When I looked at Eastern Orthodoxy there were a number of questions on the tip of my tongue that I never asked. Most likely I couldn’t formulate them and never bothered to think it through. One of the standard iconodulic arguments is that in the Incarnation the divine nature is imaged in the Son and thus images of the Son are now justified. Denying this, so runs the gloss, is either Nestorian or Docetic.
In response I am in debt to something Scott Clark said: all icons of Jesus are by definition Docetic. Docetism was the heresy that downplayed Jesus’ human nature, saying it was merely imaginary. The problem is, though, that every iconic representation of Christ is an imagined Christ. Admittedly, no one knows what Jesus’ human nature looked like (and here the anchoretic communions have to back off their hyper-realist ontology: The Logos didn’t assume a Platonic, archetypal form of humanity, but, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says, a human body). Therefore, any representation of Jesus is an imagined one.
There is one other problem. Key to any Christology is the doctrine of the enhypostasia: natures are always in a hypostasis. We all agree that the divine and human natures cannot be separated. We all agree that there is only one hypostasis of Christ. Now, the smarter iconodule will state that they are representing the person of Christ (who is truly present). If the person of Christ is truly present, then that means his divine and human natures are truly present. These natures can never be separated. Therefore, is he present in all the representations? Does this not mean there are hundreds of thousands of hypostases of Christ?