The Ancient, Biblical Christian Practice of Venerating Relics

The veneration of relics is so obviously just a late medieval corruption of the faith, right? Actually, it comes from the Bible and the first Christians.

A speck of bone, their childhood shoes, even a drop of blood? If anything is distinctive of the devotional practices of the Catholic Church compared to Protestant Christians, it’s the Church's practices surrounding relics.

Relics are the remains of those recognized as saints, whether it is a part of their body (first degree relic), something they owned (second degree relic), or even, though less impressive, objects that have touched a first or second degree relic (third degree relic). Catholics carefully preserve relics, honor them, and even sometimes claim miracles in connection with them.

Catholics insist they are honoring Jesus' servants and in doing so are honoring Jesus. But to many Protestants, the whole practice seems at best very strange, at worst idolatrous, and, either way, in the very least, easily dismissed as just another late medieval corruption of the Catholic Church.

So Protestants (and Catholics) may be surprised to learn that the Church’s beliefs and practices surrounding relics actually come from the Bible and the early Church.

In the Old Testament book 2 Kings, we find an curious story in which God works a miracle through the dead remains of one of his holy servants:

Elisha died and was buried. Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet. (2 Kings 13.20-22) In the New Testament, we find two instances of God working through objects related to holy people. The first comes from the Gospel of Mark and is related to Jesus:

When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. (Mark 5.27-29) And the second comes from the book of Acts and is related to the Apostle Paul:

God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. (Acts 19.11-12) We can see in both the Old and the New Testaments the precedence for thinking that God could work miracles through each of the kinds of relics: a first degree relic in the case of Elisha’s body, a second degree relic in the case of Jesus’ clothes, and a third degree relic in the case of the the items Paul had touched. Technically, the Church holds any object related to Christ to be a first degree relic since Jesus is, after all, God incarnate, but the point here is that there is a clear precedence in Scripture for thinking that God could work a miracle through the belonging of a holy person.

But did the first Christians really take those Scriptures to mean they should start preserving people’s bones?

Yes. St Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John and the bishop of Smyrna, was martyred in Rome around the year A.D. 155 and an account was composed soon after known as the Martyrdom of Polycarp, in which we find this passage:

[After Bishop Polycarp was martyred in a Roman stadium] But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one [Satan], perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us [Christians], although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he [Satan] suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said…being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!

Notice that it is the pagan Roman official, at the suggestion of the Devil, who doesn't want the Christians to take relics because the Christians might end up worshiping Polycarp instead of Jesus. And it is the Christians who, while fully conscious of the fact they worship God alone, still want to honor His servants by honoring their relics.

Also notice that the practice is not regarded as novel or controversial among the Christians. In fact, Satan is portrayed as being aware of the fact that Christians preserve and venerate the remains of martyrs, which is why he tries to stop this from happening with the remains of St Polycarp. All of this implies the practice predates St Polycarp’s martyrdom. Since St Polycarp was martyred around A.D. 155, and the last Apostle, John, died somewhere around A.D. 90 to 100, it’s quite possible that the practice of preserving and venerating the remains of the martyrs dates back to the time of the Apostles, and may have had their explicit approval (otherwise, if they had known about the veneration of relics, and if it had been wrong, they would have told people not to do it).

There are many other examples from the early Church of Christians preserving and venerating the relics of Christians who had died, but St Jerome in the 4th century sums of the sentiments of the early Church the best:

We, it is true, refuse to worship or adore, I say not [just] the relics of the martyrs, but even the sun and moon, the angels and archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim and every name that is named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come. For we may not serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Still, we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are. We honour the servants that their honour may be reflected upon their Lord who Himself says:— “he that receives you receives me." […] If the relics of the martyrs are not worthy of honour, how comes it that we read “precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints?” (Letter 109, 1, 2) The early Christians saw the veneration of relics not only as not in competition with their unique worship of God but as an important part of it.

The Catholic beliefs and practices surrounding relics are based firmly on Scripture and the practices of the early Church. Catholics venerate relics today just as Christians have be doing since the earliest times of the faith. Ironically, this means the Protestant rejection of relics is the late corruption of the faith, while the Catholic practice is in fact representative of original Christianity.

No doubt, as with anything good, the veneration of relics can be abused, but the wholesale rejection of it by Protestants is an overreaction, “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” Catholics, on the other hand, should confidently carry on with their good and holy veneration of relics – and perhaps reintroduce their Protestant brothers and sisters to the ancient Christian practice.

So someone in a rush chucked a body on top of Elisha, he came to life, and this is "veneration" of relics? LOL, OK. Keep reaching!

You know, it's one thing to show loved ones or those we admire the respect their bodies deserve when they die. Divvying up some poor guy's bones so this place gets a pinky and this other place gets a pinky toe is kinda gruesome. But, it sure was a GREAT moneymaker in those days. Plenty of people got duped over so-called "relics" and there was no shortage of the gullible who bought them and displayed them. The Vatican was a prime example and they would hold pilgrimages - with the accompanying, of course, of donations to be able to get close or even touch said items. It is sad, really, how some people aren't satisfied with faith and they NEED something tangible to help them believe. Jesus said:

Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

We walk by faith and not by sight.

Huh. Like the jar of manna, and Aaron's rod that budded?

Or the handkerchief given by Elijah to Elisha to resurrect the widow's child?

Or even the bones of Elijah, which resurrected a man killed by thieves?

Or the garment's Peter's shadow had fallen upon, which had to power to heal people?

(Strokes chin)

It isn't veneration, but there is an indication that God's power -- for *HIS* purposes, such as healing (as opposed to the whole Raiders of the Lost Ark thingie) -- sometimes remains associated with objects in close proximity to saints and/or prophets.

There are analogous instances in Evangelical circles as well; the British Pentecostal preacher Smith Wigglesworth (comical name, but really his name), once boarded a train without speaking to other passengers, only to have a number of them come up to him of their own volition and ask him, "Sir, who *are* you? You convict us of sin."

For a more generalizable analogy, consider the brisk business in autographed sports jerseys. We "venerate" athletic stars, even those with (ahem, wince) "venereal" diseases (e.g. sports writers covering for Babe Ruth's absence from the lineup one day by saying he had a tummy ache from eating too many hot dogs).

And yet nobody considers wrong, the far greater adulation given to sports figures than to those who (according to Christian doctrine) have chosen to forsake the world for eternal glory.

But, the act of faith in God to believe that the divine healing or act would occur is the key- obedience to God’s command not worshipping an object.

The serpent- “looking upon it ( in faith)” believing that God would forgive and heal, not loving an object. Pretty certain that those who refused to look upon the bronze serpent in faith , even though they were in proximity, didn’t survive their snake bites. Faith, not the object.

Namaan the leprous Syrian general, was upset that the prophet would not perform some miraculous deed, but rather was told to dip himself in the Jordan seven times. Did the water hold any power or was it obedience to the command of the LORD? If you think it was the water- you missed the Living God a ways back!

All of your examples are based on acts of faith- I would tend to think that if Namaan and all the others in these ( and your) examples did not believe that God could and would heal them, they would have gone on in sickness and handicap.

Did not the scriptures say that Jesus could not perform miracles in his own town because of their unbelief? Wow, if the Son of the Living God was prevented from direct action because of unbelief, then how would a mere object of created material have any power (sic)?

Tsk, tsk.

Aaron's rod that budded was not said to perform any miracles. The dead man who revived upon contact with Elijah's bones, by definition, did not have faith.

My point was, God chooses sometimes, even within Scripture, to work through methods other than those approved by 20th century middle class evangelical churchians.

The relics (I'm talking about the true ones, not those made by frauds) and prayers for the aid/intercession of saints, fall in the same category; if He chooses to employ certain channels (in the marketing term) to extend His grace, and mercy, that's His business. We ought to be grateful for whenever and however He makes Himself available to us.

“Huh. Like the jar of manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded?
Or the handkerchief given by Elijah to Elisha to resurrect the widow’s child?

Or even the bones of Elijah, which resurrected a man killed by thieves?”

Never worshipped, idolized, kissed, prayed to, fondled, etc.

Those are good points. They tie in with the handkerchiefs and aprons which were taken from Paul’s body to the sick. Unfortunately there is no equivalent today of those handkerchiefs and aprons. Once in a great while someone says that contact with a certain item healed them. But the for the next hundred—or however many—people who touch that same item, nothing happens.

Jesus spoke to this issue. Here is the same pronouncement, recorded in two different Gospels:

Matthew 8:22

But Jesus *said to him, “Follow Me, and allow the dead to bury their own dead.”

Luke 9:60

But He said to him, “Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God.”

Let the dead be buried, without hanging onto their brain or some other item, and as for those who are alive in Christ, proclaim the Good News everywhere.

I'd agree with you, but for two things:

1) Your gospel quotes are out of context, as the young man had just declined Jesus' invitation to follow him: "Let me first go and bury my father." The "let the dead bury their own dead" was not a general proscription as "do not commit adultery" but to *him*; the principle involved is, follow God *first*.

(Incidentally, you know, if you wanted to engage in sophistry, your line could argue FOR the veneration of relics: "Let the dead _bury_ *their* own dead, but as for you, follow me" (hence, rather than bury the dead, venerate them.) <-- just yanking your chain, I don't really think this is what it meant. :-P

2) Luke 13:4-5

⁴Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam collapsed on them: Do you think that they were more sinful than all the others living in Jerusalem? ⁵No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Jesus is cautioning not to draw too immediate a conclusion from individual instances. (cf His instructions to Peter, "if it is My will if that man remain alive until I come [again], what is that to you? Follow Me.")

Against the sin of idolatry (less likely) there is the added feature of humility. It rubs our nose in our helplessness, and interdependence, and all under Christ...

Peace be with you.

2) Luke 13:4-5

4Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam collapsed on them: Do you think that they were more sinful than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Jesus is cautioning not to draw too immediate a conclusion from individual instances.

In this passage, as the context makes clear, Jesus is very specifically warning against observing a disaster and playing the Holier Than Thou game. I.e.: if Pilot killed some Galileans, or a tower collapsed and killed 18 men, the lesson is NOT that these were particularly vile sinners who deserved it. The lesson is that we’re all in the same boat, sin-wise, and no one is in a position to judge the victims of calamity.

While the passage I cited does have a specific context, it is also revealing of Jesus’ attitude toward the dead. I.e.: let the dead be buried, while the living prioritize following Jesus and living for Him.

I have a question for you. Here’s the setup. There’s been some discussion of an incident recorded in 2 Kings. The body of a man about to be interred was thrown into the grave of Elisha. Upon touching the prophet’s bones, the man revived.

An amazing story! Yet in context there is no further comment on it. The Scripture records that the man (who was about to be buried) “stood on his feet.” Yet the very next verse speaks not of this astonishing event, but of the oppression to which Israel had been subjected by Hazael, king of Aram.

Reading this event in context, here’s what is remarkable. God reveals to us circumstances that appear almost to demand some recognition of the effect these bones had on the dead man. Yet the Holy Spirit, directing the Scriptural writer, ***deliberately*** omits any reference to subsequent veneration of these bones. Rather, the amazing ‘revival,’ happened, and the bones were forgotten (so far as the Holy, inspired Word of God is concerned).

My question is this: how is this not an ***anti*** veneration passage? A man about to be interred revived after touching the prophet’s bones...and nothing. Zero mention of collecting and honoring the bones. Zero mention of veneration. It appears the incident was only included to demonstrate that even following a miracle, no special consideration is to be given to bones.

How can you argue otherwise?

Aaron’s rod budding WAS the miracle, no?

The guy who was revived by Elijah’s bones- well, I’ll have to look at it a bit more. Good point though.

FYI- I am not of the label you seem to paint me with. Middle Class Evangelical churchians? Hmmm.

Veneration=Worship

Same difference. Check the dictionary.

As far as your biblical examples, one could also point to the serpent on the stick that was destroyed because the people were worshiping (venerating) it, the ephod of Gideon which became a snare to him and his family, Peter refusal to have Cornelius adore him (Acts 14:15), Paul and Barnabas adamant that the people of Lystra not venerate them (Acts 14:15), or the angel’s admonishment to John not to worship him (19:10; 20:7).

But one can always justify one’s action just as the Jews undoubtedly justify having Asherah poles inside the temple. (2 Kings 23)

If the relic of the Ark of the covenant is found these same Protestants will be venerating/ honoring it as a Catholic would do it. And it has statues of Angels with wings no less. Watch if it happens in our lifetime. It will be very interesting. It has everything to do with the end times in their scenario theories.

I’m an evangelical, not a protestant. That said, I venerate/worship nothing but the Triune God. This would include the Ark of the Covenant if it were found. There is nothing about any historical object that inclines me in the slightest to venerate/worship it. God is a jealous God; His glory is His alone.

Btw, did you see my post 32? It appears the story of Elisha’s bones was included in Scripture precisely to illustrate that bones are not to be venerated—even if they are the catalyst of a miracle.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veneration

Definition of veneration
1
: respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person
2
: the act of venerating
3
: the condition of one that is venerated

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship

Definition of worship
1
chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (such as magistrates and some mayors)
2
: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3
: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4
: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem worship of the dollar

“Veneration=Worship

Same difference. Check the dictionary.”

Well, no, not really. Good try, but not honest. No cigar.

Belief is part of this equation, too. Many on this thread are forgetting that.

How many poor, benighted southern European peasants have been hoodwinked by fake relics over the centuries, I wonder? Did they attribute miracles to priestly PT Barnum showmanship?

For shame, duping the faithful.

They will still claim that when a Catholic does it it is idolatry, when a prod does it - if they believe, well then it is OK.

Catholic = evil is about the ONLY dogmatic truth that unites the “non denominational” haters. They never reveal a creed or denomination, as then they have to accept those definitions - so they are all a “church of one” and their ONE dogma is: Catholic = evil.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.