1. What is an Icon?
An Icon is an image
(usually two dimensional) of Christ, the Saints, Angels, important Biblical
events, parables, or events in the history of the Church.
St. Gregory the
Dialogist (Pope of Rome ca. 590-604), spoke of Icons as being Scripture to the
illiterate:
"For what
writing presents to readers, this a picture presents to the unlearned who
behold, since in it even the ignorant see what they ought to follow; in it the
illiterate read" (Epistle to Bishop Serenus of Marseilles, NPNF 2, Vol.
XIII, p. 53).
To those who would
suggest that this is no longer relevant in our enlightened age, let them
consider the rather large functional illiteracy rate we have, and the fact that
even the most literate societies always have a sizable illiterate segment...
their young children.
Icons also lift up
our minds from earthly things to the heavenly.
St. John of Damascus wrote,
"we are led by perceptible Icons to the contemplation of the divine
and spiritual" (PG 94:1261a). And by keeping their memory before us through
the Icons, we are also inspired to imitate the holiness of those therein
depicted. St. Gregory of Nyssa (ca
330-395) spoke of how he could not pass an Icon of Abraham sacrificing Isaac
"without tears" (PG
46:572). Commenting on this, it was
noted at the Seventh Œcumenical Synod, "If to such a Doctor the picture
was helpful and drew forth tears, how much more in the case of the ignorant and
simple will it bring compunction and benefit" (NPNF2, Vol 14, p. 539).
2. Do Orthodox Christians pray to Icons?
3. Do Icons work miracles?
To put this
question in proper perspective, let's consider a few other questions: Did the
Ark of the Covenant work miracles (e.g. Joshua 3:15ff; 1st Samuel 4-6; 2nd
Samuel 11-12)? Did the Bronze Serpent heal those bitten by snakes (Numbers
21:9)? Did the Prophet Elisha's bones
raise a man from the dead (2nd Kings 13:21)?
Did St. Peter's shadow heal the sick (Acts 5:15)? Did aprons and handkerchiefs that had touched
St. Paul heal the sick and caste out evil spirits (Acts 19:12)?
The answer to these
questions are, Yes, in a manner of speaking. Nevertheless, to be precise, it
was God who chose to work miracles through these things. In the case of the Ark and the Bronze serpent,
we have images used to work miracles.
God worked a miracle through the relics of the Prophet Elisha, through
the shadow of a Saint, and through things that had merely touched a Saint. Why?
Because God honors those who honor Him (1st Samuel 2:30), and thus takes
delight in working miracles through his Saints, even by these indirect
means. The fact that God can sanctify
material things should come as no surprise to those familiar with Scripture. For example, not only was the Altar of the
Temple holy, but anything that touched it was holy as well (Exodus 29:37). To reject the truth that God works through
material things is to fall into Gnosticism.
So yes, loosely
speaking, Icons can work miracles—but to be precise, it is God who works
miracles through Icons, because He honors those who have honored Him.
Orthodox Christians
do not worship Icons in the sense that the word "worship" is commonly used in modern English. In older translations (and in some more
recent translations in which the translators insist on using this word in its
original sense), one finds the word "worship" used to translate the Greek
word proskyneo (literally, "to bow"). Nevertheless, one must
understand that the older use of "worship" in English was much
broader than it is generally used today, and was often used to refer simply to
the act of honoring, venerating, or
reverencing. For example, in the
old book of common prayer, one of the wedding vows was "with my body I
thee worship," but this was never intended to imply that the bride would
worship her husband in the sense in which "worship" is commonly used
now.
Orthodox Christians
do venerate Icons, which is to say, we pay respect to them because they are
holy objects, and because we reverence what the Icons depict. We do not worship Icons any more than
Americans worship the American flag.
Saluting the flag is not exactly the same type of veneration as we pay
to Icons, but it is indeed a type of veneration. And just as we do not venerate wood and
paint, but rather the persons depicted in the Icon, patriotic Americans do not
venerate cloth and dye, but rather the country which the flag represents.
This was the
reasoning of the Seventh Œcumenical Synod, which decreed in its Oros the
following:
"Since this is
the case, following the royal path and the teaching divinely inspired by our
holy Fathers and the Tradition of the catholic Church—for we know that it is
inspired by the Holy Spirit who lives in it—we decide in all correctness and
after a thorough examination that, just as the holy and vivifying Cross,
similarly the holy and precious Icons painted with colors, made with little
stones or with any other matter serving this purpose (epitedeios), should be
placed in the holy churches of God, on vases and sacred vestments, on walls and
boards, in houses and on roads, whether these are Icons of our Lord God and Savior,
Jesus Christ, or of our spotless Sovereign Lady, the holy Mother of God, or of
the holy angels and of holy and venerable men. For each time that we see their
representation in an image, each time, while gazing upon them, we are made to
remember the prototypes, we grow to love them more, and we are more induced to
worship them by kissing them and by witnessing our veneration (proskenesin),
not the true adoration (latreian) which, according to our faith, is proper only
to the one divine nature, but in the same way as we venerate the image of the
precious and vivifying cross, the holy Gospel and other sacred objects which we
honor with incense and candles according to the pious custom of our
forefathers. For the honor rendered to the image goes to its prototype, and the
person who venerates an Icon venerates the person represented in it. Indeed,
such is the teaching of our holy Fathers and the Tradition of the holy catholic
Church which propagated the Gospel from one end of the earth to the
other."
The Early
Christians also understood this distinction as well. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp (who was St. John the
Apostle's disciple, and whose Martyrdom
was recorded by the faithful of his Church, who were eyewitnesses of all that it recounts), we are told of how
some sought to have the Roman magistrate keep the Christians from retrieving
the body of the Holy Martyr
"'lest,' so it
was said, 'they should abandon the crucified one and begin to worship this man'—this being done at the
instigation and urgent entreaty of the
Jews, who also watched when we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing
that it will be impossible for us either to forsake at any time the Christ who suffered for the
salvation of the whole world of those that are saved—suffered though faultless
for sinners—nor to worship any other.
For Him, being the Son of God, we adore, but the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord we
cherish as they deserve for their
matchless affection towards their own King and Teacher.... The centurion
therefore, seeing the opposition raised on the part of the Jews, set him in the
midst and burnt him after their custom.
And so we afterwards took up his bones which are more valuable than
precious stones and finer than refined
gold, and laid them in a suitable place; where the Lord will permit us to
gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to
celebrate the birth-day [i.e. the anniversary] of his martyrdom for the
commemoration of those that have already fought in the contest, and for the
training and preparation of those that shall do so hereafter" (The
Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:2-3; 18:1-3).
5. Doesn't the 2nd Commandment forbid Icons?
Let's look at the
Scriptural passage in question more closely:
"Thou shalt
not make unto thee any graven image (i.e. idol), or any likeness of anything
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the
water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor shalt thou serve
(worship) them..." (Exodus 20:4-5a).
Now, if we take
this as a reference to images of any kind, then clearly the cherubim in the
Temple violate this command. If we limit
this as applying only to idols, no contradiction exists. Furthermore, if this applies
to all images—then even the picture on a driver's license violates it, and is
an idol. So either every Protestant with
a driver's license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols.
Leaving aside, for
the moment, the meaning of "graven images" lets simply look at what
this text actually says about them. You
shall not make x, you shall not bow to
x, you shall not worship x. If x = image,
then the Temple itself violates this
Commandment. If x = idol and not all
images, then this verse contradicts neither the Icons in the Temple, nor
Orthodox Icons.
6. Doesn't Deuteronomy 4:14-19 forbid any images of
God? How then can you have Icons of Christ?
This passage
instructs the Jews not to make a (false) image of God, because they had not
seen God, however, as Christians, we believe that God became Incarnate in the
person of Jesus Christ, and so we may depict that "which we have seen with
our eyes" (1st John 1:1). As St.
John of Damascus said:
"Of old, God
the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God
is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God
whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became
matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation
through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my
salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of
lifeless things? And if God's body is God by union, it is immutable. The nature
of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by, a
logical and reasoning soul."
7. But considering the violent opposition which Jews
had to images how could the early Christians have accepted Icons?
Not only does one
find Iconography throughout Christian Catacombs, but they are also found in
Jewish catacombs of the same period. We
also have the well preserved Jewish Icons of Dura-Europos, which were in a city
destroyed by the Persians in the mid 3rd century (which of course puts a limit
on how recent these Icons could have been made).
Often Josephus'
views on Iconography are erroneously taken as the standard Jewish view on the
subject, but this is clearly not the case.
The specific text usually cited is the one referring to a riot which
took place when the Romans placed an imperial eagle on the gate of the Temple.
This story is not
so open and shut as some would like to think.
These were zealots. Josephus, who was also a rebel, though one who switched
sides and later aided the Romans, records these events.
Josephus records
that the Romans mounted an eagle over the entrance to the Temple, which the
people tore down as sacrilegious—but was it images of beasts per se that were at issue, or was it
Roman eagles on the Entrance to the Temple that were the issue. Josephus' views
were so extreme on this subject that he thought the statues of animals in
connection with the Brazen Sea in Solomon's Temple were a sin (Antiquities
VIII,7,5).
The over all
attitude of Jews towards religious art was not nearly so Iconoclastic. The Palestinian Talmud records (in Abodah
Zarah 48d) "In the days of Rabbi Jochanan men began to paint pictures on the walls, and he did not hinder them" and
"In the days of Rabbi Abbun men began to make designs on mosaics, and he
did not hinder them."
Also, the Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan repeats the command against idols, but then says "but a
stone column carved with images and likenesses you may make upon the premises
of your sanctuaries, but not to worship them."
Also, Jewish holy
books have been illustrated as far back as we have them. They contain illustrations of Biblical
scenes, much like those found at the Synagogue of Dura Europos (and like the
Church found near by) which was buried in the mid 3rd century when the Persians
destroyed that city (See "The excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by
Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters," Final
Report VII, Part I, The Synagogue, by
Carl H. Kraeling).
It is note worthy
that the earliest Icons of the Catacombs were mostly Old Testament scenes, and
Icons of Christ. The dominance of Old
Testament scenes shows that this was not a Pagan practices Christianized by
converts, but a Jewish practice, adopted by the Christians.
8. If Icons are so important, why do we not find them
in the Scriptures?
Ah, but we do find
them in the Scriptures—plenty of them! Consider how prevalent they were in the
Tabernacle and then later in the Temple. There were images of cherubim:
On the Ark—Ex.
25:18
On the Curtains of
the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1
On the Veil of the
Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31
Two huge Cherubim
in the Sanctuary—1st Kings 6:23
On the Walls—1st
Kings 6:29
On the Doors—1st
Kings 6:32
And on the
furnishings—1st Kings 7:29,36
In short, there
were Icons everywhere you turned.
9. Why were there only Icons of Cherubim, and not of
Saints?
The Temple was an
image of Heaven, as St. Paul makes clear:
"[the priests
who serve in the Temple in Jerusalem] serve unto the example and shadow of
heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the
tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the
pattern shewed to thee in the mount" (Hebrews 8:5; cf. Exodus 25:40).
Thus, while in the Old Covenant, the Temple imaged heaven
with only the attending Cherubim, in the New Covenant, our Temples image heaven
with the great cloud of witnesses that now reside in glory there.
10. OK, granted that there are Icons of sorts in
Scripture, but where were the Israelites told that they should venerate them?
The Scriptures do
command the Israelites to bow before the Ark, which had two prominent images of
cherubim on it. In Psalms 99:5, it commands:
"bow before the footstool of His feet...." We should note first of all that the word for
"bow" here, is the same word used in Exodus 20:5, when we are told to
not bow to idols.
And what is the
"footstool of His feet"? In
1st Chronicles 28:2, David uses this phrase in reference to the Ark of the
Covenant. In Psalm 99 [98 in the
Septuagint], it begins by speaking of the Lord who "dwells between the
Cherubim" (99:1), and it ends with a call to "bow to His holy
hill"—which makes it even clearer that in context, this is speaking of the
Ark of the Covenant. This phrase occurs again in Psalm 132:7, where it is
preceded by the statement "We will go into His tabernacles..." and is
followed by the statement "Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou and the Ark
of Thy strength."
Interestingly, this
phrase is applied to the Cross in the services of the Church, and the
connection is not accidental—because on the Ark, between the Cherubim was the
Mercy Seat, upon which the sacrificial blood was sprinkled for the sins of the
people (Exodus 25:22, Leviticus 16:15).
11. But what about the Bronze Serpent? Wasn't it
destroyed precisely because the people began venerating it?
If you look at the
passage in question (2nd Kings 18:4), you will see that the Bronze Serpent was
not destroyed simply because people honored it, but because they had made it
into a serpent God, called "Nehushtan."
12. Weren't there Iconoclasts in the Church, long
before Protestants came along?
1). Is it permissible to make or to have Icons?
2). Is it permissible to venerate them?
It is clear from
the Old Testament that the answer to both questions is, Yes. While Protestants, however, object to the
veneration of Icons, they typically do not object to the making or possession
of images. If they did, they would not
have illustrated Gospel tracts, TV's, or pictures... but aside from the Amish,
one would be hard pressed to find another group of Protestants that
consistently eschews images. Protestants
do typically object to the veneration of images, but interestingly the
arguments and evidence that they use almost always argues against any images of
any kind, if the logic of their line of argumentation were consistently
followed.
The Iconoclasts,
who are often cited by Protestants as supporting their position on this
question, in fact actually argue against Protestants. On the one hand, the
Iconoclasts anathematized all those who "venture to represent...with
material colours..." Christ or the Saints—something almost all Protestants
do themselves. On the other hand, they
also anathematized all those who "shall not confess the holy ever-virgin
Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature
whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her
intercessions as one having confidence in her access to our God since she bare
Him..." and they also anathematized anyone who "denies the profit of
the invocation of the Saints..." (NPNF2, Vol. 14, p. 545f). So as a matter
of fact, Protestants find themselves
under more of the Iconoclast's anathemas than do the Orthodox.
Protestants might
wish to take solace that at least Iconoclasts opposed the veneration of images,
but veneration was never an issue per se with the Iconoclasts. They only opposed venerating Icons, because
they opposed Icons. They were not
opposed to venerating holy things—the Iconoclasts venerated the Cross, and made
no bones about it (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom
(600-1700), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974, p. 110).
Protestants also
cite some other fathers and early writers of the Church to support their
position. Most of these quotations simply
denounce idolatry, and have nothing to do with Icons. In those few cases in
which the quotes could plausibly be interpreted as condemning Icons (some of which are arguably later
Iconoclastic interpolations) a consistent interpretation would require that no
images be made... because again, the objection found in these texts is to the
making of and possession of images. None
of these texts even addresses the question of veneration.
The Canon of the
Synod of Elvira is often cited in support of an Iconoclast position. In its 36th Canon, the council decreed: "It is ordained that Pictures are not to
be in churches, so that that which is
worshipped and adored shall not be painted on walls." Even Protestant
scholars concede that the meaning of this canon is not as clear as Protestant
apologists often suggest. For one, it is
unclear what was the occasion for this canon, and it is not clear what it was
trying to prevent, a fact even Protestant scholars acknowledge:
"...no great
weight can be attached to this [canon 36 of the council of Elvira], the exact
bearing of the canon being unknown" [Edward James Martin, A History of the
Iconoclastic Controversy (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian
Knowledge, 1930), p. 19, fn 4].
3) How do you know
that the Iconoclasts were not the ones who preserved the more ancient Christian
view of Icons?
For one thing,
Iconoclasm would have thrived in Islamic dominated territory... but it
didn't. The first out break of
Iconoclasm began in Moslem territory, though this was not Christians destroying
images, but Moslems destroying Christian images (Pelikan, p. 105). There
is also reason to think that Moslem influence inspired the Iconoclastic
Emperors (for one, all of them were from parts of the Empire in which Moslems
had made inroads), but the fact of the matter is that the only part of the
Church in which Iconoclasm took hold was in those areas in which the Iconoclast
Emperors could impose their heresy upon the people. In all areas of the Church beyond the reach
of Byzantine arms, the Church opposed the Iconoclasts and broke communion with
them. One of the most vocal opponents
of the Iconoclasts was St. John of Damascus, who lived under Moslem rule, and
suffered persecution as a result. If the
Iconoclast view were really the traditional view, we should have expected to
see this opinion dominate the Christians living under Moslem rule. At the very least, we would expect some
Iconoclasts to speak out from among these Christians, but in fact, the opposite
was true—there were no Iconoclastic voices heard from Moslem dominated lands,
despite the obvious advantages such Christians would have had with their Moslem
rulers.
Also, prior to the
Iconoclastic controversy, we have extensive archeological evidence that Icons
were used throughout the Church, and were this a departure from Apostolic
Tradition we should expect to find a huge controversy on the subject from the
very moment that Icons first came into use, which would have only intensified
as their use became more common. We
find, however, nothing of the sort. In
fact, thirty years prior to the Iconoclastic controversy, the Quinisext council
established a canon regarding what should be depicted in certain Icons, but
hasn't the faintest hint of any controversy about Icons per se:
Aside from this,
there are many other things about the Iconoclast which show the novelty of
their heresy: they opposed monasticism,
despite the fact that it had unquestionably been embraced by the Church for
centuries, they were found of robbing monks, taking their land, and forcing
them to marry, eat meat, and attend public spectacles (and those who resisted
often were the public spectacles), contrary to well established monastic
practice. Even Protestant historians are
forced to concede that the holy men and women of the day were supporters of the
veneration of Icons, and that the Iconoclasts were a rather immoral and ruthless
lot.
"Much has been
written, and truly written, of the superiority of the iconoclastic rulers; but
when all has been said that can be, the fact still remains, that they were most
of them but sorry Christians, and the justice of the Protestant Archbishop of
Dublin's summing up of the matter will not be disputed by any impartial
student. He says, "No one will deny that with rarest exceptions, all the
religious earnestness, all which constituted the quickening power of a church,
was ranged upon the other [i.e. the orthodox] side. Had the Iconoclasts
triumphed, when their work showed itself at last in its true colours, it would
have proved to be the triumph, not of faith in an invisible God, but of
frivolous unbelief in an incarnate Saviour." (Trench. Mediaeval History,
Chap. vii.) The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R.
Percival, in NPNF2, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, p. 575, cf. 547f.
One can only be an
Iconoclast if they believe that the Church can cease to exist—contrary to the
Scriptures—because there is no doubt that the Church rejected Iconoclasm and
used Icons from at least as far back as its use of catacombs (which are full of
Christian Icons). This is an option that
thoughtful Evangelicals generally reject (see, for example, A Biblical Guide to Orthodoxy and Heresy,
Part Two: Guidlines for Doctrinal Discernment, in the Christian Research
Journal, Fall 1990, p. 14, section 3, "The Orthodox Principle").
Source: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx
CONVERSATION