As we know, the Old Testament symbol of the lamb played a very important role in pre-Christian art. In the Old Testament, the slaughter of the Paschal lamb was the center of the entire liturgical life of the people of Israel, just as in the New Testament the Eucharistic sacrifice is the heart of the entire life of the Church, and Pascha, the Feast of the Resurrection, is the center of the liturgical year. The Old Testament lamb without blemish not only simply prefigured Christ, but was His most basic transfiguration. In the first centuries, when by necessity it was often refrained from the direct image of Christ due to the created conditions, the symbol of the lamb was very common. Like the fish, the lamb meant not only the Savior Himself, but also the Christian in general.

The image of which the Fifth and Sixth Council speaks is based on the text of the 1st chapter of the Gospel of John. The Evangelist here conveys the testimony of John the Baptist about the appearance of Christ. To the question of the priests and Levites, who was he – Elijah, or a prophet? The Forerunner, who was indeed the last of the Old Testament prophets, replied that he was precisely the Forerunner of the One Who was already coming directly after him. And the next day Christ appeared before the people, going to John to be baptized; The Forerunner, pointing at Him with his finger, says: "Behold the Lamb of God, take away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). The image literally reproduced the words of the Baptist, imprinting them in memory. Canon 82, which abolishes this symbol, comes from the same text of the Gospel of John, but does not consider it separately, but in the context of the entire part of the chapter of the Gospel relating to it, and the emphasis is not on the words of the Forerunner, but on the one to whom it points, Christ Himself. The description of Christ's appearance in the Gospel of John is preceded by a whole preparatory text: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us; and we have seen His glory, the glory of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth [...]. And from the fulfillment of Him we have all received grace: for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth were Jesus Christ" (Chapter 1, verses 16-17). Since it was the truth that appeared as Jesus Christ, it was no longer necessary to translate it into the image of the word, but to show in the image this Truth itself, the fulfillment of the words.

It was this fulfillment, this reality, the Truth that had to be shown to the eyes of all. Consequently, the Truth is revealed not only in word, but also in image; it is shown. This is the complete and complete rejection of all abstraction, of all metaphysical understanding of religion. Truth has its own image, for it is not an idea, not an abstract formula: it is a concrete, living Person, crucified "under Pontius Pilate." When Pilate asked the Savior the question, "What is truth?" (John 18:38), he did not wait for an answer and went out, knowing that there could be many answers to his question, none of which would be valid. The answer to his question lies only in the Church; it was in the apostolic circle that the Savior revealed to His disciples: "I am the Truth" (John 14:6). The truth answers the question not WHAT, but WHO. She is a Person, She is depictable, so the Church not only speaks of the truth, but also shows the Truth, the image of Jesus Christ.

The Fathers of the Council continue: "... Accepting ancient images and canopies as signs and transfigurations, we prefer grace and truth, accepting them as the fulfillment of the law." Thus, the Fathers of the Council speak of the ancient symbols as a stage already passed in the life of the Church. And if at first only the lamb is mentioned, then here the Council passes on to "ancient images and canopies", apparently considering the symbol of the lamb not just among others, but as the main symbol, the revelation of which entails the disclosure of all other symbolic subjects.

Since the Word became flesh and lived among us, the image must show not symbolically, but directly what appeared on earth in time, what became accessible to vision, description, and image.

Thus, the reason for the abolition of ancient symbols is the existence of a direct image, in relation to which these symbols are remnants of "Jewish immaturity." While the wheat was unripe, their existence was necessary as they contributed to its ripening. In the "ripe wheat of truth" their role ceased to be a building role; it even became negative, because symbols reduced the meaning of the direct image and damaged its role. If a direct image can be replaced by a symbol, it ceases to have the unconditional meaning that it should have.

Following the assertion of the necessity of a direct image, the next part of the 82nd canon gives a dogmatic justification of this image, and this is precisely the main meaning of this canon. This first conciliar expression of the Christological basis of the icon was later widely used and refined by the defenders of icons in the period of iconoclasm.

But if we limit ourselves to depicting the Savior only as an ordinary person, as, for example, a photograph or a secular portrait does, then such an image will remind only of His life, sufferings and death. However, the content of the church image cannot be limited to this, because the depicted person is different from other people. He is not just a man, but a God-Man. And the image should remind us not only of His life, but should also point to His glory, "the height of God the Word." Consequently, the depiction of one historical fact is not enough for an image to be an icon. By means accessible to the visual arts, the image must show us that the Depicted One is "the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, Christ our God." If the historical features of Jesus Christ, His portrait, are evidence of His coming in the flesh, of His humiliation, then the very manner of depicting this "Son of Man" should reflect the glory of God. In other words, the humiliation of God the Word is shown in such a way that, when we look at Him, we see and contemplate in His "servant's eye" His divine glory – the human image of God the Word, and through this we know what is the salvation of His death and the "resulting redemption of the world".

The last part of Canon 82 shows what the symbolism of church art should consist of: it should not be in the subject itself, not in what is depicted, but in the way this subject is depicted, in the manner of depiction. Thus, the teaching of the Church is expressed not only in the plot, but also in the way this plot is conveyed. In the field of her art, the Church develops an artistic language that corresponds to her experience and her knowledge of Divine Revelation. All the possibilities possessed by the visual arts are directed towards one goal: to faithfully convey a concrete historical image and in it to reveal another reality, a spiritual and prophetic reality.

So, on the one hand, the Fifth and Sixth Councils demand that the symbol be replaced in a direct, concrete way. And indeed, it is impossible to refute the Christological heresy by the image of a fish or a lamb. A few years later, St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in a letter to the iconoclastic bishop Thomas, says: "The depiction of the image of the Lord on icons, according to His human appearance, serves to shame the heretics, who assert that He became incarnate only illusory, and not real" [5].

On the other hand, Canon 82 is the first expression of the Church's teaching on the icon and at the same time indicates the possibility of conveying by means of art, with the help of certain symbolism, a reflection of Divine glory.

Symbols, "images and shadows," are considered by it not to express the fullness of grace, although they are worthy of veneration and correspond to the needs of a certain epoch. Iconographic symbolism is not completely excluded, but passes into the background. Even now we use some similar symbols, such as the three stars on the maphorion of the Mother of God, to indicate Her virginity before, during and after the Nativity of Christ. Or we depict a blessing hand in the heavens to show the presence of God. But this symbolism occupies its proper secondary place and does not replace the personal image.

Canon 82 lays the foundation for what we call the iconographic canon, that is, the well-known criterion of the liturgical nature of an image, just as in the field of the verbal canon determines the liturgical nature of a particular text. The iconographic canon is a well-known principle that makes it possible to judge whether a given image is an icon or not. He establishes the correspondence of the icon to the Holy Scriptures and determines what this correspondence consists in, that is, the authenticity of the transmission of Divine Revelation in historical reality in the way that we call symbolic realism.

If Canon 82 is directed primarily against "Jewish immaturity," Canon 100 refers to "Gentile immaturity." Its text is as follows: "Let thy eyes see righteously, and guard thy heart with all guarding (Prov. 4:25), commands Wisdom: for the bodily senses conveniently bring their impressions into the soul. Wherefore we do not permit from now on, by any means whatsoever, images on the decks, which charm the eye, corrupt the mind, and produce the ignition of impure pleasures, to be inscribed in any way whatsoever. And if anyone does this, let him be excommunicated" [6]. It is difficult to suppose that the Church used images that produce "the ignition of impure pleasures." But the fact is that at the time of the Fifth and Sixth Councils, along with church feasts, there still existed pagan festivals, which were forbidden by its 62nd canon, in particular, Brumalia (celebrations in honor of Bacchus), dances in honor of the Hellenic gods, etc. The Church considered it necessary to protect its members from the corrupting influence of such works, especially since some elements of this art could penetrate into church art. Canon 100 shows that the Church demands from its members a certain asceticism not only in life, but also in art, which, on the one hand, reflects this life, and on the other hand, influences it. This concern for the moral side of art outside the Church indicates a very special significance of this aspect in relation to church art proper. This canon reflects the basic principle which, as we shall see, runs like a red thread through all the writings of the Holy Fathers and through all church art.