13; Acts 20:5,6; Acts 27:1,2) and literary activities (the apostle Luke, as you know, is the author of not only the Gospel that bears his name, but also the New Testament book "Acts of the Apostles"). In addition, the icons attributed to St. Luke, very diverse in terms of execution, one of them is wearing clearly features of the Byzantine, others (especially numerous) - Old Russian style, some make it easy to establish the presence of Western influence.
It will also be very interesting to hear the answer of official Orthodoxy to the question:
Why the Orthodox Church turns a blind eye to violation direct prohibition of the Bible - the image of God the Father? We have already seen that in the book of Deuteronomy in ch. 4 tbsp. 15 The Creator said that He did not show Himself to people, so that they would not make His image and worship Him. Moreover, the Creator noted: "Man cannot see Me and stay alive"(Ex. 33:20). In the New Testament, the apostle John recalls: "God has never been seen"(John 1:18, see also 1 John 4:12, 1 Tim. 6:16). As we know, Orthodoxy believes that the Creator canceled the ban on the image of God the Son by revealing Him. But God the Father Himself never showed Himself to people. So, following the logic of the popular church, this exception never touched God the Father. Then it is not clear why the "exception" in relation to Jesus, Orthodoxy at the same time extended to the veneration of the images of God the Father and other personalities - holy people and Mary in direct violation of God's law (see Deut. 4:15, Ex. 20:4,5) . Today, many icons revered by the official church depict God the Father. For example, He is painted on the miraculous icon of the Sovereign Mother of God from above above the Mother of God. The image of the Father is also present in the icon of the Holy Trinity and in other images of the New Testament Trinity. And icons depicting Mary and saints are in every Orthodox church and in almost every Orthodox family.
There are other questions to which the popular church finds it difficult to find logically sound answers:
Why history does not know the shrines of the 1st - 5th centuries similar to modern icons, except for a few icons attributed to the hand of Luke, but, we recall, far in style from the fine art of that time and not having an independent expert opinion confirming their two thousand year age? It is worth recalling that authoritative representatives of Orthodoxy admit that the earliest works of Christian fine art that have come down to us are the murals of the catacombs of the 2nd - 4th centuries. (see chapter And « historical background» to this chapter).
Why not not a single an archaeological fact confirming the use of images for worship by the first Christians, but there is only evidence of the use of wall and decorative painting?
Why does history not know the theological and annalistic sources of the first three centuries after Christ, which speak of the veneration of images and other shrines by Christians or the need for such veneration? At the same time, we recall that there is a lot of documentary evidence to the contrary, some of which we examined above in the chapter "Images in the Bible and prayer houses of the early Christians".
Some representatives of Orthodoxy claim that they do not worship icons in the form of objects, but through these images, as through a “heavenly” window, they address directly those who are depicted on them. Then another logical question is:
Why among several icons of the same “hero of faith” are some more revered and others less so? It turns out that not the saints themselves, but still their Images variously "miraculous". And the point here is not that some images are more prayed for, while others are less… After all, some icons allegedly “exuded grace” right away. A good example of this is the icon of the Kazan Mother of God, which, according to church tradition, immediately began to “perform miracles” after its appearance.
Is it possible to portray God the Father?
IN Lately more and more often one hears the opinion about the incompetence of this image. Since a fallen person by himself cannot understand this or that ecclesiastical issue, then, according to the advice of the sacred scripture: “Put everything to the test; keep good" to Fessan, chapter 5, article 21, we will try to understand this issue.
For the Orthodox Christian, there are three divine sources that are indisputable authority: this
1) Holy Bible
2) sacred tradition
3) patristic heritage
In order, let's first turn to the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament.
In the Gospel of John, chapter 1, article 18, it says “No one has ever seen God. Only God, the only Son who is near the Father, has revealed Him to us.”
The Lord Jesus Christ Himself testifies: “Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to Me. It doesn't mean that anyone saw Father. Only He who came from God, He alone saw the Father.” Ev. from John ch.6 st.45-46.
At the request of the Apostle Philip to show the Father, the Lord reproaches him: “I have been with you for so long, and you do not know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. How do you say, “Show us the Father? John ch. 14. v. 8-9 i.e. if you want to see the Father, then look at Me. Therefore, those who want to see the Father, let them look at the icon of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Apostle Paul in his epistle to (Colos 1.15.) says: “Christ is the image invisible god. In the epistle to (Timothy 1.17.) he says: “The King of eternity, the immortal , invisible, to the only God honor and glory forever and ever! Amen." (to Tim. 6.16.); "He lives in an impregnable light - His nobody saw of people and can not see. To him honor and eternal power. Amen."
And so the Holy Scripture of the New Testament speaks of the indescribability of God the Father.
Let us turn to the second source, to the Holy Tradition of the Church.
“Why do we not describe the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Because we haven't seen Him. And if we saw and knew Him, as well as His Son, then we would try to describe and picturesquely depict Him (the Father) ... ”(Acts VII Ecumenical Council, Act 4) - say the fathers of this Council.
The Stoglavy Cathedral, convened in Moscow in 1551, giving an order to icon painters, defined in its 43rd canon the fundamental indescribability of the Deity. This was also confirmed by the Great Moscow Cathedral, which met in 1666-1667. In the 43rd chapter of the Acts of this Council, which is called “On icon painters and Sabaoth,” a quite clear decision was given: “From now on, the image of the Lord of Hosts should not be written in ridiculous and indecent visions, for no one of Hosts has seen in the flesh, as it is painted, that is, depicted according to the flesh, and not according to the Godhead. The Lord of Sabaoth with the gray hair and the Only Begotten Son in His womb to write on icons and a dove between Them, it is very absurd and indecent to eat.
So, the anthropomorphic image of God the Father of St. the fathers always rejected, and they considered it ignorant to depict such images. Moreover, the icon performs doctrinal functions, so a falsely understood image is dangerous, because it carries distorted information and becomes heretical.
The fathers of the Great Moscow Cathedral, who gave an unequivocal order to remove images from churches and prayer houses that do not correspond to Orthodox teaching.
The Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church in 1776 issued the following decision: “It was decided by a council that this alleged icon of the Holy Trinity is an innovation, alien and not accepted by the Apostolic, Catholic, Orthodox Church. It penetrated into the Orthodox Church from the Latins.”
On I th Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325, the heretic Arius told the fathers of the Council that since He is the Father, it means that He is older than the Son, therefore there is no fullness of divinity in the Son. The Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Council answered him that in humanity the father is older than the son, and in divinity they are co-eternal. There is no ambiguous conclusion that the icon of God the Father in the form of an old man preaches the Arian heresy, which was cursed on I th Ecumenical Council, distorts the feeling of the heart, informs the heart of the fruit of our imagination, fills a person with a Catholic mentality.
Unfortunately, even in the Law of God it is said that His, i.e. The Old Testament prophets saw the Father in this form. What is the answer to this...?! It only remains to turn to the liturgical texts, which, according to Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), are the source of the uncomplicated, purest theology of the Catholic Orthodox Church.
“Ancient in days, Even the law of old in Sinai gave to Moses, today the Child is seen and according to the law, as the Creator of the law, fulfilling the law, is brought to the temple, and is given to the elder ...” a stichera on the Litium of the Presentation. “Today, Simeon lifts up the glory of the Lord into the hands of Him, even under the darkness, the first Moses saw, on Mount Sinaistey giving the tablets to Him. This is, He who speaks in the prophets and the creator of the law ... ”stichera on the litia of the Germanic Candlemas.
“The Ancient of Days, having been in infancy in the flesh, the Mother of the Virgin brings His law to the church, fulfilling the promise ...” Stichera on the litia of the Presentation on and now. And here is the irmos of the 5th song of the canon for the Candlemas, I cite in Russian translation, so that it would be clearer. “When Isaiah saw in the type of God exalted on the throne, surrounded solemnly by the angels of glory, he exclaimed: O me, wretched ! I foresaw the future to come true God endowed with unstoppable light and peace."
“You were seen in the prophets, as if powerfully by Jesus, you can see in ancient times, but now, God’s Word, the flesh of the whole world appeared to you by the will of the Virgin Mary, Christ, your salvation to all beings from Adam showed you, like a Lover of mankind.” Verse on the verse of the Presentation.
« God cannot be seen by man but the officials of the angels do not dare to look at Him; By you, the All-Pure One, appearing as a man, the Word is embodied, His majestic, with heavenly howls, we appease Thee. irmos 9 canon songs
I think these texts are quite enough to make sure that all the divine visions of the Old Testament prophets related to the Second Hypostasis of the All-Holy Trinity, i.e. to our Lord Jesus Christ.
And the name "Sabaoth" means "God of hosts" or "God of armies", refers to the entire Trinity, and not to any one person (hypostasis), for it is said: "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts ..."
Now let us turn to the third source, to the holy fathers of the Church of St. John of Damascus teaches that God is depicted in the flesh only in the face of Jesus Christ, who was born of the Ever-Virgin Mary. Only in this case "the indescribable deity is described according to humanity." St. Cyril of Alexandria writes about it this way: “What does it mean “reached the Ancient of Days” - is it spatial? This would be ignorance, because the Divine is not in space, but fulfills everything. What does it mean to “reach the Ancient of Days?” It means that the Son has reached the glory of the Father.”
Maxim the Greek rejected this icon, because he had never seen anything like it “in any land” and believed that the icon painters had composed this image from themselves.
St. Basil the Great taught. “God has no outline. He is simple. Do not fantasize about His structure. Do not lock God into your bodily ideas, do not limit Him to the measure of your mind.
And so we see that the icon of the "New Testament Trinity" and in particular the image of God the Father in the form of an old man is heretical and does not contribute to salvation, but removes from it, because it is said that heretics do not inherit the Kingdom of God.
sexton Dimitri
God is absolutely indescribable in His being, incomprehensible in His essence, and unknowable. As if dressed in the impregnable darkness of incomprehensibility. Not only are attempts to depict God in His essence unthinkable, but any definitions cannot encompass and express the essence of God, it is impregnable for human consciousness, it is an impregnable darkness of God's essence.
Theology itself can only be apophatic, that is, composed in negative terms: Incomprehensible, Unapproachable, Unknowable. St. Gregory Palamas, in his defense of the Orthodox doctrine of the uncreated Tabor light, teaches us to unfailingly distinguish between the divine, completely unknowable essence and the Divine in His action directed towards the created world, in His providential concern for every creation. Palamas teaches to distinguish between the being of God and His divine energy-forces, radiations of grace that holds the world.
The providential Divine action in the world is accessible to consciousness, cognizable, God turned to the world, God extending to the world His care, His love, His never-ending care. This is the wisdom that arranges everything, the light of the world that enlightens everything, the love of God that fills everything, this is the revelation of God - the manifestation of God to the world. And the world is arranged by God in such a way as to perceive, accommodate this divine action, to take on this royal seal, to become entirely royal property. The ultimate meaning and purpose of all created things is to become God's property.
The whole universe in its entirety and each creation in its unique, unique features, contain, as it were, some mysterious story about the Creator.
Therefore, it is wrong to speak of God the Father as a hypostasis surrounded by complete darkness. From the very creation of the world, we see God the Father in His unceasing care for the world, in unceasing care for the human race and in unceasing communication with people, up to the appearance of Himself, visibly and tangibly, to Abraham and Sarah in the form of one of the three Angels.
The entire history of Israel in the Old Testament is filled with the care of God the Father for the chosen people. St. Gregory the Theologian says this about Israel's communion with God the Father: "Israel was primarily turned to God the Father." And this closeness of the Lord of hosts to his chosen people was, first of all, closeness to the prophets. God the Father, as it were, gave Himself to be contemplated, showed His image with possible clarity, and perhaps one of the most complete revelations was given to the prophet Daniel in the vision of the court, in which God the Father, as it were, spiritually traces His image, reveals His Fatherly Face. Here is the prophetic testimony of Daniel (VII, 9, 13, 14): “Finally, I saw that thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days sat down; His robe was white as snow, and the hair of His head was a pure wave; His throne - like a flame of fire, His wheels are a blazing fire... I saw in my night visions, behold, with the clouds of heaven, it was as if the Son of Man was walking, he came to the Ancient of Days, and was brought to Him. all peoples, tribes and languages have served him, his dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.” But only in the light of the Incarnation, and only in it, does the image of God the Father become possible.
In the divine service, in its pictorial part, we see a symbolic image of God the Father. At Great Vespers, while the clergy are singing "Bless the Lord, O my soul... Thou hast done all wisdom," from the altar, through the royal gates, the priest, preceded by the deacon, comes out for incense, and bypasses the temple. Here the priest marks God the Father, who creates the universe, and is, as it were, an icon of God the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth. But even in the pictorial part of the liturgy, similar to the incense on "Lord, I cried," we do not see a self-sufficient image of God the Father, but only in mutual relation to the other two hypostases or in providential care for the universe, and in this sense the negative attitude of the Church Fathers to the image God the Father remains in force and acts in the Church, despite such a wealth of patristic images.
There is a prophetic definition, not rejected by the Church, that at the end of the ages a temple dedicated to God the Father will be erected. Great and glorious in all nations, this temple will be the possible fullness of the revelation of God the Father in the Church. Such fullness of the manifestation of the Father precedes the Last Judgment, where the Father passes the Judgment to the Son, the Son judges the universe by the will of the Father.
Many times and under different circumstances, the question arose in the Church of how the first hypostasis, God the Father, should be depicted, and whether the icon of God the Father has a place at all in a number of church images. Judgments related to this issue were sometimes contradictory. And this inconsistency, it seems to us, is not accidental. Such apparent duality is inherent in the very life of the "Paternal" images.
The question of the image of God the Father took place already at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, although not in the order of a formal discussion. And the opinions expressed by St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite, the great defenders of the veneration of icons, reject the image of God the Father. One of the main reasons for the rejection of such an image is that God the Father, depicted in a human form, can create the impression or give rise to the idea of some of his eternal human likeness. St. John of Damascus says: "We do not portray the Lord the Father because we do not see Him, if we saw Him, we would portray."
From the words spoken at the Council in defense of icons, the Word of John of Thessaloniki attracts attention: “We make icons of those who were people and servants of God and wore flesh. icons of God, that is, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then we depict Him as He was seen on earth, being among people.
In the further development of consciousness associated with the veneration of icons, such a kind of materialistic basis has undergone significant changes. The circle of images included not only those who were people and holy servants of God and wore flesh, but also images of the Angelic world, images of Angels, which, if they were visible, this phenomenon could not be called "wearing the flesh." Rather, it can be said that the Angels were clothed in a visible image as a symbol that speaks of their incorporeal nature. Icons also arose, which were not only pure evidence of the unconditionally visible, but rather filled with doctrinal and dogmatic content.
In Russia, at the Stoglav Cathedral (1551), the question of images of God the Father arose again. The council was presented for discussion with a letter drawn up by a certain clerk Viskovaty, in which this clerk questions the admissibility of images of God the Father. These doubts were caused, apparently, by painting, produced in the newly rebuilt palace of Tsar Ivan the Terrible by Novgorod icon painters. Dyak Viskovaty presented a list of icons containing the image of God the Father, and demanded their removal from church use. The petition of the clerk was considered separately, already after the meetings of the Council. Dyak Viskovaty was not recognized as right, and his petition was rejected. The decision was made in general terms, without considering each image individually. It seems that the providential significance of such a decision was that the Council, having accepted icons with very controversial iconography, preserved and adopted that icon, without which it is unthinkable to imagine the Church. This is an icon of the Holy Trinity - the Trinity of Abraham, as defined in the letter of the clerk Viskovaty. This icon was included in the list of those subject to seizure on the grounds that it contains an image of God the Father. Stoglav approved the image of the Trinity with special permission.
A few years later, the next discussion of the images of God the Father took place at the Great Moscow Council (1655). This Council, in contrast to Stoglav, completely rejects the image of God the Father, making an exception only for the images of the Apocalypse, where it considers the image of God the Father acceptable "for the sake of visions there." For the sake of the visions of God the Father in the form of the Elder, the Old Denmi, given in Revelation.
The prohibition of the Great Moscow Council has a warning character. The concern of the Council is determined by the fear that the human image of God the Father may inspire the idea of the human likeness of the first Person of the Holy Trinity. The Great Moscow Cathedral also points to the inadmissibility of the icon, which bore the name "Fatherland" and was widely used.
This icon is placed in the upper ancestral rank of the iconostasis, it seems to overshadow the entire temple, and, according to the iconographic plan, seeks to express the paternal nature of the first Person with the greatest fullness.
This icon is very ancient in origin - the first of the surviving images dates back to the beginning of the 11th century and is preserved in the Vatican Library. This is a miniature placed in the manuscript of John Klimach (from the book by Adelheim Geiman). Its iconography is fully developed and complete and differs little from the icons of the 16th and 17th centuries, which were placed on iconostases.
God the Father is depicted as an old man seated on a throne. The appearance of the elder is majestic and calm, both hands are raised in blessing. The face is bordered by a gray, rather long and somewhat forked beard. Strands of hair are also divided in two in the middle, as is usually depicted by the Savior, and fall over the shoulders. The facial features are solemnly blessed. The vestment consists of two clothes: a tunic that falls to the very ground, and a tunic - a robe similar to the one in which the Savior is depicted. All the folds of the robe of God the Father are pierced with thin golden rays, an asist, signifying the radiation of divine forces-energies. These rays cover the upper and lower garments of God the Father and the throne and the footstool. The head of God the Father is crowned, according to the church establishment, with a nimbus, usually inherent in the image of only God the Father or the Savior, where He is depicted in the glory of the Father - for example, on the icons the Angel of Silence, Old Denmi. The crown consists of two squares: one is fiery, testifying to the divinity of the Lord, the other is black-green (or blue-black), marking the darkness of the incomprehensibility of the Deity. Such a crown, but not in the form of a halo, covering the entire image, is found on some icons of the Mother of God, for example, the Burning Bush. On the knees of God the Father is depicted the Eternal Infant God the Son. His robes, just like the robes of the Father, are enlightened by golden rays - asist. The head is crowned with a crossed halo. The head of the Divine Infant rests upright, his facial features are imperious. The forehead is disproportionately large in commemoration of divine omniscience. The position of the body of the seated Divine Infant is as free and majestic as the position of the body of the Father. In the bowels of Emmanuel, the Holy Spirit is depicted in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit is surrounded by a sphere of blue color pierced by rays emanating from Him. The savior usually holds the sphere surrounding the dove with both hands. Sometimes the Savior is depicted with two blessing hands, like the Father.
If we return to the icon "Fatherland" and peer into its construction, it becomes visible how this icon strives to become an icon of the Trinity and cannot completely become it. In its construction, it incorrectly matches the images of Persons. The main movement of this image is, as it were, a movement inward. God the Father in the image of an old man, as it were, completely absorbs the images of the Son and the Holy Spirit with His majestic outlines. And the Holy Spirit, depicted as a dove, is immeasurably small in relation to the first and second Persons. It turns out the image of the Trinity, aspiring, as it were, into Itself, in which the dignity of the Persons is consistently diminished. Just as, for example, the image of three Persons on the cross, in which the Lord of Hosts, placed at the top of the cross, blesses, and the Holy Spirit overshadows the crucified Lord with wings, does not completely and in its entirety represent the image of the Holy Trinity. The same can be said about the icon, often placed in the iconostasis, the "Seat at the right hand of the Father", or, as it is often called, the "New Testament Trinity".
The basis of this icon was the desire to portray the Lord Jesus Christ after the ascension of His seated Father at the right hand. God the Father is usually depicted on the right side of the icon in the image of an Elder sitting on a throne, in royal robes, enlightened by the rays, in a royal crown. In his left hand, the Father holds an orb. The head of God the Father is surrounded by an eight-pointed nimbus inscribed in a round nimbus. Right hand usually God the Father blesses Christ, whose image is placed on the left side of the icon. The Savior, just like God the Father, has a royal crown on his head, and His head is surrounded by the baptismal nimbus usual for the Savior. The clothes of Christ are like the clothes of the Father. The face of Christ is turned to the Father and, as it were, receives a blessing from Him. At the top is placed a dove enclosed in a triangle or in a rounded sphere - the Holy Spirit.
In this icon, we see how, due to some inner need, the icon "Seating at the right hand of the Father" turned into the icon "Trinity", and just like the icon "Fatherland", did not fully express the image of the Trinity. Looking at the main outlines of this icon, you see how diminished, how inferior the place occupied by the image of the Holy Spirit, which is the link between the images of the first and second Persons and is devoid of a completely hypostatic image. And God the Father is depicted with the same material power as Christ, and such materiality of the image, according to many Church Fathers, can cause a false idea of His nature. And here we see the same impossibility to create an immutable and completely perfect image expressing an event.
In the same way, or even more controversially, the Persons of the Holy Trinity are depicted on the star and in many other cases, for example, on the antimension. The Holy Trinity, although represented by a direct or often symbolic image of three Persons, does not find its absolutely unconditional image.
Looking at the icon "Fatherland", you see what insoluble, what painful difficulties arise in the Church in connection with the image of God the Father, and especially with this image. The image of God the Father, the emergence of which was born from a certain need to have such an image, no matter how it finds itself completely right place. If the images of the first Person were presented as independent images, that measure of abstinence regarding the image of God the Father, which the Church adheres to, would be violated. And indeed, in the Church there was not and is not such a self-sufficient icon of God the Father, as there is no dedication of the temple to God the Father, or a holiday in which the celebration would refer directly to the Father. And by virtue of such a dispensation, the very image of God the Father gives rise to the need not to be isolated, but to be depicted with the second and third Persons of the Holy Trinity, with the Son and the Holy Spirit ...
The need to think of God the Father is not in any way false, it is the very life of the Church and will never dry up. But the need that creates the image of the Trinity, proceeding from the image of God the Father, does not find a completely correct solution. Such an image of the Holy Trinity is not clothed in heavenly glory, does not shine with equal unity, becomes a mountain that does not have a snow-white peak. Here we see some, as it seems to us, insurmountable incompleteness, which lies in the fact that the equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity does not find its expression. In all these constructions, the third hypostasis - the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit - is not depicted personally, it does not have the fullness of hypostatic dignity. In all these icons, the Holy Spirit is invariably depicted as a dove, and this image cannot be equal to the image of the Father and the Son, for the images of which the image of a man is taken. And therefore, all the icons of the Trinity so conceived, which are not devoid of meaning in themselves, cannot become that immutable full-fledged icon, that holy seal that fully imprints the dogmatic religion of the Trinity.
The opinions of the fathers regarding the images of God the Father on icons, adopted by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, are negative. The Council recognizes it inappropriate to portray the Father, whom, according to the Savior, no one has seen. In the judgment of the fathers, the image of God the Father is not recognized as appropriate and even admissible. And at the same time, the Church is full of images of the Lord of hosts. We see the images of God the Father in the temple painting, in the dome of the temple, on the iconostasis in the rank of the forefathers, in many icons, such as "Theophany", "Fatherland", "Trinity", "God of hosts in glory, Sitting on the Cherubim." These icons are found everywhere where the Orthodox Church is, and belong to different times. There are Byzantine images of the 11th and 12th centuries and later, many Russian icons from different times. Especially iconographically rich time, in relation to the image of God the Father, are, apparently, the 16th and 17th centuries.
How to explain this seemingly irreconcilable contradiction? Are all these images heretical, false, completely alien to the Church and, therefore, subject to withdrawal and complete destruction, or is the prohibition of images of God the Father not unconditional? It must be thought that the prohibitions to depict God the Father are not ontological in nature, they are not prohibitions that, by their very essence and completely, deny the possibility of depicting God the Father, but are restrictive, ascetic measures, with the goal of imposing fasting on the images of God the Father. .
The first and main reason for such a restriction, I think, was the need to firmly establish the foundation on which the veneration of icons rests. Foundation approved by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, - the dogma of the Incarnation. Here is the basis and affirmation of sacred images: God, not describable as Deity, became describable as flesh, and since the invisible Deity became visible and tangible flesh, to that extent it can be depicted and describable. The image of Christ - the imprinted hypostasis - unites two natures together, and this incarnation of God is for us the basis of the icon, as it were the icon of icons. Just as a stone placed at the head of a corner brings together the two walls of a building, Christ, the incarnate Word, unites in Himself two unmerged hypostases: the indescribable Deity and the described humanity. And in this sense, the veneration of icons became possible only by Christ and through Christ, and there can be no other basis. The image of the God-Man Christ became a sign of church victory and the foundation that the Savior Himself gave to the Church by imprinting His image on the ubrus. And the Fathers of the Church, who defended the veneration of icons, invariably establish this unshakable foundation with their labors. The icon of God the Father is conceivable in the light of the icon of Christ. In the minds of believers, a kind of bifurcation could occur, the image of Christ, as it were, was doubled by the image of God the Father. The prohibition to depict God the Father is reminiscent of the prohibition of the Old Testament to create sacred images. Here and there, this prohibition does not deny the possibility of the image itself, but imposes a ban on sacred images, similar to the prohibitions of fasting in relation to food. Fasting does not essentially cancel the eating of food, but for the time being it withholds from them. And just as in the Old Testament the depiction of the Cherubim in the tabernacle of the Testament was an exhaustion of the prohibition of sacred images, so in the New Testament Church, the custom, which has firmly entered church life, to place images of God the Father on icons has already deprived the prohibition of an immutable character, made it, as it were, clarified, not at all impenetrable. These decrees began to resemble a veil that does not allow light to penetrate in full force, but is not a source of complete darkness.
We see the same thing in the liturgical system. The Church does not know holidays dedicated exclusively to God the Father, but celebrates the Father, "worshipped in the Trinity" on the feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, on Theophany, and especially on Pentecost - the Descent of the Holy Spirit, a holiday that introduces us to the fullness of the knowledge of God: Trinity - the feast of the Descent of the Holy Spirit - is celebrated in worship by the position on the lectern of two icons: the icon of the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles and the icon of the Holy Trinity. This latter can be considered as the basis for the icons depicting God the Father.
