Question: "Isn't the
fact that there were controversies over icons well into the 9th century proof
that the early Church did not venerate icons?"
There were indeed controversies at various times, most
notably the Iconoclastic controversies of the 8th and 9th centuries, but these
controversies were primarily focused on the question of whether one could have
icons at all. Even the iconoclasts did not object to the veneration of the
Cross, or other holy objects. Their problem with icons was that they considered
them inherently objectionable, regardless of whether they were being venerated
or not. In fact, there was never any movement of Christians that accepted
iconography, but rejected their veneration, prior to the Protestant
Reformation.
It is a matter of fact, only 30 years prior to the
first iconoclastic controversy, icons were not a controversial issue, as is
shown by the the fact that the Quinisext Council issued a canon about the
content of certain icons, that shows no hint of the making of icons being a
matter of any controversy:
"In some of the paintings of the venerable Icons,
a lamb is inscribed as being shown or pointed at by the Forerunner's finger,
which was taken to be a type of grace, suggesting beforehand through the law
the true lamb to us Christ our God.
Therefore, eagerly embracing the old types and shadows as symbols of the
truth and preindications handed down to the Church, we prefer the grace, and accept
it as the truth in fulfillment of the law.
Since, therefore, that which is perfect even though it be but painted is
imprinted in the faces of all, the Lamb who taketh away the sin of the world
Christ our God, with respect to His human character, we decree that henceforth
he shall be inscribed even in the Icons instead of the ancient lamb: through
Him being enabled to comprehend the reason for the humiliation of the God
Logos, and in memory of His life in the flesh and of His passion and of His
soterial death being led by the hand, as it were, and of the redemption of the
world which thence accrues" (Canon LXXXII of the Quinisext Council).
And it is also a fact that archaeological evidence
shows the ubiquity of Christian iconography going back to the catacombs.
Clearly those who objected to iconography were outside of the Christian
mainstream. What made icons controversial in the 8th and 9th centuries was the
rise of Islam, and the desire of the iconoclastic emperors to bring those who
had converted to Islam back into the Christian fold -- and icons were seen as
an obstacle to this. It is also not coincidental that the iconoclastic emperors
all came from parts of the empire in which Islam had made significant inroads.
Furthermore, a closer look at the texts of Scripture
show that the Israelites had extensive iconography in both the Tabernacle and
then later in the Temple. You find images of cherubim:
On the Ark – Exodus 25:18
On the Curtains of the Tabernacle – Exodus 26:1
On the Veil of the Holy of Holies – Exodus 26:31
In the Sanctuary – 1 Kings 6:23
On the Walls – 1 Kings 6:29
On the Doors – 1 Kings 6:32
And on the furnishings – 1 Kings 7:29,36
When you add all these references together, it is
clear that there were Icons everywhere you turned in Israelite worship.
But some will object: "Isn't bowing before an
icon and kissing it forbidden by the Second Commandment?" The issue with
respect to the 2nd commandment is what does the word translated "graven
images" mean? If it simply means carved images, then the images in the
temple would be in violation of this Commandment. Our best guide, however, to
what Hebrew words mean, is what they meant to Hebrews -- and when the Hebrews
translated the Bible into Greek, they translated this word simply as
"eidoloi", i.e. "idols." Furthermore the Hebrew word pesel
is never used in reference to any of the images in the temple. So clearly the
reference here is to pagan images rather than images in general.
Let's look at what the Second Commandment actually
says:
"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 20:4-5).
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.
Abraham bowed himself before the people of Hebron
(Genesis 23:7, 12); Joseph’s brothers bowed before him (Genesis 42:6; 43:26,
28); and many other examples could be cited that show that bowing was an
expression of respect, and bowing to idols is only objectionable because the
object in question is in fact an idol, an image of a false deity. And kissing
holy things is a very common act of devotion among Jews to this day (see:
Kissing: An Act of Religious Devotion, by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin (From To
Pray as a Jew: A Guide to the Prayer book and the Synagogue Service, (New York:
Basic Books [Harper Collins], 1980), p.43f).
There is no reason we should assume that the early
Christians would not likewise have bowed before and kissed holy things, like
their Jewish forefathers. And icons of saints or Biblical scenes would have
been given the same veneration that the texts of Scripture were given.
By Fr.
John Whiteford
Source: http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2015/12/stump-priest-did-early-church-venerate.html
CONVERSATION