International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

manifesto 
of the Calcedonian Creed.

---

152
It is well known that the shift of the iconographical type from a “triumphal” crucifixion to 
a representation of Christ dead on the cross first evidenced in the Sinai icon was connected to an 
argument of St Anastasios of Sinai against the Monophysites: the Crucifixion is proof of Christ’s 
physical humanity and his physical death. In fact, the designer of the Ikvi murals gives the tripartite 
repetition of the image of - to put in St. Epiphanius of Cyprus’ words - the “dormition of Christ’s flesh”.
It is noticeable that the chronological sequence of the compositions has changed – the 
Crucifixion is followed here by the scene of the Lamentation. Thus, the Crucifixion has appeared 
to be 
vis-a-vis
of the scene of the Deposition and the similarity of the structure and iconography of 
these compositions seems to “double-up” the significance of this scene. One even has an impression 
that the Crucifixion occurs here twice, showing in this way the dogmatic importance of the 
latter.
The inscription of the cross sounds instructive: “Jesus Christ, Lord of Glory”. The Pauline words can 
be found in many Byzantine images, though they appear as one of the most important arguments 
against the Monophysite heresy in the polemic works of Georgian as well as Byzantine theologians 
(St Euthymius the Athonite, 
Niketas Stethatos
).
The juxtaposition of the Lamentation with the scene of the Transfiguration also might be 
understood as a reflection of one of the most crucial issues of these theological discussions - the 
soteriological aspect of the Christological dogma. The dead Christ is facing here towards the image 
of the Transfiguration, evoking another symbolical context of this feast as a prefiguration of the 
Resurrection and the glorification of mankind – the first Adam is opposed to the “second, glorified 
Adam”, the context which is tangibly stressed in the scene of the Ascension represented above (For by 
man came death and by man the resurrection of the dead. St. Paul, 1 Corinthians, 15:21-22). It would 
not be an exaggeration to see in the arrangement of these scenes the influence of the very concrete 
issue of the “doctrine of incorruptibility” declared by the radical followers of Monophisitism among 
Armenians. According to their belief, the body of Christ was incorruptible and immortal during 
a moment of his conception, with the reasoning being an even more extreme denial of the human 
aspect of salvation
 
than was done by the Severian Monophysites. The messianistic significance of 
the Passion reflected in the dome program would have been reinforced even further within the 
context of the liturgy on Good Friday, as if it were making a textual comment in regard to the 
imagery of the dome.
It is obvious that the concept of the dome program determined the focal accent of the wall 
painting of the second layer as well. Alongside some typical scenes of the Last judgment, we find 
here “the Entry of Christ into Jerusalem”. The Entry of Christ in Glory - the ‘preface’ of the Passion 
story - was also perceived as a symbol of the Resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ in 
patrology. Thanks to its triumphal context - the motive of 
Adventus, 
it evokes the eschatological 
significance of this feast even thematically. Its location just behind the image of Hades and scenes 
of hell is visualizing feast’s messianistic significance conveying a sense of ‘destroying’ Hell, calling 
to mind liturgical texts regarding the Entry feast as the victory over the death. At a first glance, this 
‘out-of-context’ inclusion of the opening scene of the Passion cycle interacts with the adornment of 
the dome and ‘transforms’ the whole program of the Last Judgment, symbolically turning the space 
of Ikvi Church into the heavenly Jerusalem. If we take in account the liturgical context of this scene 
– a direct connection to the preparation of the host revealed in the liturgy of the Palm Sunday - the 
soteriological significance of the Passion becomes even more prominent.

---

153
The dogmatic message of the Ikvi murals culminates in the central image of the sanctuary – the 
Mandylion above the masonry throne. This location of the Holy Face is regarded in special literature 
as a “local” iconographic feature of Georgian medieval painting and is primarily explained by the 
special cult of the Holy Face in Georgia. But it is apparent that the consistency of this tradition 
was also closely attuned to Georgian-Armenian polemics. It is difficult to imagine something more 
argumentative against the teaching of “
mia physis
” than the image of the Mandylion, a historical 
portrait of Christ – or so to say image –argument itself, visualizing the dogma of the Incarnation.