Stump the Priest: Did the Early Church Venerate Icons?

Fr. John Whiteford's News, Comments, & Reflections ^ | 12-31-2015 | Fr. John Whiteford

[NRx]

An Iconoclast removing an icon of Christ

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.

For more information see:

The Icon FAQ: Answers to common questions about icons (this article is especially important, and has extensive hyperlinks to other articles relevant to this question).

Stump the Priest: The Veneration of the Cross

[crumudgeonous]

You have a confused understanding of the Church. Christ taught that if you had ought against your brother, you should ultimately take it to the Church. If you are Protestant, what Church would that be? How would that work when everyone does what seems right in their own eyes? Why would the Apostle John be under the impression that local Churches had to recognize his authority, and could not just do whatever the hell they wanted to, if there is no visible, united, authoritative Church?

[unlearner]

“You have a confused understanding of the Church.”

As I have said many times before, the church is made up of people who have believed in Christ and, as a result, God has supernaturally, through the work of the Holy Spirit, transformed each one to be member of the body of Christ, the church. Simply put, the church is believers. It is nothing more than people who have trusted in Christ, and nothing less. It is not hymnals, pews, steeples, stained glass windows, organs, catechisms, artifacts, relics, altars, buildings, or even Bibles. It is people.

Some of these people are alive on earth, imperfect and still in our mortal bodies. Some are in Heaven, perfected but waiting to be clothed with immortality.

The word “church” essentially means congregation, i.e. a gathering of people. What do congregations do? They congregate. A local church is a group of believers who gather together.

“Why would the Apostle John be under the impression that local Churches had to recognize his authority?”

Because he is an apostle. His words are still authoritative. Believers (i.e. the church) reads them daily for instruction and encouragement.

I have given you my definition of the church. Now tell me yours.

[crumudgeonous]

So you apparently think that authority and organization in the Church perished with the last apostle. The Church, on the other hand, believes that the Apostles appointed successors — namely, the Bishops, and that these bishops continued to have authority over the Church. You can read about this in the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John. And for my on my view of the Church, see “On the Unity of the Church,” by St. Cyprian of Carthage, who was martyred in about the year 258:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html

[unlearner]

“So you apparently think that authority and organization in the Church perished with the last apostle. “

No. I think the form of the church during the lives of the apostles is essentially described in scripture and is the pattern for the way local churches should operate today. Two things changed. The Bible was completed, and the apostles died. As long as there was a living apostle, (John was the last remaining) he could be consulted by letter on matters of difficulty for the local elders. Today, elders have the wisdom of the apostles at their finger tips. And the things necessary to know have been recorded.

Bishops / elders / pastors were appointed by apostles like Paul as well as those he mentored like Timothy and Titus. The local church is supposed to be led by these men. They did not have apostolic authority then, and they do not have it now other than what I already described.

You posted a link to a very long article about the church, but neither you nor the article answer the question of what the church is. I have stated that the church is the congregation of believers — nothing more, nothing less. Apparently you think it is something else, but I cannot tell exactly what you think it is because you have never answered, and it is quite unclear from your posts.

[Campion]

And yet Catholics don't do that.

You really don't know that a Catholic priest kisses the Book of the Gospels at every Mass?? Seriously??

You really don't know that an Orthodox priest blesses the people with the Book of the Gospels at every liturgy?? Seriously??

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, yet you're here accusing us of every sort of sin all the time. Open your Bible, and read what James says about the stricter judgement of those who teach, please.

[crumudgeonous]

The Church on earth is the visible continuation of that body which Christ established, and which has a shared faith and whose members are in communion with one another. It has Bishops, priests, and deacons which guide it, and it upholds the Apostolic Faith and Tradition. It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

And actually, the treatise I linked to does define the Church, but you do have to read it. There is a lot more here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_church.aspx

[Campion]

No. I think the form of the church during the lives of the apostles is essentially described in scripture and is the pattern for the way local churches should operate today. Two things changed. The Bible was completed, and the apostles died. As long as there was a living apostle, (John was the last remaining) he could be consulted by letter on matters of difficulty for the local elders. Today, elders have the wisdom of the apostles at their finger tips. And the things necessary to know have been recorded.

This is the usual Protestant argument that the rules of church governance changed once the Bible was written down and the Apostles died.

Only one problem: the Bible knows nothing about this massive rule change. Nothing at all.

[don-o]

For those who do not know, this priest is a convert (from Nazarene). Attended Oral Roberts U where he first learned of Orthodoxy. He is a very good apologist. His blog is very informative.

[Iscool]

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, yet you're here accusing us of every sort of sin all the time.

In the unlikely event that I ever see a Catholic with a bible, I'll keep a close eye on 'em to see if they bow before and pray to the bible...

[unlearner]

I did not say the rules changed. I said two things changed: the Bible was completed, and the apostles died. We are supposed to follow the same faith “once delivered”, as Jude puts it. Once delivered strongly suggests that it does not change, and it is in fact the claimants of apostolic authority, such as the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches, that have changed what was delivered by the apostles.

At no time during the apostles tenure did they instruct men to bow to Christian leaders, including themselves and Mary. Nor did they teach such toward angels, nor relics, nor any other holy objects. Nor did they order the various rituals (e.g. holy smoke, holy water), elaborate attire of clergy (e.g. black robes, white collars, Pope’s crown), nor the many endless practices, decorations, and so many other things that constitute the Catholic and Orthodox religions. These represent additions, changes, and even outright contradictions and disobedience to the order of faith “once delivered”.

We read about things like taking collections on the first day of the week being an ordinance. We read of things Paul established “in all of the churches”. Yet they did just fine without buildings, steeples, stained glass windows, statues, pews, altars, special attire for the clergy, special titles for the clergy, choirs and orchestras, and booths for “confession”.

1 Corinthians 16:2
On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

1 Corinthians 7:17
But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.

Only the actual apostles have full, apostolic authority over the entire church. The role of elders / bishops was designated to local churches.

[unlearner]

“The Church on earth is the visible continuation of that body which Christ established, and which has a shared faith and whose members are in communion with one another. It has Bishops, priests, and deacons which guide it”

That much is true. (Local churches have elders and deacons. Bishops / Elders / Presbyters are all the same thing as described in the New Testament, and probably Pastor is as well. Nowhere is an office of “priest” found as the term applies generally to all believers as a nation of priests. Priests offer sacrifices which is applicable to all believers.)

To clarify your definition of “Church” though, do you think the church is made up of anything other than people?

“it upholds the Apostolic Faith and Tradition”

That is true to the extent of how the words are commonly used, but not in the sense it is purported to mean. There is no Apostolic faith or tradition that is not found within the scriptures. Peter specifically and explicitly stated his purpose for writing was to keep his doctrine in remembrance after his departure (i.e. death).

“It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.”

One? Yes. It is a “body” made of body parts which require it to be one in order for those parts to form a body.

Holy? By virtue of Christ’s atonement, yes.

Catholic? Not as a brand name. But in the Biblical meaning that beyond the local manifestation of the church, there is a universal Church made up of mortal, imperfect believers on earth AND perfected believers in Heaven awaiting the redemption of their bodies (i.e. resurrection). Christ is the singular head of the body. (Only the Satanic beasts of the apocalypse have multiple heads.) And since the earthly and Heavenly church are One, there is no need for a second head on earth.

Apostolic? As I said before, believers today only exercise apostolic authority by proclaiming what the apostles recorded in scripture and by being obedient to the scriptures . There are certain requirements specified in the New Testament to qualify as an apostle: being witness of Christ’s resurrection, miraculous signs confirming their claim of apostleship, and being personally taught by Christ. There have been false claims of apostleship ever since the church began, and we are instructed to test such claims. These are the tests. No one today meets these qualifications. However, the church does have apostolic authority to consult in the writings of the apostles which are scripture.

[crumudgeonous]

In the New Testament, the terms “bishop” and “Presbyter” (”priest” being nothing but an English derivation of “Presbyter”) are often used in more loose terms. For example, St. John the Apostle refers to himself as “The Elder” (Presbyter). But there were clearly three levels of authority in the Church: 1. Apostles; 2. Presbyters/Bishops; 3 Deacons. By the time of St. Ignatius (who was disciple of the Apostle John, and who was martyred in 112 a.d.), the terminology crystalized to the forms we now know them. The term bishop was already being used exclusively for those who were successors to the Apostles, and who had the highest level of authority, then you had Presbyters, who function like sub-bishops. Their primary role is to serve as representatives of the bishop, in the bishop’s absence, but when the bishop is present, their roles (both liturgical and administrative) are greatly reduced and subordinated, and then you still have the deacons.

If you read St. Ignatius’ Epistles, this is very clear. These epistles were considered Scripture by many in the early Church, and so are very important, even if they eventually were not included among the books of the New Testament. He was the first bishop of Antioch after the Apostles, and that city was the first center of Christianity after Jerusalem, and so his position in the early Church was highly regarded.

You will also find that he clearly states that the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Christ, and that no group can be call a Church if it does not have a bishop, with priests and deacons. Furthermore, he says that no one who follows another into a schism will inherit the Kingdom of God, and no one who follows heretical doctrine’s is “on the side of the Passion.”

The Church has Christ as its head, and the Holy Spirit as its guide.

[unlearner]

“The Church has Christ as its head, and the Holy Spirit as its guide.”

At least we agree on this point.

“’Presbyter’ (’priest’ being nothing but an English derivation of ‘Presbyter’)”

Perhaps, but it is distinct in the original from the “priest” of the orders of Aaron and Melchizedek. That term is used to describe ALL believers who are now a kingdom of priests. So the term is inaccurate when applied exclusively to church leaders.

“If you read St. Ignatius’ Epistles”

At your suggestion I read and skimmed over some of his writings. Thank you for the suggestion. I will admit I need to spend some time learning more of the writings of the early church leaders, as this has been somewhat lacking in my education.

“He was the first bishop of Antioch after the Apostles, and that city was the first center of Christianity after Jerusalem, and so his position in the early Church was highly regarded.”

I will certainly give that the consideration it is due.

I did read what appears to be a distinction he makes between bishops and presbyters. However, the Bible does not make this distinction as far as I know.

Acts 20:17, 28-31
From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church...
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

This passage uses the terms (elder / overseer i.e. “bishop” / shepherd i.e. “pastor”) interchangeably. It is also instructive that Paul warns of a future time when false teachers would arise from among the leaders. While it is certainly erroneous to think of a local church operating with no leadership, it is equally dangerous to regard any human leaders as having unquestionable authority since it is clear here that it is not only possible for them to err, but Paul recognized it was inevitable.

“You will also find that he clearly states that the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Christ”

Ignatius appears to have written this figuratively, just like passages of the New Testament do. One part I read says: “I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.” This is consistent with 1 Corinthians 10 which says that believers in the church are the “one bread” and “one body”. Believers are the Church, the one bread, the body of Christ. The corruptible bread eaten to commemorate Christ’s death and the union of believers with Him illustrates this spiritual reality.

[crumudgeonous]

We first find the statement that the people of God are a kingdom of priests in the Old Testament: “And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:6). And yet this did not mean that there was not a distinct early priesthood with unique duties that others could not take on themselves. The first Baptists we find in Scripture are Dathan and Abiram:

“They gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”” (Numbers 16:3).

See the rest of that chapter to see how that turned out.

And here is the specific quote from St. Ignatius on the Eucharist:

“6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine
touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us,
how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They
have no care for love, none for the widow, none for
the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the
prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up” (To the Smyrneans). http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html

I am aware of the use the terms bishop and presbyter in the New Testament, but it is still a fact that you clearly have three levels of authority in the Church in the New Testament (Apostle, Presbyter/Bishop, Deacon) and you clearly have three levels of authority in the post Apostolic Church — only that the successors of the Apostles did not take the title “apostle” to themselves, but the term bishop came to be applied exclusively to the first level of authority, and “Presbyter” came to be applied exclusively to the second level. The functions, however, remained unchanged.

[unlearner]

Exodus 19:6
And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.

You make an excellent point. I have to agree with your general argument that there are leaders in the church who have authority to govern. The main distinction I think has to do with the term “priest”. We no longer offer animal or similar sacrifices as the Aaronic priesthood. The New Testament discusses offering the “fruit of our lips” as praise, worship, and thanksgiving. All believers function like a priest in this sense I believe. And none offer the sacrifices under the Old Testament economy.

“The first Baptists we find in Scripture are Dathan and Abiram”

Numbers 16:31-33
Now it came to pass, as he finished speaking all these words, that the ground split apart under them, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men with Korah, with all their goods. So they and all those with them went down alive into the pit; the earth closed over them, and they perished from among the assembly.

I have not heard of any Baptists being swallowed up by the earth for rejecting the authority of the Catholic or Orthodox churches. Further, the Israelites did not have a Bible at this point. Moses was their only way of hearing from God. When I reject the authority of modern clergy, it is specifically for their rejection of the Bible as the highest authority. They put themselves above Moses and the apostles.

“here is the specific quote from St. Ignatius on the Eucharist”

Ignatius was specifically speaking of the Dosetists who rejected Christ’s humanity and the reality of His human suffering. Ignatius also used figurative language about the bread being symbolic of the members of the body of Christ (as in 1 Corinthians 10). He said in the fourth chapter to his letter to the Romans, “I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.”

Origen wrote that the bread and cup are symbolic when commenting on Matthew 11:4:

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. “

Clement says something similar:

“’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically ‘a cup,’ when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.”

And also this:

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? ‘Who washes,’ it is said, ‘His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.’ In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”

“you clearly have three levels of authority in the Church in the New Testament (Apostle, Presbyter/Bishop, Deacon)”

I agree generally with this distinction. However, there were some who were “apostles of Christ” and others who were “apostles of the churches”.

2 Corinthians 8:23
If anyone inquires about Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker concerning you. Or if our brethren are inquired about, they are messengers [i.e. “apostles”] of the churches, the glory of Christ.

There are those who serve as missionaries and have authority over local congregations for the purposes of laying a foundation and specifically appointing elders and deacons who continue to lead the local church from that point forward.

None of this supports a centralized, worldwide authority over local churches. The Bible is the voice of the apostles of Christ for today.