Another legendary origin of the icon is the account of St. Luke painting icons of Mary and the Christ child.15 Orthodox tradition holds that Luke painted three of these icons.16 Again, we have no evidence of such occurrences. There is very little evidence that paintings or icons were used in the church prior to 250CE.17
14 John Baggley. Doors of Perception: Icons And Their Spiritual Significance. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988), p. 17.
15 Zibawi, 1993, p. 29.
16 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 60.
17 Baggley, 1988, p. 8.
The Development Of The Theology of Icons
It may be fair to say that the theology of the icon developed more in the context of reaction than independent of other circumstances. This may be said of much of the theology of the church. In other words, concise theology regarding practices appeared only when these practices were questioned. This seems to be true of the theology of the icon. Much of the doctrinal clarity regarding icons came out of the response to various iconoclasms designed to repudiate and remove icons from the church. This will be discussed in more detail in a later section, but it is important to point out that the use of icon was a natural development of the church in a primarily illiterate culture. Pictures and oral presentation of the gospel were normative. These were not primarily theological things but outworkings of faith. As the use of icon and images came into question, concise theological defenses were developed.
The “art” of the icon was (and remains) distinct from the art of the world. It “…does not resemble the art of the world. It expresses different kinds of truths and has other goals. If it mingles with secular art, it no longer corresponds to the goal which it must serve.”18 Rather, the icon serves as “…a link between the eternal and the temporal, serving as an image of the divine world even to the extent that it partakes in the spiritual energy of what it portrays, thereby aiding the worshiper as a bridge or signpost for his own pilgrimage through this earthly life.”19 It functions as a channel of grace rather than mere decorative artwork. In this way: “The beauty of the church is different from the beauty of the world because it reflects the harmony of the age to come.”20 “An icon is thus the servant of the Holy Tradition of the Church, a servant of the Gospel, not a mere artistic device.”21
The Edict of Milan
The Edict of Milan (313CE) had a profound impact on virtually every aspect of the Christian church. After this edict, Byzantine art emerged as the first Christian style. Its purpose was didactic, to teach the people through pictures. Pope Gregory the Great is credited with saying: “Painting can do for the illiterate what writing does for those who can read”.22 This edict also had an impact on the icon. Prior to Constantine, the art of the church was hidden. After 313CE, it was possible that the art of the church could become public.
18 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 30.
19 Carnegie S. Calian. Icon And Pulpit: The Protestant-Orthodox Encounter. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 129.
20 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 31.
21 Baggley, 1988, p. 7.
22 E. H. Gombrich. The Story of Art. (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1995), p. 135.
Prior to Constantine, religious art was meaningful to those who understood the faith but not to the new convert. After Constantine, there were many converts. The art of the church had to change to be more accessible to the new, unknowledgeable believers.23 The role of image in both communication of truth and in expression of worship became increasingly significant. Many of the theologians of the time concluded that painted images had even greater power than words.24 As a result, the use of image in the church was encouraged and flourished.
