Vladimir Lossky

The Theology of the Image

Chapter 7 of In the Image and Likeness of God
(St. Vladimirs Seminary Press: 1974), pp. 12!1"9.
The theme of the image, in the knowledge of God and man, is of s#$h
importan$e for
Christian tho#%ht that & thin' (e are )#stified in spea'in% of a *theolo%y of the
ima%e+ inthe ,e( -estament or in the (or' of a parti$#lar Christian (riter (itho#t
fear ofma%nifyin% a do$trinal element of se$ondary .al#e o#t of all d#e
proportion. -h#s (tomention only one (or' amon% many (hi$h ha.e appeared
re$ently), /r. 0enri Cro#1elsst#dy, Theologie de limage de Dieu chez
Origene,1 to#$hes on all the f#ndamentalpro2lems of 3ri%ens tho#%ht4 and this
in spite of the fa$t that the (riter apolo%i1es in hisintrod#$tion for ha.in% limited
the *theolo%y of the ima%e+ to a sin%le aspe$t5 that of therelationship of 6od to
man 2y the intermediary of the 7ord. 8.en this $on$entration onthe role of the
se$ond hypostasis $annot red#$e the s$ope of the theme of the ima%e of6od in
3ri%ins tho#%ht: if the 9o%os is the &ma%e (hi$h ma'es 'no(n the
paternal:r$hetype, all the pro2lems $onne$ted (ith the manifestation of 6od
2elon% to the*theolo%y of the &ma%e+5 (hether *$osmi$+ in nat#re $reated 2y the
7ord, or *histori$,+in the re.elation %i.en to a people $hosen to re$ei.e the
;essa%e of 6od. &f man is
logikos, to #se here an e<pression of 3ri%ens, if he is *in the ima%e+ of the
9o%os,
e.erythin% (hi$h to#$hes the destiny of man5 %ra$e, sin, redemption 2y the
7ordmade man5 m#st also 2e related to the theolo%y of the ima%e. :nd (e
may say thesame of the Ch#r$h, the sa$raments, spirit#al life, san$tifi$ation, and
the end of allthin%s. -here is no 2ran$h of theolo%i$al tea$hin% (hi$h $an 2e
entirely isolated from thepro2lem of the ima%e (itho#t dan%er of se.erin% it from
the li.in% sto$' of Christiantradition. 7e may say that for a theolo%ian of the
$atholi$ tradition in the 8ast and in the7est, for one (ho is tr#e to the main tines
of patristi$ tho#%ht, the theme of the ima%e(in its t(ofold a$$eptation5 the ima%e
as the prin$iple of 6ods self!manifestation andthe ima%e as the fo#ndatior of a
parti$#lar relationship of man to 6od) m#st 2elon% t, the*essen$e of Christianity.+
-he little 2oo' 2y =oman, 6#ardini (hi$h 2ears this title %i.esa prominent pla$e
t$ the idea of the ima%e. >#t on the $ontrary, one loo's in .ain for thetheme of
the ima%e in 0arna$'s Das Wesen des Christentums.
-he reasons #s#ally ad.an$ed 2y $ertain Protestant theolo%ians (ho (o#ld li'e
toe<$l#de the *theolo%y of the ima%e+ from the essentials of Christianity $an find
s#pport ina so#nd 'no(led%e of >i2li$al .o$a2#lary. -h#s ?arl >arth in
hisDogmatik2de$lares
that the tea$hin%s of the /athers of the Ch#r$h a2o#t the *theolo%y of the ima%e+
(ereentirely in.ented, (itho#t any s$ript#ral fo#ndation. 8mil >r#nner," (ho is
less$ate%ori$al, ne.ertheless $on$l#des that *the do$trine of the &ma%o @ei., if
one eA#atesthe phrase (ith the tr#th for (hi$h it stands, does not play a .ery
important part in the>i2le.+ :nders ,y%ren in Agae and !ros4 eliminates the
theme of the ima%e, A#otin% 8.9ehmann, (ho says: *-he stron%est ar%#ment
a%ainst B$reation in 6ods ima%e is the$omplete silen$e of the rest of the 3ld
-estament on this s#2)e$t, (hi$h, if it had 2een apre.alent idea, mi%ht ha.e 2een
e<pe$ted to 2e .ery freA#ently #sed, and #sed to thef#ll, in the $onstantly
re$#rrin% treatment of the relation 2et(een 6od and men. >#t noProphet, no
Psalm, not )o2., not e.en the h#mane @e#teronomy, has any s#%%estion ors#$h
a li'eness of nat#re 2et(een 6od and man.+ :nd the same (riter adds: *&t is
noa$$ident that this do$trine of the ima%e of 6od (as first de.eloped at a time
(hen the6ree' lan%#a%e (as ma'in% its (ay into the reli%io#s literat#re of the
Ce(s.+
*it is no a$$ident+: here is a phrase (hi$h merits attention. 9ehmann and ,y%ren
simply(anted to say that the theme of the ima%e of 6od is forei%n to =e.elation:
it is an0elleni$ $ontri2#tion (hi$h (e o(e to the Platoni$ and Stoi$ asso$iations
already latentin the terms 3?D. and DV3(C3;C, #sed in the translation of the
2oo' of 6enesis 2y theSept#a%int, a2o#t the third or se$ond $ent#ry 2efore
Christ.
-hese ideas are de.eloped in the 2oo' of 7isdom, (ritten in 6ree' a2o#t the
middle ofthe first $ent#ry 2efore o#r era. &n fa$t, (e find there (2:2") a
paraphrase of *9et #s ma'eman in o#r &ma%e+ (hi$h %i.es to mans .o$ation the
attri2#tes of in$orr#pti2ility and$onformity (ith 6od in (hat is proper to 0im or,
a$$ordin% to another .ersion, $onformity(ith 0is eternity (ai;-!A!;r,). &n the
same 2oo' (7:2D) 7isdom, $o!$reator of the#ni.erse, ma'es 6od 'no(n in
$reation: she is the dmaD!yaaE:a !the refle$tion (orradian$e) of the eternal li%ht,
*a spotless mirror of the (or'in% of 6od,+ the *ima%e(/:?D.) of his %oodness.+
-his is almost the se$ond hypostasis of ;iddle Platonism orthe 9o%os of Philo.
Certainly the fa$t that the s#dden de.elopment of the theme of the ima%e
$oin$ided (iththe entry of the 6ree' lan%#a%e into the reli%io#s literat#re of
C#daism (as notfort#ito#s. >#t one may (onder if this re$o#rse to a ne(
.o$a2#lary, ri$h in philosophi$altradition, (as not the ans(er to an internal need
of =e.elation itself, (hi$h th#s re$ei.edin the last sta%e of the 3ld Co.enant an
in$rease of li%ht (hi$h (as to lend ne( $olorin%to the sa$red 2oo's of the Ce(s.
*&t is no a$$ident+ that the Ce(ish diaspora, in order to'eep ali.e the (ord of
-r#th re.ealed to &srael, $hose to %i.e it an 0elleni$ e<pression,(hi$h allo(ed the
a#thors of the de#tero$anoni$al 2oo's to open #p a theolo%y of theima%e on the
e.e of the ad.ent of Christianity.
his father+ 2y the family $hara$teristi$s (hi$h he has in $ommon (ith him, not 2y
thepersonal A#alities (hi$h distin%#ish his father. -herefore, (hen one (ishes to
apply thetheolo%y of the ima%e to the -rinity, one o#%ht, in order to pre.ent any
am2i%#ity, tospea' of the 11 nat#ral ima%e,+ as did St. Cohn @amas$ene,9 for
(hom the Son is an
eikon h"sike, *$omplete, in e.erythin% li'e the /ather, e<$eptin% the
$hara$teristi$s of
#n2e%ottenness and fatherhood.+ -he same thin% $an 2e said of the 0oly Spirit,
(ho is*the ima%e of the Son,+ for *B Bno man $an say, Ces#s is 9ord, e<$ept in the
0oly Spirit.So it is in the 0oly Spirit that (e 'no( Christ as Son of 6od and 6od,
and it is 2y theSon that (e see the /ather.+
-he -rinitarian theolo%y of *ima%es+ $an ha.e its pla$e only in a .erti$al
perspe$ti.e, thatof the self!manifestin% a$tion of the di.ine nat#re, to (hi$h the
old patristi$ form#la$orresponds: *from the /ather, 2y the Son, in the 0oly Spirit.+
-his manifestation is notthe a$t of an impersonal di.inity s#r.i.in% from
#n$onA#ered 0ellenism, for itpres#pposes the *monar$hy of the /ather+ (ho
manifests the attri2#tes of 0is nat#re 2ythe 9o%os in the Spirit. So, for e<ample,
in this theolo%y of the ima%e, the attri2#te of(isdom (ill ha.e the /ather as the
so#r$e of (isdom, the 9o%os as hypostati$ (isdom,e<pressin% f#lly the
:r$hetype in his person, the 0oly Spirit as the ener%eti$ radian$e of(isdom,
$ommon to the three hypostases, re.ealed o#t(ardly and $omm#ni$a2le as a%ift
to $reated persons. -he theme of the ima%e in -rinitarian theolo%y, (hen pla$ed
inits proper perspe$ti.e, $an help in #nderstandin% the tr#e meanin% of the
*ener%eti$+theory of the di.ine attri2#tes in the >y1antine theolo%y of the
fo#rteenth $ent#ry. :t thesame time it )#stifies the -rinitarian theolo%y of the :nte!
,i$ene /athers, 2y permittin%#s to remo.e from the (ealth of their spe$#lati.e
tho#%ht the (#s#ally #nmerited)reproa$h of s#2ordinationism.
& shall not ha.e time to de.elop $ertain o2ser.ations on the theme of the *ima%e+
inChristolo%y. -he idea of the *B&ma%e of 6od+ is atta$hed here to the hypostasis
of theSon (ho, in 2e$omin% man, ma'es .isi2le in the h#man nat#re (hi$h 0e
ass#mes 0isdi.ine Person, $ons#2stantial (ith the /ather. Fet one $annot
re$o%ni1e the di.inity ofChrist (and $onseA#ently 0is $hara$ter of *perfe$t ima%e
of the in.isi2le 6od+) e<$ept inthe %ra$e of the 0oly Spirit.
&t is in the $onte<t of the &n$arnation (say rather: it is 2y the fa$t, 2y the e.ent of
the&n$arnation) that the $reation of man in the ima%e of 6od re$ei.es all its
theolo%i$al.al#e, (hi$h remained #nper$ei.ed (or some(hat impo.erished) in
the letter of thesa$erdotal narrati.e of the $reation as seen 2y $riti$al e<e%esis. &t
is not that one (ishesto deny the importan$e or depre$iate the merits of the
histori$al st#dy of the >i2le: it ismost .al#a2le and o#%ht to 2e ta'en into
$onsideration 2y theolo%ians. >#t ne.er m#st
this e<e%esis #s#rp a pla$e (hi$h does not 2elon% to it: that of a )#d%e in
theolo%i$al
matters.
-he positi.e sense of a parti$#lar relationship to 6od, (hi$h does not appear in
the0e2re( e<pressionstselem anddemut, 2e%ins to 2e more pre$ise in the
6ree'translation of the Sept#a%int, (hereeikon andhomoiosis, %oo.erned 2y the
preposition
kata, are already loaded (ith a promise of f#t#re theolo%y, denotin% a pro%ress of
tradition, a *preparation for the 6ospel+ in a 2ri%hter li%ht of =e.elation.
Pro$lamation ofthe &ma%e of 6od manifested in Christ, the 6od!;an, ma'es #se
of this translation,dis$o.erin% ne( $onne$tions fa.o#ra2le to an anthropolo%y
re.ealed, tho#%h latent, inthe letter of the >i2li$al (ritin%s (for e<ample Psalm G:
D, A#oted in 0e2re(s 2:D).
-he idea of 'inship5 suggeneia, oikeiosis5 implied in the 0elleni$ notion of the
ima%e(as ins#ffi$ient, as has 2een said, for a Christian do$trine of the 9o%os,
the$ons#2stantial &ma%e of the /ather: indeed, here no differen$e at all of nat#re
may 2eadmitted. &n Christian anthropolo%y, on the other hand, the idea of 'inship
(o#ld ha.e2een e<$essi.e, for thediastema, the distan$e 2et(een #n$reated
and $reated nat#resis infinite. -h#s, as in -rinitarian theolo%y, the term *ima%e+5
or, rather, *in the ima%e+5applied to man m#st 2e %i.en a ne( meanin% alon%
the same line of tho#%ht (hi$hmade #s distin%#ish in 6od the personal or
hypostati$ from the essential or nat#ral. ;anis not merely an indi.id#al of a
parti$#lar nat#re, in$l#ded in the %eneri$ relationship ofh#man nat#re to 6od the
Creator of the (hole $osmos, 2#t he is also5 he is $hieflyaperson, not red#$i2le
to the $ommon (or e.en indi.id#ali1ed) attri2#tes of the nat#re(hi$h he shares
(ith other h#man indi.id#als. Personhood 2elon%s to e.ery h#man2ein% 2y
.irt#e of a sin%#lar and #niA#e relation to 6od (ho $reated him *in 0is
ima%e.+-his personal element in anthropolo%y, dis$o.ered 2y Christian tho#%ht,
does notindi$ate, in itself, a relationship of parti$ipation, m#$h less a *'inship+
(ith 6od, 2#trather an analo%y: li'e the personal 6od, in (hose ima%e he is
$reated, man is not only&., nat#re.+ -his 2esto(s on him li2erty in re%ard to
himself, ta'en as an indi.id#al of aparti$#lar nat#re. -ho#%h not e<pli$it in
patristi$ anthropolo%y, this ne( $ate%ory of theh#man person or hypostasis is
nonetheless al(ays pres#pposed 2y it. 7hat is importantto noti$e, in spea'in% of
the theolo%y of the ima%e applied to man, is ho( the h#manperson manifests
6od.
&n its -rinitarian #se, the term *ima%e+ denoted one di.ine Person (ho sho(s in
0imselfthe nat#re or the nat#ral attri2#tes (hile referrin% them to another
0ypostasis: the 0olySpirit to the Son, the Son to the /ather. -his pres#pposed,
as (e said, identity of nat#reor $ons#2stantiality, somethin% (hi$h is o2.io#sly
o#t of the A#estion for a $reatedperson (ho m#st 2e tho#%ht of as an *ima%e+ of
6od.1H *&ma%e,+ or *in the ima%e,+ theh#man person $o#ld not tr#ly 2e either4 it
$o#ld not ma'e 6od manifest, trans$endin%
the nat#re (hi$h it *enhypostasi1es,+ if it did not ha.e the fa$#lty of 2e$omin% li'e
6od,of assimilation to 0im. 0ere enters the theme ofhomoiosis, of resem2lan$e,
(ith all thatit $an imply of Platoni$ herita%e, %oin% 2a$' to the#haedrus and
theTheaetetus. 3f$o#rse, in Christian anthropolo%y resem2lan$e or assimilation
to 6od $an ne.er 2etho#%ht of other(ise than as 2y %ra$e $omin% from 6od,
(hi$h e<$l#des the nat#ral
suggeneia of 6ree' philosophy, repla$in% it (ith the idea of filial adoption.
,e.ertheless5 and this is the last remar' & sho#ld li'e to ma'e5 theolo%ians
(ho try tofind the *ima%e of 6od+ (or *(hat is in the ima%e+) in the h#man 2ein%
2y distin%#ishin%it, as *Ba $ertain somethin%,+ from the rest of h#man nat#re (hi$h
*is not in the ima%e,+(ill ne.er s#$$eed in freein% themsel.es entirely from
thesuggeneia of 6ree' tho#%ht.-his remains tr#e of 3ri%en, tho#%h /r. Cro#1el
has s#$$eeded in $learin% him ofse.eral $har%es (hi$h had 2e$ome almost
traditional. &t is tr#e in a $ertain de%ree of St.6re%ory of ,yssa: th#s, (hene.er
6re%ory tries to lo$ate the *ima%e of 6od+ only in thehi%her fa$#lties of man,
identifyin% it (ith thenous, he seems to (ant to ma'e theh#man spirit the seat of
%ra$e 2y reason of a $ertain pro<imity (hi$h it has (ith thedi.ine nat#re4 this is
a%ain a s#r.i.al of the idea ofsuggeneiainherited from 3ri%en. 3nthe other hand,
other te<ts, (hi$h /r. 9eys is ri%ht to emphasi1e, sho( a dynami$$on$ept of
h#man nat#re, ri$h in possi2ilities, poised, li'e amethorion, 2et(een li'enessand
possi2le #nli'eness4 this (o#ld pres#ppose, it seems to me, another $on$eption
ofthe ima%e, $losely lin'ed (ith the $ondition of personhood5 and (hi$h (o#ld
e<tend tothe (hole h#man ma'e5 #p, not e<$eptin% the *$loa' of s'in.+
I#ite apart from the interpretation of the do$trine of the ima%e in the (or's of
St.6re%ory of ,yssa, & for my part 2elie.e that this is the only $on$eption of the
ima%e (or of*in the ima%e+) (hi$h $an f#lfill the demands of a Christian
anthropolo%y. ;an $reated *inthe ima%e+ is the person $apa2le of manifestin%
6od in the e<tent to (hi$h his nat#reallo(s itself to 2e penetrated 2y deifyin%
%ra$e. -h#s the ima%e5 (hi$h is inaliena2le5$an 2e$ome similar or dissimilar,
to the e<treme limits: that of #nion (ith 6od, (hendeified man sho(s in himself
2y %ra$e (hat 6od is 2y nat#re, a$$ordin% to thee<pression of St. ;a<im#s4 or
indeed that of the e<tremity of fallin%!a(ay (hi$h Plotin#s$alled *the pla$e of
dissimilarity+ (toos tes anomoiotetos), pla$in% it in the %loomy a2yssof 0ades.
-hese are the t(o e<tremes 2et(een (hi$h the personal destiny of man may.eer
in the (or'in%!o#t of his sal.ation, (hi$h is already reali1ed in hope for e.eryone
inthe in$arnate &ma%e of the 6od (ho (illed to $reate man in 0is o(n ima%e.
,otes.
1 Paris: :#2ier, 19D.
2 &&&.1 (J#ri$h, 194) p. 21D ff. E8n%lish trans. Church Dogmatics &&&.& (8din2#r%h,
19G) p.
191 ff.K.
" $Der %ensch im Widersruch (>erlin, 19"7) p. 19. E8n%lish trans. %an in
&e'olt( A
Christian Anthroolog" (9ondon, 19"9) p. 499K.
4 8ros et :%ape &, p. 27. E8n%lish trans. (9ondon, 19") p. 2"Hn.K.
9e messa%e hassidiA#e,+ @ie# Vi.ant 2, p. 1D.
D :d.ers#s 8#nomi#m 14 P.6. 44, $ol. D"D.
7 (Paris, 191).
GOr. "H (Theologica 4), 2H4 P.6. "D, $ol. 129:.
9 De imagini)us 111, 1G4 P.6. 94, $ol. 1"4H:>.
1H -his e<pression, stron%er than *in the irna%eL+ is fo#nd in & Cor. 11:7: eikon
kai do*a
theou.