Notes on Nestorian Iconoclasm

I am simply getting some of the facts straight.  I am not advancing person theological conclusions.

The common charge against icons is that it is Nestorian–the iconodule is separating the divine and human natures of Christ (presumably only showing a human nature).   The problem with this charge is that it assumes a priori a Nestorian Christology.  It assumes that the hypostasis of Christ is composite in such a way that you can detach the human from the divine nature.  It assumes the hypostasis is the product of the divine union.

Perry writes,

Besides, if the reality of Christ’s death, separating his human soul from his body didn’t separate either of them from his divine person, a picture certainly can’t.


EDIT and CRITIQUE:  I am reviewing this post several years later.  Here is what I would say:

It is not merely the fact that we say a picture could divide Christ.   We are challenging the propriety of a picture representing Christ in the first place.

Secondly, numerous fathers spoke of a “composite hypostasis.”

Thirdly, is this hypostasis in heaven?  If so, does the picture really exhibit the true natures of Christ?  If so, do we then not have an extra of the nature outside the hypostasis (or multiple hypostases)?