Orthodox Apologetics

Lvka

Lvka

Lvka

Lvka

Lvka

Lvka

Lvka

Lvka

Lvka

Lvka

Lvka

Lvka

John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Not much later, at about the time the Dura Synagogue came into being, the Palestinian Talmud records the grudging recognition of Jewish art ( 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 Abun, men began to make designs of mosaics and he did not hinder them.” ( Abodah Zarah 42b ). To the above passages, we add still another, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Leviticus 26:1. This Aramaic translation first paraphrases the prohibition against making idols and graven images and such figures in stone as men bow down to. Then the text makes an exception: “But a stone column carved with images and likeness you may make upon the premises of your sanctuaries, but not to worship them.” At last we hear the correct application of the second commandment.

The eastern provinces of the Roman empire were heirs of the civilizations of Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia. The link between early Christian portrait icons and Egyptian funerary portraits is evident. But it is the Syrian physical type which eventually became established in Christian iconography for the portrait of Christ, a bearded figure with full dark hair falling over his forehead, large almond eyes, straight nose and small lips. The reign of the Roman Emperor Justinian (527-65) marks a turning point in art. His support of the arts was part of his mission to civilize, Christianize and unify God's terrestrial Kingdom, of which he was the viceroy. In his capital emerged a synthesis of classical, late antique and hieratic eastern stylistic elements. Justinian's Divine Wisdom (523-7) expresses the world view of imperial Christianity. In the sixth century all the essential elements of a truly Christian stylistic system had already been forged and synthesized. Iconography entered a new phase when canon 82 of the Quinisext Council (692) prohibited symbolic images of Christ, prescribing portrayal of Christ in his human form so that "we comprehend thereby the humility of God the Word, and are guided to the recollection of his way of life in the flesh". Although Byzantine ICONOCLASM in the eighth and ninth centuries challenged the validity of the portrayal of Christ and of the cult of icons, the 'Triumph of Orthodoxy' in 843 promoted a creative synthesis of theology and religious art that was of great significance for the subsequent history of European art.

Previous installment: Part VI (Dangers of Idolatry)

In the course of this essay, we have examined the presence and veneration of the Holy Icons in the light of history, Scripture, and the content of the Christian Faith. It has been shown that,

• to the contrary of what has often been previously supposed, rather than being a later addition to a weaker, less devout Christianity, the iconographic tradition is instead an inheritance assumed by the very earliest Christians from their ancient Jewish forebears.

• in spite of how such passages are often treated, the writings of the early Christians against the idols of the pagans must be interpreted not in a vacuum but in the light of the presence of Christian iconography within the temples within which these individuals worshiped.

• any attempt to eliminate the Holy Icons has necessarily resulted in a de-emphasis of the Incarnation and a resulting step into docetic or semi-docetic Christology.

• veneration of the Holy Icons is not only the historical practice of the Christian Church but, in addition, the only natural response to the presence of the icons.

• although the danger of idolatry exists in an iconographic tradition, iconoclasts are equally if not more capable of falling into idolatry, and the Church in its regulations of the Holy Icons has been careful to avoid the errors which could lead to idolatry.

Early Christians probably began painting Images of Christ, of His Mother, and of holy people in their homes and churches largely as a spontaneous expression of their piety and love for their Lord. Honoring God and commemorating the Saints and events of Christ's life through artistic depictions probably seemed quite natural to them; it was common practice, as we have seen, in the Judaism from which Christianity emerged and to which it still held very close ties. These early Christians probably put little if any thought into the deeper implications and meanings of Christian iconography. And not much changed in these respects until over 700 years into the Christian era with the outbreak of the first-ever movement of iconoclasm within Christianity.

As a result of this movement to destroy and ban the Holy Icons, Christians were forced to take a deeper look at what they had been doing all along and to explore its implications and logical conclusions. What they found is that this practice of iconography which had been natural but largely lacking in deeper meaning thus far was in fact an essential aspect of the Christian Faith without which the primary truths of Christianity would be turned on their head. In short, what had been simply “traditional,” something that had always been done, had become a “Holy Tradition,” itself a central principle of Orthodox Christianity.

Previous installment: Part V (Necessity of Veneration)

Before we close this essay, it seems worthwhile to take note of the dangers of excess which can lead us to idolatry, as icons can certainly be made into idols. In part, it may have been some of the abuses and perversions related to iconography in the Middle Ages that inspired Emperor Leo III the Isaurian to launch the Byzantine iconoclast controversy in the first place. For example, there are accounts which indicate that icons may have served as godparents at baptisms on multiple occassions.⁵³

Such abuses and perversions are, as stated, idolatrous; their possibility does not, however, preclude the display and veneration of the Holy Icons altogether, as some iconoclasts would aver. On the contrary, iconoclasts are just as capable of falling into idolatry as are iconodules (that is, those who venerate the Holy Icons). In fact, it may be somewhat easier for an iconoclast to fall into idolatry as he is much more susceptible to the danger of making a false image of God, most likely created in his own image, whereas for the iconodule an image is already present. All the iconodule must do is make certain that he doesn't turn this image into an idol.

Of all the senses, sight is perhaps the most used by and more important to human beings. Images are natural to us. Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, wrote:

I am convinced that it is God's will that we should hear and learn what He has done, especially what Christ suffered. But when I hear these things and meditate upon them, I find it impossible not to picture them in my heart. Whether I want to or not, when I hear of Christ, a human form hanging upon a cross rises up in my heart: just as I see my natural face reflected when I look into water.⁸

This not only makes the iconoclast's position an inconsistent one, as he places a ban on external images but knows himself incapable of stopping the natural rising up of images in his mind, but also makes it more difficult for him to avoid idolatry. In the Orthodox Christian iconographic tradition, creativity and imagination are strongly discouraged; an iconographer's goal is essentially to copy previous images and, in the few cases in which news ones are needed, to stick as closely to traditional guidelines of color, symbolism, style, etc. as possible. Insofar as he departs from these standards, his quality as an iconographer decreases. In short, iconography is the art of imitation, not innovation.⁵⁴ Iconoclasts, on the other hand, having no traditional image to which to look, are forced to create their own image fresh each time, allowing for the creation of a great variety of false images and the danger of worshiping a false god; this is idolatry.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, held in the city of Nicaea in 787, in finally giving the Church's official endorsement to iconography in opposition to the Byzantine iconoclasts, was careful with its language and its stipulations on two particularly important points. Here is the relevant portion of the Decree of the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council:⁵⁵

We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence, not indeed that true worship of faith which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received.

Note the two portions I have placed in boldface.

First, notice the list of figures which the Council gives permission to depict, namely, Christ, the Theotokos, Angels, Saints, and “pious people.” The Council does not give permission to attempt to depict the divine essence of God (that is, the inner workings of the Trinity) nor the Father and the Holy Spirit. The only Person of the Trinity who can be depicted directly is the Son, the Word of God who became flesh, because He is the only one who has revealed an Image of Himself.

The second portion I have bolded is unequivocal; it is even more unequivocal in the original Greek. The veneration shown to the Holy Icons is not the same as the worship given to the divine nature. You may recall St. John of Damascus' words cited earlier in this essay (section IV):

I do not venerate the matter, but I venerate the Creator of matter, who became matter for me, who condescended to live in matter, and who, through matter accomplished my salvation; and I do not cease to respect the matter through which my salvation is accomplished.⁴⁵

The Icon itself is not to be confused with the person or Person who is depicted on the Icon. To return to our earlier illustration (section V), this would be the equivalent of preferring a photograph of your wife to actually being with your wife! Or, worse, confusing a photograph of your wife for actually being your wife!

Next installment: Part VII (Conclusion)

Notes

⁸ "I have myself heard those who oppose pictures, read from my German Bible. . . . But this contains many pictures of God, of the angels, of men, and of animals, especially in the Revelation of St. John, in the books of Moses, and in the book of Joshua. We therefore kindly beg these fanaties to permit us also to paint these pictures on the wall that they may be remembered and better understood, inasmuch as they can harm as little on the walls as in books. Would to God that I could persuade those who can afford it to paint the whole Bible on their houses, inside and outside, so that all might see ; this would indeed be a Christian work. For I am convinced that it is God's will that we should hear and learn what He has done, especially what Christ suffered. But when I hear these things and meditate upon them, I find it impossible not to picture them in my heart. Whether I want to or not, when I hear of Christ, a human form hanging upon a cross rises up in my heart: just as I see my natural face reflected when I look into water. Now if it is not sinful for me to have Christ's picture in my heart, why should it be sinful to have it before my eyes?" Martin Luther, quoted in Ohl pp. 88-89.

⁴⁵ St. John of Damascus, Apology Against Those Who Decry the Holy Images, Part I.

⁵³ Avenarius, Alexander. The Byzantine Struggle over the Icon: on the Problem of Eastern European Symbolism. Bratislava: Academic Electronic, 2005. pg. 32.

⁵⁴ "'Imitate; Don't Innovate': Safeguarding the Integrity of the Orthodox Faith."Orthodox Christian Information Center Home Page. Web. 30 June 2010. .

⁵⁵ “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. 549

Previous installment: Part IV (Necessity of Iconography)

Thus far we have established that the the presence and veneration of the Holy Icons in the Christian churches are early Christian traditions inherited from ancient Judaism and also that to attempt to do away with the Christian iconographic tradition poses significant issues with radical implications in Christology. We will now build on the base we have already set in place with these points and move onto the necessity of the veneration of the Holy Icons.

There are some Protestant pseudo-iconoclasts who, backing off from fullblown iconoclasm because its erroneous implications, concede to the production and presence of iconography but to for its veneration. Such a semi-iconoclasm, though, is also filled with pitfalls. As we noted above (section III) veneration is not only the standardized ritual common in the Orthodox Church today, but any feeling of awe or reverence, a feeling which the Holy Icons must naturally bring about in any pious Christian with a love for Christ, His Holy Mother, and the Saints and Angels.

This is not very difficult to illustrate. Imagine that you are away from your wife or husband, your mother or father, or your son or daughter for a long period of time. Naturally, you hang up a picture on your wall or carry a photo of this loved one in your pocket. Each time that you look at this picture, you experience love and joy. You contemplate this picture and think about the times you've had with this person, how much they mean to you, how anxious you are to return to their embrace. You might even pick that picture up and kiss it! Now, one might naturally wonder why it would be acceptable, natural, and normal for you to do all of this for a spouse, parent, or child, but not to do the same for our Lord and Savior who said, “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”⁵¹

To continue with the illustration, if one were to look upon a photograph of his wife whom he has been away from for some time and not feel any love or desire for her, it would be safe to wonder if he really loves his wife and wants to be with her. Similarly, if a Christian looks upon an Icon of his Savior Crucified for his salvation or of his Master depicted as the Good Shepherd and feels no awe, no reverence, even no desire to prostrate himself in worship of his Lord, would it not be safe to wonder if he really loves God and wants to be united to Him, even if he is a Christian at all?

In short, if the icons are present, and, as we have seen, they must be present if we are to have a correct Christology, it is the natural response of honest love for God that the icons must be venerated. To allow for the presence of iconography but disallow its veneration is to separate not only art from utility, a strange enough concept in the context of ancient thought whether Greco-Roman or Judeo-Christian, but, more importantly and more spiritually dangerously, to divorce mind from heart, theology from practice, piety from devotion.

St. Theodore of Studium (759-826), a monk and one of the primary Orthodox opponents of the Byzantine iconoclasts, offered a concise summary of this point: “If merely mental contemplation had been sufficient, it would have been enough for him to come to us in a merely mental way.”⁵²

Previous installment: Part III (Veneration of Icons in Early Christianity)

The Holy Icons were displayed and venerated in Christian churches throughout the world for almost 700 years before anybody raised a voice of opposition against them, a significant point of fact in itself.³⁵ Some time between the years 726 and 730, however, the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor Leo III the Isaurian ordered the removal of an Icon of Christ which had hung prominently over one of the main gates to the city of Constantinople, the imperial capitol. In a subsequent decree issued shortly after, he forbade the veneration of the Holy Icons altogether, although still allowing for the veneration of symbols such as the Cross.³⁶

Christians throughout the Roman Empire and well beyond its borders reacted with shock and outrage at the Emperor's unprecedented move. St. Germanos I resigned his position as Patriarch of Constantinople. St. Gregory III, Pope of Rome at the time, held two synods in Rome condemning Leo and his actions. In some parts of the Empire, there were riots and even popular uprisings, often led by the monks, which group unanimously opposed Leo's attempted “reforms” of the Christian Faith. The ensuing chaos and Christian infighting continued for over an hundred years. However, as interesting as the history of the Byzantine iconoclast controversy is, it is not within our purview here to examine the events in detail; that topic has been excellently treated in very many other places.³⁷ What matters to us are the arguments that each side used to support their position; many of these arguments are the same that today's iconoclasts continue to use.

It is not precisely known what motivated Emperor Leo to begin issuing his edicts against the Holy Icons. Some historians have posited that the Emperor may have been influenced by Islam, a strictly iconoclastic religion which was quickly rising in power and which the Emperor had encountered firsthand during his battles with the Islamic Ummayad Caliphate.³⁸ Another likely motivating factor was the Emperor's apparent search for reasons why God's wrath had fallen upon the Empire in the form of Muslim victories and recent natural disasters; images seemed to him an obvious answer.³⁹ The most obvious reason and the most widely cited by the iconoclasts themselves, though, was a strict and literal interpretation of the Second Commandment, which states (see Exodus 20:4-6 and Deuteronomy 5:8-10):

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.⁴⁰

The strict and literal interpretation of these verses of Scripture lays at the heart of and has been the key point in all movements of Christian iconoclasm, including the the original iconoclasm of the Byzantines, that of the Protestant Reformers, and that of modern iconoclasts.

The immediate problem with such a strict and literal interpretation, however, is that Scripture itself does not interpret this as a prohibition of images in a strict and literal sense. Where the Second Commandment occurs in the book of Exodus, for instance, God says only a few chapters later (Exodus 26:1):

Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains woven of fine linen thread, and blue and purple and scarlet yarn; with artistic designs of cherubim you shall weave them.

And in another verse previous to that, God even associates his own presence with images (Exodus 25:22):

And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are on the ark of the Testimony, of all things which I will give you in commandment to the children of Israel.

Clearly, Scripture can and does distinguish between an idol and an icon, just as the early Christians and Jews we encountered earlier did. Few, if any, Christians interpret the Sixth Commandment, which forbids murder, so strictly.⁴¹ Nearly all Christians accept that Scripture distinguishes here between murder and killing, forbidding the former while allowing for the latter in some limited circumstances; this is especially true in the light of later verses in which God directly orders the killing of certain groups and individuals.⁴² Why, then, if Protestants can allow for a distinction here between murder and killing in the light of later verses, do they refuse to allow for a distinction between idols and icons in the Second Commandment in the light of later verses allowing for and even ordering the production of religious images? This inconsistancy smacks of hypocrisy and is indicative of certain readers interpreting their own presuppositions into the text rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

And the text of Scripture certainly does interpret itself on this matter. Speaking to the people and repeating much of the Second Commdment to them, the Prophet Moses explains why it is that they are forbidden to make an image of God (Deuteronomy 4:11, 15-18):

And the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice. ... Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth.

According to the Prophet Moses, then, the reason that the Hebrews were ordered not to make an image is because they saw no image. They were unable to make an image of God because God was as yet unseen and even unseeable, and therefore undepicted and undepictable. However, approximately 2000 years ago, a remarkable event occurred which changed all of this: the Incarnation; in the words of the Holy Apostle John (Gospel of John 1:14):

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

God became man in the Person of Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary. And, in becoming man, he took on all the properties of mankind, becoming like us in all things.⁴³ Amongst the properties common to humankind is to have form and to be depictable; Christ, therefore, took upon himself the ability to be depicted in an image. We are no longer in the situation of the Hebrews in the Book of Deuteronomy who had only “heard the sound of the words, but saw no form;” we have now “beheld His glory.”

The truth of the Incarnation is fatal to any attempt at Christian iconoclasm and, necessarily, iconoclasts have traditionally, and dangerously, downplayed or altogether ignored it and its implications. The father of Protestant iconoclasm, John Calvin, for instance, wrote against images as if he were totally unfamiliar with the Incarnation of the Lord:

Therefore it remains that only those things are to be sculptured or painted which the eyes are capable of seeing: let not God's majesty, which is far above the perception of the eyes, be debased through unseemly representations.⁴⁴

St. John of Damascus (ca. 646-749), one of the most important defenders of the Holy Icons during the Byzantine controversy, noted this betrayal of the prime truth of Christianity amongst the iconoclasts of his day and rightly declared:

In times past, God, without body and form, could in no way be represented. But now, since God has appeared in flesh and lived among men, I can depict that which is visible of God. I do not venerate the matter, but I venerate the Creator of matter, who became matter for me, who condescended to live in matter, and who, through matter accomplished my salvation; and I do not cease to respect the matter through which my salvation is accomplished.⁴⁵

One of the truly remarkable features of all iconoclastic movements, no matter which location or century, is their inevitable lack of emphasis on the Incarnation and resulting pseudo-Eutychian Christology, often approaching very close to outright docetism.⁴⁶ A suitable example of this can be read in a short treatise forged by the 8^th century Byzantine iconoclasts in the name of the 4^th century Bishop and Church Father St. Epiphanius of Salamis:

I have heard it said that some people have ordered that the incomprehensible Son of God be represented: to hear and believe such a blasphemy makes one shiver.

How can anyone say that God, incomprehensible, inexpressible, ungraspable by the mind, and uncircumscribable, can be represented, him whom Moses could not look at?

Some people say that since the Word of God became perfect man born from the ever-virgin Mary, we can represent him as man.

Did the Word become flesh so that you could represent by your hand the Incomprehensible One by whom all things were made?⁴⁷

The author here is apparently even aware of the Orthodox counter-argument formulated by St. John of Damascus and yet, rather than attempt to provide a decent answer to it, he simply ignores it and repeats the same thing he had said previously but with different phrasing, completely sidestepping the logical flaw in his own argument. If the Word of God “became perfect man born from the ever-virgin Mary” he took on all of the aspects of what it means to be a man, as we discussed above. Men are comprehensible, expressible, graspable by the mind, and circumscribable, therefore the Word of God, in order to be perfect man, had taken on comprehensibility, expressibility, graspability, and circumscribability. If he did not, then he did not become perfect man, which conclusion places us firmly in the camp of the docetists.

An argument to the same end which the Orthodox theologians and Church Fathers who fought against the Byzantine iconoclasts did not have at hand is the question of whether a photograph of Christ would have been permissible had the technology existed during his earthly sojourn. If not, the iconoclast must answer the question of “why?” Would it have been physically possible? If not, then Christ must not have been fully human, therefore not perfect man. Would it have been permissible by the laws of God? If not, then different rules must apply to Christ's humanity than apply to ours, making his humanity unlike our own instead of “like [us] in every way,”⁴³ and so not real humanity at all.

Each time without exception that iconoclasm has cropped up within Christendom, its followers have found themselves dangerously close to denying or at least minimizing the most central truth claim of Christianity, the Incarnation, and, resultantly, placing themselves within or startlingly close to the realm of docetism. The Holy Icons are a necessary safeguard of the most central doctrines of Christianity and to deny them causes a subtle but monumental alteration in Christology and theology as a natural implication. In the words of one historian, Richard Chenevix Trench, himself in fact a Protestant clergyman (Anglican, to be specific), commenting on the end of the Byzantine iconoclast controversy:

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.⁴⁸

The Kontakion⁴⁹ for the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy (celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent), the commemoration of the restoration of the Holy Icons to the churches following the conclusion of the Byzantine iconoclast controversy, succinctly summarizes the Orthodox argument against the docetism of the iconoclasts:

No one could describe the Word of the Father;
but when He took flesh from you, O Theotokos, He accepted to be described,
and restored the fallen image to its former beauty.
We confess and proclaim our salvation in word and images.⁵⁰

Previous installment: Part II (Presence of Icons in Early Christianity)

Now that we've established that icons were present in the early Church, the next question that must be answered in our examination of the historical validity of iconography is how these ancient icons were viewed and used by Christians during that time. Were they merely decorative? Were they an active part of the worship service or merely a background setting for it? Most importantly, were they venerated?

The only honest and straightforward answer that can be given to these questions is the admission that we don't know anything for sure. There are some things that archaeologists just don't have access to – and the minds and hearts of early third century Christians and Jews are amongst those things. Of course, we can't travel back in time to witness their worship services and pious practices or to interview them on these things for ourselves. But we do have a few clues withinin the archaeological evidence if we pay close attention.

Returning to the syngagogue at Dura Europos as our outstanding example, we find, as in nearly every synagogue, a niche in which the Torah scroll was placed located on the wall towards the direction of Jerusalem, in this case the western wall. This is the holiest place in a Jewish temple, the location of the scroll containing the Torah, the Law of Moses, the direction, again, towards Jerusalem, which Jews face for prayer, the center of the community's liturgical life.³² And on this same wall, surrounding the Torah niche, are dozens of icons. This means that the Jewish congregants at this synagogue would have been facing toward these images throughout their worship, chanting, singing, praying, and bowing.

Also of note is the orientation of the figures depicted in the iconography at the synagogue; they are facing outward, toward the viewer, looking at the individual looking at them. This is true not only of those icons intentionally painted in portrait style, but even of those which illustrate a biblical story or otherwise show a scene or movement; the individual depicted is almost always facing toward the worshipers.

Visualize yourself, for a moment, in this synagogue in the third century in the midst of a worship service. You are facing toward a wall filled with images. You pray and raise your eyes, looking at the Saints of God, and they are looking back at you. The effect that these icons must have been intended to have and surely did have is obvious.

Similarly, the surviving icons in the church at Dura Europos are not located in a backroom or even in the back of the room; they are in the baptistry, the place within the church building where baptism, one of the most sacred rites of Christianity, takes place. The icon of Christ as the Good Shepherd is located in an apse above the baptismal font at about eye level with a standing man. Is it really a stretch of the imagination to wonder if the priest or bishop presiding at the baptism, given that he would have been standing eye to eye with this image of Christ, might have been looking with love upon this image of his Savior as he recited the prayers which would bring another sheep into the Good Shepherd's pasture? Is it really such a stretch of the imagination to think that this newly-illuminated Christian, arising from the baptismal waters cleansed of his sins and a new creation in Christ, might have looked to this icon of his Master and uttered even the briefest prayer, exclamation, or thought of thanks? I don't think that either is a very far stretch, but instead the greatest likelihood.

In trying to determine whether early Christians, or Jews for that matter, venerated icons, the question of what exactly constitutes veneration must first be answered. Webster's Dictionary defines the word venerate as to “regard with reverence.”³³ Veneration is not merely the outward act we currently see in Orthodox churches; veneration is much, much more. One need not touch or even come especially close to an icon to venerate it. The very presence of these icons at all in fact attests to their veneration. Why else did the early Christians and ancient Jews decorate their temples so lavishly with icons? In the ancient world, art was not only intended for beauty but almost always for utility as well.³⁴ These icons, then, were created as and for more than mere decoration.

The artists who made these images and/or the individuals who originally commissioned their production were moved by their piety and reverence to create these depictions of holy men and women in the service of God. It is hard to imagine that these same individuals who were so moved to create them, as well as the many others who would view them in the temple, would not also be moved by their piety and devotion to God with feelings of reverence and awe as they gazed upon the beauty of the finished product. What truly reverent Jew could look into the eyes of the image of the Prophet Moses in the synagogue during Sabbath worship and not feel moved with awe at this great holy man of God? What truly religious Christian could look upon the image of Christ healing the paralytic in the church and not feel moved with love and gratefulness to his Lord and Savior for healing his own spiritual sickness?

So, did early Christians perform the standardized ritual of bowing twice, kissing the icon, and bowing once more as Orthodox Christians commonly do today? Perhaps, but probably not. Did they bow while standing in front of these icons? Unless the Christians and Jews of Dura Europos were the only Christians and Jews who didn't bow during worship, the answer is a clear affirmative. Did they pray in front of these icons? Clearly they did; as we have seen, the icons are located on walls which would have been faced during prayer. Did they kiss these icons? There's no way to tell; as these ancient cultures were certainly “kissing cultures” I don't think it's a great leap of logic to think they might have, but, as far as I know, archaeologists haven't looked for lipstick smudges yet! But did they venerate these icons? Did they “regard [them] with reverence”? Absolutely, without a doubt.

Next installment: Part IV (Necessity of Iconography)

If the authority of the ancient church moves us in any way, we will recall that for about five hundred years, during which religion was still flourishing, and a pure doctrine thriving, Christian Churches were commonly empty of images. Thus, it was when the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated that they were first introduced for the adornment of churches.¹²

Until fairly recently, Calvin's words here were the common assumption of both Protestants and historians of early Christianity. It was widely believed and taught that the churches of the first several hundred years were largely imageless and that Christians themselves were generally hostile to figurative art, rejecting it as an idolatrous pagan practice. This assumption was largely based on a dearth of archaeological evidence and on a false assumption of Jewish iconophobia coupled with erroneous prooftexting of various early Christian writers' criticisms of the idols of the pagans.

All three bases of the theory of early Christian hostility toward images have been dismantled by the introduction of new evidence throughout the 20^th century, and more evidence continues to be uncovered today through archaeological exploration.¹⁴ The hole that once existed in physical evidence of the worship of ancient Christians and Jews has now been filled with numerous discoveries throughout the Middle East, Southern and Eastern Europe, and North Africa.

Perhaps the most famous of these discoveries is the ancient city of Dura Europos.¹⁵ Dura Europos was a diverse city, home to Christians, pagans, and Jews alike, located near the western border of what is now the nation of Syria. While under Roman rule, the city was left abandoned by its inhabitants due to a Sassanian seige in AD 256-257,¹⁶ preserving for modern archaeologists, who would begin excavating the city shortly after its rediscovery in 1920, a particularly interesting look into the lives of Romans in Syria in the third century.

And of particular interest to us for the purposes of this essay is the church of the city, the oldest Christian church yet discovered, dating to about AD 233.¹⁷ Though they are in some rough condition, several examples of early Christian iconography are preserved within the church.¹⁸ On the wall near the baptismal font, there is an icon of Christ as the Good Shepherd,¹⁹ with Adam and Eve below the figure. On the south wall of the baptistry are icons of St. Photini, better known as “the woman at the well”²⁰ and, to the left of that, an image of the Prophet-King David's fight with Goliath.²¹ On the north wall of the baptistry are an illustration of the healing of the paralytic²² and a depiction of Christ and St. Peter walking on water.²³ A large icon below these depicts three women, probably the Virgin Mary, St. Mary Magdalene, and St. Salome, walking towards what appears to be a tomb, probably a depiction of the cave in which Christ's body was placed after the Crucifixion.²⁴

And the Christians of the city weren't the only ones whose house of worship had lots of images. The Jewish synagogue discovered at Dura Europos, the construction of which was probably finished in about AD 245,²⁵ is filled nearly top to bottom with ornate iconographic depictions of Old Testament events and figures.²⁶ Throughout the dozens of icons present in the synagogue are images of Prophets, such as Moses, David, Ezekiel, Elijah, and Abraham, symbols such as the Menorah and the Torah Scroll, and depictions of events such as the near-sacrifice of Isaac²⁷ and Moses' reception of the Ten Commandments.²⁸ The synagogue at Dura Europos, though a very striking example because of its excellent preservation, is by no means unique in the ancient world; there are many more synagogues with much more iconographic art which archaeologists have discovered and are still in the process of discovering.²⁹

The abundance of images in these synagogues is especially important to our current purposes as it significantly undermines one of the key pillars of the theory that early Christians were hostile to images, namely, the assumption, which passed unquestioned for quite some length of time, that the early Judaism from which Christianity emerged was aniconic and even iconophobic. Clearly, the opposite was true; Christianity emerged from and grew up alongside a Judaism with a vibrant iconographic tradition.

The statements of early Christians writing against idolatry have been interpreted in the context of this false assumption by many for some time. But, with this new archaeological evidence, including both the synagogues and the church at Dura Europos, new interpretations are necessary. The textual evidence can not continue to be interpreted in a vacuum, but must now be interpreted alongside and within the context of the archaeological evidence.

Why would the early Christians expend so much time and effort arguing so vehemently against the idolatry of the pagans while remaining silent about the idolatry, assuming they considered it to be so, rising up in their midst? Early Christian apologists simultaneously railed against the images of the pagans while attending worship services in churches with images; the only plausible explanation for how to reconcile these two facts is that they must not have considered their own images to be idolatrous.

Additionally, early Christian apologists were never shy about criticizing the Jews for any of even the slightest perceived transgressions;³⁰ if the widespread use of images in the synagogues was viewed by them as idolatrous, why did they never take the opportunity to attack the Jews for this? Why, instead, does it seem that early Christians in fact picked up their art forms and styles from the Jews?³¹ Contrary to the former allegations of Calvin and his faithful disciples, the introduction of icons into the churches was not the result of later pagan influence upon a weaker Church, but was part of the early Jewish inheritance assumed by the new Christian Faith in its first centuries.

These are questions and conundrums that, because the evidence was unavailable until fairly recently, never occurred to earlier Protestant proponents of iconoclasm like John Calvin and which iconoclasm's modern proponents have yet to sufficiently answer or explain. But these are questions which demand an answer if their views are going to continue to be taken seriously in the light of modern archaeological evidence.

Next installment: Part III (Veneration of Icons in Early Christianity)

¹² See Calvin, Institutes 1.11.13