Orthodox Apologetics

2 Maccabees 7:20 But the mother was marvellous above all, and worthy of honourable memory: for when she saw her seven sons slain within the space of one day, she bare it with a good courage, because of the hope that she had in the Lord. 21 Yea, she exhorted every one of them in her own language, filled with courageous spirits; and stirring up her womanish thoughts with a manly stomach, she said unto them: 22 I cannot tell how ye came into my womb: for I neither gave you breath nor life, neither was it I that formed the members of every one of you; 23 But doubtless the Creator of the world, who formed the generation of man, and found out the beginning of all things, will also of his own mercy give you breath and life again, as ye now regard not your own selves for his laws' sake. 28  I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise. 29  Fear not this tormentor, but, being worthy of thy brethren, take thy death that I may receive thee again in mercy with thy brethren. 41  Last of all after the sons the mother died.

Orthodoxy: providing a safe and secure family-friendly environment since 170 BC

"All have sinned, all come short of the glory of God, but they are justified for nothing by His grace through the ransom provided in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as the means of propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith". (Romans 3:23-25).


The Term "Propitiation"

The Greek word (hilasterion) is derived from a verb which in pagan writers and inscriptions has two meanings:

(a) "to placate" a man or a god;

(b) "to expiate" a sin, i.e. to perform an act (such as the payment of a fine or the offering of a sacrifice) by which its guilt is annulled.

The former meaning is overwhelmingly the more common. In the Septuagint, on the other hand, the meaning (a) is practically unknown where God is the object, and the meaning (b) is found in scores of passages. Thus the biblical sense of the verb is "to perform an act whereby guilt or defilement is removed." The idea underlying it is characteristic of primitive religion. The ancients felt that if a taboo was infringed, the person or thing involved became unclean, defiled or profane. The condition of defilement might be removed by the performance of the appropriate act: it might be washing with water, or sprinkling with blood, or simply the forfeiture of some valuable object to the deity concerned with the taboo. Such acts were felt to have the value, so to speak, of a disinfectant. Thus in the Old Testament a whole range of ritual actions are prescribed for disinfecting the priest, the altar, or the people from various forms of defilement, ritual or moral. Our versions in such cases use the phrase "to make propitiation"; but the more proper translation would be "to make expiation". This meaning holds good wherever the subject of the verb is a man. But, as religious thought advanced, it came to be felt that, where the defilement was moral, God alone could annul it; and so the same verb is used with God as subject in the sense "to forgive".¹

In accordance with biblical usage, therefore, the substantive (hilasterion) would mean, not propitiation, but "a means by which guilt is annulled": if a man is the agent, the meaning would be "a means of expiation"; if God, "a means by which sin is forgiven". Biblical usage is determinative for Paul. The rendering "propitiation" is therefore misleading, for it suggests the placating of an angry God, and although this would be in accord with pagan usage, it is foreign to biblical usage. In the present passage it is God who puts forward the means whereby the guilt of sin is removed, by sending Christ. The sending of Christ, therefore, is the divine method of forgiveness. This brings the teaching of the present passage into exact harmony with that of v. 8-9.


¹ The full evidence for all this is given in my book, The Bible and the Greeks, pp. 82-95, where I have examined, I believe, every occurrence of the verb in the Septuagint.

The one in the middle is the Father of the Universe, who in the Sacred Scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am ; and the Beings on each side are those most ancient Powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his Creative Power, and the other his Royal Power. And the Creative Power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the Universe; and the Royal Power is the Lord, for it is fitting that the Creator should lord it over and govern the creature.

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.

There are evidences of a continued use of this apocryphal literature in rabbinic literature of later times. Sirach is quoted three times in the Talmud as scripture. It is twice quoted with the introductory formula, "for so it is written in the Book of Ben Sira." [ Hagigh 13a; Yebamoth 63b; cf., Erubin 54a ]. Ben Sira is also sometimes quoted as "Writings" when the rabbis were proof-texting, e.g., "This matter is written in the Pentateuch, as written..., repeated in the Prophets, as written..., mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written, (here Sirach 12.15 is quoted), it was learned in the Mishnah,..." [ Baba Kamma 92b ]. Pfeiffer (1941:66) tells us that the Hebrew text of Sirach was still being copied as late as the twelfth century C.E. It is cited by name in Sanhedrin 100b ( Yeb. 63c ), which quotes several verses. According to L. Israel (1905:390) single verses appear in: Yer. Ber. 11b; Yer. Hag. 77c; Yer. Ta'an. 66d; Hag. 13a; Niddah 16b; Gen. R. 8, 10, 73; Lev. R. 33; Tan. Wayishlah 8; Tan., Mikkez. 10; Tan. Hukkat. 1; etc.

Origen knew a Hebrew name for the books of Maccabees, "Sar beth Sabnai el." [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.2]. J.E.L. Oulton has observed, "this name is interesting as evidence of the existence in the third century of the Hebrew original of I Maccabees..." Jerome obtained Hebrew texts of Sirach, I Maccabees, Tobit and Judith in Aramaic ("Chaldee"), presumably from Jews, which he, with the help of a hired expert in Aramaic and Hebrew, translated into Latin. Marx (1921) noticed that Moses ben Nahman (Nachmanides, ca. 1194-1270 C.E.) knew and used an Aramaic (!) text of Wisdom, citing 7.5-8, 17-21 in the introduction and 1.7, 8, 11 on Deut. 20.14 in his Commentary on the Pentateuch; he also noted some acquaintance with the story of Bel and the Dragon and Judith by Jews in Spain in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

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