A hallmark of Old Testament Judaism was its strict opposition to idolatry, and hence to religious images that could lead to image worship. The earliest Christians seemed to follow their Jewish predecessors with an uneasiness to such things. Their rejection of image-worship contributed to their caricature in the broader society as “atheists.” At some point between Origen’s denunciations of image worship and the seventh century (with the onslaught of the Muslim religion), the church became very comfortable with religious images. Is it right for Christians to venerate religious “icons”? Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions would embrace this practice, while Protestants would see icon veneration as an unbiblical add-on to the faith.
Background and Summary
Let’s unpack what is meant by “venerating an icon,” according to those who believe in these practices. First, icons are images (e.g., paintings, mosaics) which depict holy people and events and are meant to instruct Christians and aid in worship. The icon can be a way of accessing the real presence of the person depicted, so that, for example, someone can show honor directly to Mary by venerating an icon of her. We are told that “venerate” is meant to be distinguished from “worship,” which is the adoration given to God alone. Veneration involves acts of respecting and reverence, such as bowing before, kissing, and offering incense.
By the time we get to the eighth and ninth century movement to do away with icons and the harsh Muslim denunciations of the church’s use of them, we begin to see just how prominent the use of icons had become. Proponents of the elimination of these icons became known as iconoclasts.[1] The first major champion of the iconoclast movement was Leo III, who became Byzantine emperor during the second siege of Constantinople by the Muslims. He believed that in order to save the city and empire from this oncoming judgment, the church needed to be purified. [2] Part of this purification, he believed, necessitated iconoclasm.
The church, especially in the East, had begun to accept the miraculous powers of certain images, especially those which were thought to have had divine origination of some kind. In his attempts to purify the church, Leo replaced coin images of Christ with his own and that of his son, and he removed and demolished an image of Christ from the gate of the imperial palace.
“The church, especially in the East, had begun to accept the miraculous powers of certain images.”
Leo III’s son and successor Constantine V was an even more militant iconoclast. He and his theologians reasoned that to portray Christ in image form was to try to portray God in image form, which was forbidden in the second of the Ten Commandments. To make a distinction between portraying the man and portraying God was to commit the heresy of Nestorianism. So Constantine V sought to replace the icons with the symbol of the cross.
Constantine V convened what he called the Seventh Ecumenical Council (which neither West nor East ultimately accepted) from which the emperor received the ability to label icon-proponents as heretics.[3] The most prominent theologian among these “iconodules” (“image-servants,” as those favorable to icons were labeled) was John of Damascus. Also numbered among the iconodules were the monks. For the most part, it was only the most outspoken iconodules who were persecuted. It is troubling that while this is the first major theological controversy which does not center on a major doctrine, it is the first that resulted in a Christian government executing Christians for Christian reasons.
Constantine V’s son and heir Leo IV, under pressure from his wife Irene, took a moderate approach on the issue. When Leo IV died, his son Constantine VI was only 10 years old. Thus, the mother of Constantine VI, Irene, ruled through regency and reversed all iconoclast policies, even declaring the use of icons to be orthodox.[4] It was under Irene that the actual seventh ecumenical council was called in Nicaea, which condemned the iconoclast movement.[5] Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize the authority of this “Second Council of Nicaea.”
“It is troubling that while this is the first major theological controversy which does not center on a major doctrine, it is the first that resulted in a Christian government executing Christians for Christian reasons.”
After a brief time in which the grown Constantine VI wrested control from his mother, she won back the throne and had him blinded and deposed. An uprising deposed her and instated Nicephorus I, who was succeeded after death by Michael I Rangabe.[6] This emperor was deposed by Leo V, an iconoclast like Leo III. Leo V convened a council in Constantinople which ordered the removal of all icons. Leo V was murdered and replaced by Michael II, a moderate iconoclast who did not persecute the iconodules. Michael II’s son Theophilus was tutored by the iconoclast John the Grammarian, and under Theophilus, a new persecution arose against the iconodules. Theophilus died with an infant son, whose mother Theodora ruled via regency and restored images.[7]
This restoration continues to be celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox Church as the “Feast of Orthodoxy.” To this day, Eastern Orthodox churches are well-known for paintings, mosaics, and the iconostasis (screen across the front of the church) in the churches.[8] Both Eastern Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions embrace icon veneration, while the Protestants tend to view such practices as idolatrous and unbiblical.
Proponent of Icons
- John Mansour (730-760), also known as John of Damascus, was the greatest theologian of the eighth century. It was he who gave the church its theological defense of the use of icons. The Eastern church sees him as the last of the great church “Fathers.”[9]
- Theodora (815-867) was wife of iconoclast emperor Theophilus and, after his death, regent for their son. She is considered a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church for restoring icons while regent.
Opponents of Icons
- Origen (185-254) is considered by many to the be the greatest theologian of the early church. As leader of the school of Alexandria, Origen’s theology speaks to many issues.[10] Regarding icons, he taught from the second of the Ten Commandments that Christians should avoid their use.[11]
- Leo III, emperor from 717-741, believed that part of the purification necessary for the church to resist Muslim overthrow included the church’s rejection of the religious use of icons. He began the iconoclast movement.[12]
- Constantine V, emperor after Leo III, took an even stronger stance against icons than did his father. The council he convened, eventually rejected by both West and East, gave him the right to label iconodules as heretics.[13]
Biblical Basis for Iconoclasm
Here is a passage of Scripture used by iconoclasts to show that the Bible doesn’t support the veneration of “sacred images”:
“Do not make an idol for yourself, whether in the shape of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” (Exodus 20:4-5a, HCSB)
Excerpt
From the Second Council of Nicaea (which championed icons):
“…Not to pay to them the actual worship which is according our faith, and which is proper only to the divine nature: but as to the figure of the venerable and lifegiving cross, and to the holy Gospels and the other sacred monuments, so to those images to accord the honour of incense and oblation of lights, as it has been the pious custom of antiquity.”[14]
[1] Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988), 209-210.
[5] Harlie Kay Gallatin, “The Eastern Church,” in Introduction to the History of Christianity, ed. Tim Dowley (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 257.
[8] Gallatin, “The Eastern Church,” 258.
[10] Everett Ferguson, “Origen,” in Introduction to the History of Christianity, ed. Tim Dowley (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 107.
[14] Second Council of Nicaea, “The Iconoclast Controversy,” in Documents of the Christian Church, ed. Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 103.
