The Catalog of Good Deeds

by Anastasios D. Salapatas

INTRODUCTION

Ignatius and his writings

Ignatius is an exceptional figure of Christianity, “a man of intense devotion”1, who lived and offered his episcopal ministry in the years of the so-called primitive Church.

Ecclesiastical History has only preserved a few biographical elements about Ignatius; most of them come from his own writings. But his Epistles are not historical-biographical texts. Thus, they contain only very few details about Ignatius.

From what we know he had been the second bishop of Antioch, starting his ministry at about 70 A.D. It is certain that he had met with some of the Apostles. The social environment in which he was brought up might have been Greek, or at least influenced by Greek culture (this is a conclusion we reach by studying his writings).

During the years of the Roman persecution by Emperor Trajan, Ignatius was arrested and was brought to Rome in order to receive martyrdom. The common view today is that he was put to death at the Roman Stadium called Colosseum2, sometime between the years 107 and 117.

He called himself Theophoros 3, which is a very distinctive title for Christians and means the “God-bearer”. The title signifies the close spiritual relationship that he had with Christ. His memory is commemorated in the Eastern Orthodox Church on 20th December and in the Roman on the lst of February.

At his last days before he died he wrote seven Epistles. These are as follows: to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians, to the Trallians, to the Romans, to the Philadelphians, to the Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp. The first four were written from Smyrna and the remaining three from Troas, in Asia Minor4.

The Epistles of Ignatius, written at a relatively early date, “have played an important role in the theological reflections of the Church and represent a central point of contention in the scholarly discussions of Christian origins”5.

The significance of the Epistles is so great, basically because in them we find the first clear and direct reference to the threefold ministry and the settlement of the ecclesiastical authority, the centre of which is the bishop6.

These texts are of great importance to all of Christendom and because of them Ignatius has been acknowledged as “the first great theologian of the post-apostolic period and the first Father and Teacher of the Church”7.

I. THE PURPOSE OF THE VARIOUS DIACONAL REFERENCES IN IGNATIUS’ EPISTLES

It is true that the Epistles of Ignatius are full of references to the diakonos and to the diaconal function in the early Church. But it is also true that those references do not constitute the central theme in any of the Epistles.

The diaconal theme appears in these texts as part of the greater discussion concerning the ecclesiastical authority and the threefold ministry. Diaconal references may be found in all the Epistles except that addressed to the Romans.

For the first time in the history of the Church the three ranks of priesthood are clearly mentioned together8, in exactly the same order as we know them today. Diakonos is placed on the lowest level, or on the first rank of the Christian ministry, while presbyteros is on the second and the episkopos on the third and obviously the highest.

Ignatius is very clear on this matter of the Church ministry. He makes a great contribution to Ecclesiastical History by:

1. offering the names of the titles of the three officers (diakonos, presbyteros, episkopos)9,

2. presenting their functions, liturgical and pastoral, as they are found in his time10,

3. making the point that they are different in function and distinct among themselves11,

4. interpreting the threefold Church ministry as the earthly and visible ministry which resembles the heavenly prototype12, and

5. emphasising the idea of unity in the Church, in accordance with the unity experienced within the Holy Trinity13.

Ignatius firmly believes that deacons, presbyters and bishops are “appointed according to the will of Jesus Christ”14. He supports the view that deacons, presbyters and bishops are definitely a separate category of people, called to minister to the faithful. With his “prophetic voice”15 Ignatius calls the lay people to pay attention16 to them.

Therefore it becomes quite clear that the diaconal references in Ignatius are obviously offered as part of his theory of the ecclesiastical authority and the Christian ministry.

II. EPISKOPOS – DIAKONOS RELATIONSHIP ACCORDING TO IGNATIUS

There are many interesting passages in Ignatius’ Epistles, where references may be found to the spiritual and even pastoral and liturgical relationship between episkopos and diakonos. Some of them are symbolic, others are realistic.

The bishop Ignatius calls the deacons his “fellow slaves”17 and this is obviously a very important symbolic expression, which shows how highly the bishop regarded his deacons. The word “syndoulos” means that they are both (bishop and deacon) following the same spiritual path; they believe and follow the same Christ and to Him they are both spiritually answerable.

The deacon is “subject to the bishop”18. A big discussion could open here. In our case we prefer only to point out some of the questions. Which are the areas in which the deacon is subject to the bishop? Is it on the administrative level? Is it connected to the pastoral work and responsibility that the deacon might have had? Or is it related to the diaconal liturgical function?

The actual fact is that the deacon in all these Ignatian writings seems to have been an “assistant to the bishop”19. He does the will of the bishop as Jesus did the will of the Father20. At the same time he is regarded by Ignatius as “most dear to him”21, who has been “entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ”22.

According to W.R. Schoedel, “There is an especially close bond between bishop and deacon in Ignatius”23. He interprets this relationship by suggesting that this may reflect an earlier stage in the development of the ministry when these two offices had not yet merged with the presbyterate. But other factors probably suffice to explain the special attention given to deacons by Ignatius: their active role in practical matters; in particular, their service to Ignatius personally; and a special concern on Ignatius’ part to support those whose position sometimes put them in “difficult situations”24.

As far as the relationship between the deacon and the presbyters is concerned there is only one reference25 in Ignatius’ writings, where the diakonos appears to be responsible “to the presbytery”26. This relationship has not been defined very well “presumably because this is not the essential mark of the office”27.

III. DIAKONOS: MODEL OF CHRIST

In Ignatius text references are found of the diakonos being a model of Jesus Christ Himself28. It is quite obvious that Ignatius loves his deacons and regards them very highly.

The diakonos, who is closely working with his bishop, is “respected”29 as Jesus Christ, having been “entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ”30.

According to Ignatius the episkopos is set over the people “in the place of God”31, being “a type of the Father”32. The presbyters are also compared with the apostles33.

In all the relevant references the diakonos appears to be a model, or a “symbol”34, or even a “representation”35 of Christ. This idea seems to have been based on the New Testament. Our Lord, speaking about Himself and His ministry on earth, states that “the Son of Man came not to be served (diakonHthHnai) but to serve (diakonHsai)”36. Thus, He regarded Himself as a diakonos of the Church and of the people, offering therefore a diaconal prototype to the Christian Church.

It could also be suggested that the diakonos, as an ecclesiastical figure who represents Christ, according to Ignatius, appears to have been more important than the presbyter, at least in the Church of Antioch, although he (the diakonos) certainly stands in the third place37 of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

It is interesting to note that the Ignatian view of the diakonos being a model of Jesus Christ, is also found in some other early Christian writings, such as The Letter of Polycarp to the Phrlippians38, Didascalia Apostolorum39 and Apostolic Constitutions40.

At a later stage diakonos becomes the model of an angel. This is due to the liturgical development of the office. Saint John Chrysostom41 and Theodore of Mopsuestia in Catecheses42 are clearly stating that the diakonos as he wears his orarion43 during the Church Services is like a flying angel. He also moves “between the sacred and the profane bearing messages”44 like the angels.

CONCLUSIONS

Ignatius Theophorus, the bishop of Antioch, is a great figure of the ancient Christian Church. He is the first most important theologian after the Holy Apostles. By studying his Epistles the modern scholar may find in them many details regarding the actual life of the Church in Ignatius’ era.

Among the main themes in Ignatius’ written thoughts are the ecclesiastical authority and the three ranks of the Christian priesthood. The diaconate which is the first and the lowest rank of priesthood is clearly mentioned in Ignatius’ texts, although this is not his central theme.

The holy writer considers the diakonos and his diaconal ministry to be of a great value for the Church of Antioch and beyond. He, as the bishop of Antioch, is closely co-operating with the deacons in order to secure the best possible ministry for his flock.

Ignatius is related spiritually to the deacons, according to his own writings, in exactly the same way as God the Father is related to Jesus Christ. Thus, the diakonos is considered as a model of Jesus, who according to the New Testament had been the first diakonos of the Church.

The diakonos is always following the orders of his bishop, being answerable to him. But there is no clear reference in Ignatius’ texts as to the actual functions, pastoral, liturgical, or any other, of the diakonos. Finally, there is no direct mention to the deaconesses.

NOTES

1. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Penguin Books, London 1988, p.30.

2. Styl. Papadopoulou, Patrologia, vol.É, Athens 1982, p.178. E. W. Barnes (in The Rise of Christianity, London 1948, p.261) believes that “the story of the martyrdom of Ignatius is edifying legend, not contemporary history”, suggesting that this is “the invention of a hagiographer”, because “of Ignatius himself little is known”.

3. Pan.ChrHstou, “Ignatios”, in ThreskeutikH kai HthikH Egkyklopaideia, vol. 6, Athens 1965, col. 705.

4. M.W. Holmes (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers Apollos-Leicester 1989, p.80.

5. W. R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters, Philadelphia 1985, p.1.

6. DHm. Mpalanou, Patrologia, Athens 1930, p.43ff.

7. Styl. Papadopoulou, op. cit., p. 178.

8. A.D. Salapatas, “The Diaconate in the Eastern Orthodox Church” in Diaconal Ministry, Past, Present & Future, edited by Peyton G. Craighill, Rhode Island 1994, p.41.

9. Trall. 3,1; Trall.7,2; Smyrn. 8,1; Polyc. 6,1.

10. Iak. PHlilH, H ChristianikH IerosynH, Athens 1988, pp. 289-294.

11. Meth. Phougia, Genesis kai Anaptysis tHs ChristianikHs IerosynHs, Athens 1972, p.79.

12. Magn. 6,1; Trall. 2 & 3,1. J. Pelilis, op. cit., p. 265.

13. According to Hans von Campenhausen, “Just as Christ was united to his Father, so must Christians be subject to their presbyters and deacons and all of them to the bishop…”. (Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries London, p. 100).

14. J.R. Wright , “The Emergence of the Diaconate”, in Liturgy (Journal of the Liturgical Conference), vol.2, No 4, Washington D.C. 1982, p.20.

15. L. Goppelt , Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, London 1970, p. 193.

16. Philad. 7,1.

17. “syndoulos”, in Ephes. 2,1; Magn.2; Philad. 4; Smyrn 12,2. BibliothHkH EllHnon Pateron kai EkklHstiastikon Syggrapheon, “Ignatios o Antiocheias”, vol. 2, Athens 1955, p. 261ff.

18. Magn.2.

19. James Ì. Âarnett, The Diaconate – A Full and Equal Order, New York 1981, p. 50.

20. Magn. 6,1; Trall. 3,1.

21. “ton emoi glykytaton”, in Magn. 6,1.

22. Magn. 6,1.

23. W.R. Schoedel, op.cit., p.46.

24. Ibid.

25. Magn 2.

26. The particular term used here by Ignatius is “presbytery” not “presbyters”, although this does not seem to have any great significance.

27. J.V. Collins, Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources, New York-Oxford 1990, p. 240.

28. W.R. Schoedel, op.cit, pp. 113-4.

29. Trall. 3,1.

30. Magn. 6,1.

31. Ibid.

32. Magn. 13,2; Trall. 3,1; Smyrn. 8,1.

33. Trall. 2,2 & 3,1; Philad 5,1; Smyrn. 8,1.

34. J.M. Barnett, op.cit., pp. 50-1.

35. Ibid.

36. Matt.20,28; Mark 10,45.

37. Smyrn. 8,1; Polyc. 6,1.

38. Polyc. Phil. 5,3.

39. R.N.Connoly, Didascalia Apostolorum, Oxford 1929, p.88.

40. Apostolic Constitutions 2,26,5.

41. Pant.Chanoglou, Diakonikon, Edessa 1989, p.214.

42. A.Mingana (ed.), Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Lord’s Prayer and on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, Cambridge 1933, p. 84.

43. Diaconal stole.

44. R.F.Grein, The Renewal of the Diaconate and the Ministry of the Laos, Rhode lsland 1991, p. 9.

Source: http://silouanthompson.net/library/history/ignatius-diaconate/

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?

Christians pray in the presence of Icons (just as Israelites prayed in the presence of Icons in the Temple), but we do not pray to the image.

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.

4. Do Orthodox Christians Worship Icons? What's the difference between "worship" and "veneration"?

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 Jews understand the difference between veneration and worship (adoration). A pious Jew kisses the Mezuza on his door post, he kisses his prayer shawl before putting it on, he kisses the tefillin, before he binds them to his forehead, and arm. He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue. No doubt, Christ did likewise, when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue.

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?

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 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).

Before Christ came in the flesh and triumphed over death by His Resurrection, the Saints of the Old Testament were not in the presence of God in Heaven, but were in Sheol (often translated as "the grave", and translated as "hades" in Greek). Before Christ's Resurrection, Sheol was the destiny of both the just and the unjust (Genesis 37:35; Isaiah 38:10), though their lot there was by no means the same. As we see in Christ's parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31; cf. Enoch 22:8-15 [although the book of Enoch is not included in the Canon of Holy Scripture, it is a venerable part of Holy Tradition and is quoted in the Epistle of St. Jude, as well as in many of the writings of the holy fathers]) there was a gulf that separated the just from the unjust, and while the righteous were in a state of blessedness, the wicked were (and are) in a state of torment—the righteous awaited their deliverance through Christ's Resurrection, while the wicked fearfully awaited their judgment. Thus under the old covenant, prayers were said only for the departed, because they were not yet in heaven to intercede on our behalves. For as St. Paul said to the Hebrews when speaking of the Old Testament Saints, "And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us" (Hebrews 11:39-40). In Hebrews 12, St. Paul goes on to contrast the nature of the Old Covenant (12:18ff) with that of the New (12:22ff)—and among the distinctions he makes, he says that in the New Covenant we "are come unto... the spirits of just men made perfect (12:22-23). As both the Scriptures and the rest of Holy Tradition tell us, while Christ's body lay in the tomb, His Spirit descended into Sheol and proclaimed liberty to the captives (Ephesians 4:8-10; 1st Peter 3:19, 4:6; cf. Matthew 27:52-53). And these Saints that have triumphed over this world, now reign with Christ in Glory (2nd Timothy 2:12), and continually offer up prayers for us before the Lord (Revelation 5:8; the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius, Ch. 7 [St. Ignatius was one of the disciples of the Apostle John, and was made Bishop of Antioch by him]).

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?

It is important to keep in mind, when considering the question of Icons (and thus also Iconoclasm), that there are two separate questions that are often confused:

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].

Because of the wording of this canon, it is almost certainly not a blanket ban on images. What is not clear is what it is banning, and more particularly to what end. Plausible interpretations range from this being merely a ban on images in Church, to a precautionary measure to protect Icons from the Pagans (since the canon was composed during a time of persecution, this is certainly possible). In any case, the fact of the matter is that Icons were in use in Spanish Churches before this Synod, and they continued to be used after this Synod, without any further evidence of controversy. Furthermore, this Synod was of a purely local character, and was never affirmed on an Ecumenical level.

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:

"In some of the paintings of the venerable Icons, a lamb is inscribed as being shown or pointed at by the Precursor'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).

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

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

The Diaconate in Ignatius’ Epistles

12 Frequently Asked Questions about Icons

Video Monologue: Myrrhbearing Women

Partners