Icons and the Second Commandment

Meam Commemorationem ^ | 12/10/2005 | Jeffrey Steel

[sionnsar]

I have recently read some things on the blogo-world where Christians are actually condemned to Hell for venerating objects within the context of worship. Of course, it comes from many who claim the Reformed Tradition, almost in an iconographic way. To make such rash judgments about Christians who would give honour to the "holy place" of worship by a bow or a bending of the knee is simply silly. To make the claim that Christians in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican Communions are damned to Hell because of this is not helpful in light of what others are doing to them in their own contexts. I find it odd that there were all sorts of "heavenly symbols" in the Temple and on the vestments of the OT priests that were commanded by God to be there and yet these establishments follow the giving of the Second Commandment. Do Christians follow the Temple or the 'Synagogue' model of worship and is this even the right question to be asking? It's interesting that the Second Commandment states "that ANYTHING in heaven or earth" should not be made and yet all sorts of "heavenly beings" are within the Temple. Then we have the Temple and the "icons" in the Holy of Holies. Is this really something to condemn fellow Christians for? Is it really a violation of the Second Commandment?

At the Second Council of Nicaea (Seventh Ecumenical Council) - 787 A.D the Council said,

We decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, and of Our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels, and of any of the saintly holy men.

I think the below article on this issue makes more sense than the common "Protestant" condemnation that sends those who disagree to Hell. I have never thought of anything other than the worship of God by any veneration given to the altar, cross, or priest in worship. We cross ourselves in our family, have icons in our home, (large advent wreath now) crosses, crucifixes, statues of saints, and all other sorts or Christian Tradition and we have never worshiped one of these things nor given them the honour that is due to God alone. When I deacon in worship and read the Gospel I cross it and kiss it after the proclamation "This is the Gospel of the Lord." I have never set my will to worship these holy things. Worship is an act of the will and an informed conviction that worship is only to God our Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. This article's point here makes a lot more sense than the broad condemnations that one often finds is being attributed to non-Protestant denominations.

So, for the veneration of images to violate the second commandment, it would have to: 1. Be an image of some type, 2. We would have to bow to it, 3. We would bow to it in order to serve it, 4. And to serve it as a god, to supersede God. Thus, it would turn into worship and break the second commandment. Veneration of the Saints through their images only applies to 2 of the 4 qualifications, thus it is not worship of the Saint or the Icon, nor does it break the second commandment. It seems the real concern of those who hesitate at this point is that they are afraid that if they bow to an Icon and kiss it, that they might find themselves someday falling into worship rather than just veneration and honor. Like one day they would wake up and realize that all this time they had been worshiping Mary instead of just giving her honor. The truth of the matter is that you simply cannot accidently worship an Icon. Worship is intentionally giving veneration to a god. As long as that god is the God, then you have nothing to worry about. No one can accidentally worship a Saint. Worship is a purposefull activity and you do it on purpose and with intent.

The whole article is here. It is a sad day that when brothers, who disagree, over something like this would begin condemning souls to eternal perdition just to let those who disagree with them on other controversial issues know that they are not as bad as those of us who have pictures of Jesus or statues of our favourite saints, crosses or crucifixes in our homes or churches. Can we have a more intelligent and Christian dicussion of these things? Is this now the measure of "Reformed" orthodoxy?

[phatus maximus]

I think you really need to say how you feel...Note sarcasm...

"Oh, you know how it is -- the Protesters will tell you that the words in the Bible are those of none of ther than God. That's why the Gospels all have different versions and different words! God must have spoken a slightly different version of the same truth using different words to +Mark, +Matthew, +Luke and +John I suppose!"

Wow...I think you'd find many posters on here appalled at your quote...I sincerely hope you are not saying that the Scriptures of God are to you just text, a nice story, some neat words put together by some guys who knew Christ or the people who knew them? If the scriptures are so worthless, why would Christ speak so often of fulfilling the scriptures and the prophesy in the scripture. Note the quotes of Christ were referring to the written text, scripture...not to oral tradition...don't you ever wonder why that is?

Clearly you don't think that fact is very important as attributed by this quote: "The plain truth is, the Protestants who know only the Bible, are in complete denial that the Bible is one of the most man-made, man-altered, man-(re)designed article of faith. The father of their heresy, Martin Luther, even put it upon himself to take out James because he personally didn't like the contents of that book of the New Testament. "

While your at it you might as well lump in the Roman Catholic Church since they also believe in the most worthless invention ever...I'm pretty sure the RCC uses Scripture deeply as well..

As you well know, James is still in the Bible...that's as boring of an argument as me saying you worship icons...Luther was not infallible and never claimed to be...neither do any of those who you call Lutherans...We are Christians...we worship Christ... we follow the advice Luther gave to latch onto the Holy Spirit as he comes to us to bring us to him and also to look to the scriptures to find the promise of Christ as provided by God the Father...our salvation is beautifully written in the scriptures...it's clearly and blantantly described to us over and over and over again...I feel bad your hatred of God's Holy written Word is so deeply rooted inside of you. May the Holy Spirit bring you back to His Word and remind you of the joy of reading about the Word, The Lord, The Giver of Life, The FAther, the promise of our salvation...all that The Holy Trinity has provided for us in the inspired texts...Praise God for His Wisdom!

Blessings to you and yours...

[stripes1776]

I have often noted in the past the differences between Eastern and Western ways of "doing" theology... The Fathers must be read in the first instance as prayerfully as icons are written.

Yes, I think that is the right approach.

[Cronos]

I think one thing I'd request of you Kosta, is to use the word "heresy" a bit more judiciously. As I've understood in other posts, the term in the Eastern Church doesn't have quite the same damning finality as in the Western Church, so it can get pretty violent reactions.

[Cronos]

Thank you for clarifying on why you consider the protestant's Bible to be as it were. I think your point has merit -- but again, I've never read in depth a Protestant Bible (anymore than superficially glancing through the pages)

[Cronos]

of course, on the other hand, when you really feel something is heresy, perhaps you should shout it out? I don't know, it just seems to me that by shouting it out instead of reasoning it out, one can harden the stance of the person one is arguing with (have you ever read the Cadfael novels? There's one about a young pilgrim who comes back with his master from the east, back to England and the master seems to have read Origen, so the young lad mis-speaks what he believes and is instantly condemned. However, he is saved by Cadfael when Cadfael asks him to recite the Credo in unum Deum -- the Creed.

[HarleyD]

HD-"All the serious Christians I've ever known take their Bibles and highlight, underlines and makes notes within their Bibles."

stripes-"Most of the serious Christians I know would never dream of doing that."

And that is precisely why you won't find Protestants kissing or burning incense to the Bible. While we revere the word of God, we look upon the method just as paper and ink.

[kosta50]

I don't think anyone argues that blessing icons is not a salutary thing if it is done, just that it is not blessing that makes an icon an icon

No, and you are right -- it is not "required" of the finished icon, but it is required.

The Apostolic Church teaches that blessing does change matter (i.e. holy water, holy oil, blessings of the house, the Eucharistic bread and wine, etc.).

Icons are written, not painted, by the way. And all materials that will make an icon are blessed -- canvass, wood, paint, iconographer for that reason.

[kosta50]

Dear friend in Christ, I do not hate the Bible. I believe the Bible is the word of God, but it is still a human product. What is revealed in the Bible is God's truth, even if we don't see it.

My point was not to denigrade the Scripture, but to show that reading the Bible is not reading ordinary text because there are variations in it.

My point however of the whole post was to show that the world did not have a written Bible until 500 BC, and then it was only the Five Books of Moses. The Prophest and Psalms were added as late as 100 BC. So, while God may have given Moses the Tablets, He did not give him written Scripture, nor did He ever demand that we use written Scripture.

God did not establish sola scriptura. Martin Luther did! It's an innovation that was unknown to Israel since the beginning. The Jews certainly did not disband their clergy once the Scripture came into existence. And the early Church existed for centruies before it canonized Christian Bible. Clearly, the Bible is not the sole requirement for faith, lest we imply that everyone from Adam on until Luther was in apostasy.

Luther has made the church out of the Bible. That was my point. And there are all sorts of bibles floating around. Surely, you know that they are not all the same and that they don't all convey the same message -- for if it were the Protestants would not insult the Mother of God by using the MT as the Old Testament, where she is just a "young woman."

All the best.

[kosta50]

Cronos, the word heresy means teaching that which is not taught by the Church. Apostolic Churches of the East and West are currently in a limbo state of "schism," but not in heresy, because we are awaiting a General Synod to iron out our differences and (mis)understandings. The Protestants, on the other hand, are no longer in the Apostolic Church, and some never were. I think there is a difference. They are not in "schism." They are just not "in."

We know God the Father in and not through Jesus Christ. Sabellianism is a heresy no matter how you turn it around.

[HarleyD]

"Iconography is a mystery of the Church, for which reason, also, the iconographer is expected to be a member of the Church, to hold the true Faith, and, while painting, to pray and fast"

Unfortunately, it seems to mean that all true Protestant theology becomes, by necessity, apolegetical since in a sola scriptura system, there is no room for any established theology, only the theology of any person willing to opine on any given theological subject.

It is interesting in my way of thinking the Orthodox and Roman Catholics find a certain amount of mystery within the Church. We see this in transubstantiation where the bread and wine literally becomes the body and blood of Christ. We see this in iconographics where people pray and fast to create something “God inspired” that is blessed more so than anything else. We see this carried over in the belief that the writings of the early church fathers were somehow more divinely inspired than what you or I type on Free Republic. (Of course it depends on which early church father we are talking about.)

Where we don’t see this mystery occurring is in how the Holy Spirit can lay upon each one of our hearts God’s divine understand. The scripture states in many places that if anyone seeks for wisdom let him ask it of God who gives it to all men generously. Ireaneus stated that if a believer were to enter a church and heard a heretic preaching the Holy Spirit would so convict them that they would cover their ears and go running from the church. Yet, although godly wisdom and understanding is pronounced throughout scripture, sola scriptura remains an impossibility in the Church. Protestants do not reject the teachings of the early fathers and value their opinion. But we don’t accept that everything they had to say was correct.

Orthodox and Catholics believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. How particular “Saints” writings are chosen as blessed and others aren’t remains another mystery of the Church.

[annalex]

The Apostolic Church teaches that blessing does change matter (i.e. holy water, holy oil, blessings of the house, the Eucharistic bread and wine, etc.).

Leaving the Holy Eucharist itself out of this, as regards the sacramentals, the blassing is required because they are not holy in themselves -- e.g. bread or oil are not in themselves holy. But the icon shows a holy object, e.g. Christ. Christ doesn't need to be blessed bacause He is holy. An object pointing to Him does not need to be blessed because it already is pointing. This was my analogy with the Holy Scripture. A better one would be with, say, the Protoevangelium of St.James, because that analogy does not bring in the issue of canonicity or inerrancy. The Protoevangelium speaks of the Blessed Virgin, who is holy. If I post it on the Free Republic (as I recently did) or otherwise publish it, does the phisical medium of the Protoevangelium need to be blessed? I don't think so, -- it speaks of its holy subject regardless.

If one painted a non-canonical picture of a holy subject, whose relation to Christ would be open to interpretation, and then wanted to pray to it, then such painting would have to be blessed before its use as a sacramental is proper. The difference is, precisely, that an icon is written, that is is faithful to its subject in an absolute degree, just as much as when I write "Christ went to Capernaum" is faithful to Christ's travel. A painting is painted, that is, is a subjective interpretation by an artist, which may or may not be faithful to the object.

These are al my thoughts, I'd like to understand this deeper. If anyone has a useful thought or reference, please help.

In particular, is there a published canon of iconography similar to the canon of scripture? I once asked Graves and he essentially said that there wasn't.

[Campion]

Protestants do not reject the teachings of the early fathers and value their opinion. But we don’t accept that everything they had to say was correct.

Neither do we, but Protestants frequently act as if we do. The Fathers aren't inerrant, but the Holy Spirit who guides the Church is.

[Rokke]

"I note that you took offense at Kosta speaking about heretics and Protestants in the same breath."

Actually, the "heretics" thing strikes me as being similar to liberals accusing conservatives of being "right wing nazis". It is an accusation that is so over the top that it is pretty easy to ignore. But, if that is the only thing you read in Kosta's post that you thought might be more offensive than constructive, I think we've slipped further apart than I thought. Let me highlight some things from Kosta's post that I think set a tone that essentially eliminates the chance of constructive discussion....

"Oh, you know how it is -- the Protesters will tell you that the words in the Bible are those of none of ther than God."--Why use the term "Protesters" to open your discussion unless you are trying to provoke a reaction instead of discussion? At a minimum it is a juvinile debate technique.

"Protestants, in addition to becoming apostates and heretics, also changed the Bible the Church used for 1,000 years (and if the Bible is truly something to be revered and/or worshiped, then it was a blasphemy as well!)"--There's that heresy thing, but also "blasphemy" and "apostatacy". Interestingly, since the Orthodox Bible does not match the Catholic Bible, at least one of those faiths is "guilty" of the same thing as Protestants.

"The plain truth is, the Protestants who know only the Bible, are in complete denial that the Bible is one of the most man-made, man-altered, man-(re)designed article of faith. The father of their heresy, Martin Luther, even put it upon himself to take out James because he personally didn't like the contents of that book of the New Testament."--Protestants who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God share that belief with Catholics, and therefore this accusation should be directed at all Christians outside of (apparently) Orthodox. And Luther did NOT remove James as anyone interested in discussing facts would know based on a quick review of Luther's Bible.

"Protestantism, as far as I am concerned, is nothing but a minimalist approach to salvation. Yes, this is my personal view. Being a Protestant is real easy in my opinion. One of Luther's famous quotables was his "pecca fortiter..." it means "sin boldly!" He was saying rationalizing that we will sin anyway, and cannot stop. So, why preoccupy ourselves with sin?! Sin boldly, he said, God will forgive you if you believe. Real easy, as I said."--At least this is prefaced with a few "in my opinions". But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the subject of this thread. Are we discussing Icons or slamming Protestants?

"The Protestant Church was created by ordinary men, with big egos, not by the Apostles. They took it upon themselves to denigrate, reject, insult, deny, blaspheme and negate all that the Church from the times of Jesus Christ knew to be the truth, and embraced a book that has more man-made innovations and additions to it than any other symbol of Christian faith. They hold Bible study on Sundays and call it a "church." How could they posisble know the difference between what it means to venerate a saint and what to worship God? Obviously, some worship Gof the Father through Jesus Christ, as the author fothe article said. Somebody please turn on the light!"--All this and I'm only supposed to be concerned about comments regarding "heresy"? Is this a defense of iconoclism or a temper tantrum directed toward Protestants? What it isn't is a "constructive" discussion and it typifies much of what these threads devolve into. It is insulting and intended to be so. It is not constructive or educational, and it does absolutely nothing to encourage unity between Christians or encourage others to explore Christianity. It is, exactly as LibreOuMort pointed out, exactly where these threads end up. In the gutter.

[Kolokotronis]

Here's a link to a book my wife has. I've read it and it is quite good: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0914744895/qid=1134488319/sr=8-14/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i14_xgl14/102-7713083-3592935?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

[Rokke]

"I've never read in depth a Protestant Bible (anymore than superficially glancing through the pages)"

Cronos, if you have read the entire Catholic Bible, you have read the entire Protestant Bible. The New Testaments are identical, and the Protestant Bible uses the Hebrew Canon for the Old Testament. The Catholic Bible uses the Hebrew Canon plus the deuterocanonicals. The Greek Orthodox Bible is longer still as it includes 3, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and 1 Esdras.

[redgolum]

Off topic, but why the difference in Canons between Rome and Constantinople?

In an older thread on the deuterocanonicals, I asked this of several RCC freepers, and no one really had a good idea as to why.

On the Bible translations, to be honest they vary. A good Catholic translation reads much the same as say the RSV or ESV. The syntax is a bit different in parts, but most versions follow each other very closely. For instance, there used to be a NRSV version that many Roman Catholic churches used to use.

[Campion]

Off topic, but why the difference in Canons between Rome and Constantinople?

I think there's disagreement on the OT canon between different Orthodox groups. The very expansive canon (the one that includes 3 & 4 Macc and the Prayer of Menasseh) is the Russian canon, IIRC.

[Kolokotronis]

I am unaware of any differences of opinion among the canonical Orthodox Churches as to the content of the Canon of either the Old or the New Testaments. We include all the books which the Roman Catholic Church includes together with Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and Psalms of Solomon. For the OT, we use the Septuagint. Our canon, I believe, was established around 1670-2 at the Synod of Jerusalem.

As for why we have additional books, I haven't a clue.

[Campion]

Thanks for the correction!

[redgolum]

As for why we have additional books, I haven't a clue.

Interesting in that many Roman Catholics claim that they use the same Canon that "The Church always has", and the Eastern Orthodox have some other books added in.

What is interesting is that the Ethiopian Orthodox, (monophytes if I remember right) have a whole lot of other books in the OT canon!