Conclusion

We have seen that the iconoclast council of 754 set forth an argument against the holy icons that St Theodore took very seriously. How is it possible to make a true image of the incarnate God? Christ united divine and human nature in Himself. One should expect then that an image would represent both these natures. However, we have seen that Theodore makes the rather obvious claim that it is not natures that are the subject of painting, it is the hypostasis. This, unfortunately, does not solve the problem, since the hypostasis of Christ is the hypostasis of the eternal Son of God, and this is obviously invisible. In order to solve this problem Theodore works out a Christological position of some complexity, the main elements of which are drawn from the tradition of Orthodox Christology. His purpose is to show that if Christ became a human being, He should assume and manifest a particularized humanity. Since that is what He did, He would also be a potential subject of painting. In fact, the painting of an icon of Christ is important, both as a witness to the Incarnation and as a means of contemplation. The last point is essential, since the icon gives access not only to the concrete humanity of Christ, but even creates a possibility for the human mind to ascend to God through contemplating the icon....