On the Divine Images: Theology Behind the Icons and their Veneration in the Early Church

Introduction ¹

The subject of veneration of icons and sacred objects remains as controversial nowadays as it was in earlier periods of history. One may hear arguments from Protestant circles about the redundancy of the tradition and its entire heritage, including veneration of sacred images. Further arguments drawing support of the claim are also quite similar to the ones used by Iconoclasts in the 8th century. They consist, of course, of the commandments of the Old Testament against producing any sort of images. There is also the fear of idolatry, which is closely associated with the tradition of veneration of the images. Together with other, in my opinion, less important reasons I would like to highlight the subsequent Iconoclastic argument that is rather popular among some contemporary Christians stating that there is no need to venerate anything but God, because venerating God is in itself more than enough. And even the latter argument together with all those mentioned above is not at all original in the tradition of Christian thought. The problem with some contemporary thinkers and theologians is that by cutting themselves off from the continuity of the apostolic tradition of the Church they also cut themselves off from the historicity of its development. Hence, there is a big chance that by voicing the above arguments they show their unawareness of the historical development of Christian thought. In this perspective, some early Christian discussions with early controversies in the Church become very relevant to contemporary debates in the Christianity of today. Hence, the question of sacred images and the tradition of their veneration in the contemporary situation hark back to the times of Iconoclastic challenge to the early Christian Church.

There are no clear indications of what actually caused the Iconoclastic controversy in the 8th century. There were certain political, religious and ecclesiastical movements in and around the Church that could have encouraged Iconoclastic arguments, but it is still rather difficult to single out a particular event that brought the whole Iconoclastic movement in the Church to life. Of course, no one would deny that the decrees of Iconoclastic emperors and the decisions of Iconoclastic councils of the early Church were of great influence and importance. However, they were only symptomatic, and could by no means be seen as indicative of the fundamental basis for the initiation of Iconoclasm at that particular time and place in history. Also, one could talk about the rising influence of Islam and its particular dislike of images, or one could draw parallels with iconoclastic tendencies in Judaism at the time. However, neither of the above mentioned phenomena could be conclusively presented as the trigger for Iconoclasm in 8th-century history. ² Therefore, the question of the initial reasons for the rise of Iconoclasm will be left open in this presentation.

In contemplating on the potential reasons of Iconoclasm, however, it is quite useful to look at the theology of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Each of them was stimulated by one or another controversy rooted in the essentials of Christian identity, i.e. Christology, Ecclesiology, Trinity, Pneumatology and so on. It seems to me that by the 7th century, the tradition of the Church had covered the basics of its identity and reached the time of revision. Hence, it turned back to the first Council, that of Nicea, and its Christology in order to reconsider through the light of the Incarnation the importance of existing practice in the Church, i.e. the practice of veneration of sacred images and objects.

It is important to mention at this point that the actual tradition of veneration, by the 8th century, already existed independently in the Church and was developing in random fashion. As will be demonstrated later in this presentation the defenders of the icons located the origins of veneration of sacred imagery and objects already in the Old Testament, in the times of the Ark and Solomon’s Temple. As for the Christian era, the tradition of venerating icons was also traced to the very emergence of Christianity, that is, to the time of the apostles. Hence, such veneration was an intrinsic part of the very existence of the Church in its original form. Did apostles venerate Christ as their beloved teacher and leader? Did they venerate each other? They were certainly encouraged to do so by Christ himself. ³ The tradition of veneration of people and objects is still relevant in some cultures of the contemporary world. What I am trying to say is that the tradition of veneration is firmly grounded in the religious practices of contemporary times as well as in the practice of the earliest recorded accounts of Biblical narratives of both the Old and the New Testaments.

Coming back to the early Church of the 8th century and its particular attention to the tradition of venerating icons, one can propose that it must felt like the time for the Church to officially instate or receive into the church, or ‘in-church’ (or churching) (Rus. – воцерковить, воцерковление; Greek – Eκκλυσιασμς) the long self-existent practice of venerating icons. In other words, just as the Church through baptism received newly-baptised Christians as full and legitimate members of the Church, so did it receive the veneration of icons and sacred images through the process of dealing theologically with all the controversies around the practice, and bringing the matter for discussion at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. As the introduction above has indicated, the discourses of early Church theologians with Iconoclasm in many ways prefigured contemporary debates in Christian circles. Therefore, the aim of this presentation will be a short excursus into the writings of the Iconoclastic period in order to demonstrate a few points in the early Church’s discussion with Iconoclasm.

Proskinesis vs. Latreia

It is fitting at this point in the presentation to talk about the phenomena of veneration as such in order to disclose the problem with people’s attitude to veneration. In order to do so it is also fitting to go to the original sources in the writer who could be introduced as an ultimate apologist against Iconoclasm. St John Damascene produced Three Treatises on the Divine Images at the very beginning of the first Iconoclastic boom. ⁴ He was also writing his treatises geographically well away from the epicentre of Iconoclasm, i.e. the Byzantine Empire, so he was able to exercise theological freedom in his writings without experiencing the danger of being persecuted for it. He wrote partly in response to Iconoclastic arguments, i.e. polemically; but mostly to advocate and theologically explain the practice of veneration of sacred images and objects.

The mentioned above reasons for St John’s Three Treatises on the Divine Images could be further developed by alluding to the fact that the writer was based in the Muslim society, which he could not openly criticise. Therefore, by ‘safely’ criticising the Iconoclasm in Byzantium, St John most probably was criticising Iconoclasm in the newly and powerfully flourishing Islamic religion around him. This makes the study of St John’s writings more complicated, as it could be looked at as a bridge between Islamic rejection of sacred imagery in the Middle East and Christian Iconoclasm in Byzantine Empire in the eighth century CE. On the one hand, therefore, St John’s writings are providing the reader with an informative insights into the Christian Iconoclasm of the 8th century, while, on the other hand, the very same writings could be inspired by the rising of the Islamic Iconoclastic religion around him at the very same time.

St John presents two meanings or senses of the word veneration (proskinesis). On the one hand, he talks about the notion of respect that is revealed through veneration of ‘things, places and people associated with God, as a way of showing respect to what belongs to God’. ⁵ This implies veneration by association, which can include almost everything and anything even remotely connected to God. It is a broad and almost all-inclusive definition that St John presents, especially if one is aware of the fact that the world we are living in was created in its entirety by God. St John also presents another component or expression of the practice of veneration best captured in English by the sense of the word worship (latreia), which is addressed exclusively to God, and attributed to God alone. ⁶

St John also describes different forms of veneration, namely veneration as honour, and veneration as worship. ⁷ Quoting from the narrative of the Old Testament, St John recollects that the veneration of honour was acceptable towards anyone, even towards one’s enemy, as in the case when ‘Abraham venerated the sons of Emmor, godless men suffering from ignorance of God’. ⁸ St John also mentions Jacob venerating Esau, his brother, and the Egyptian Pharaoh, or venerating objects, as in the case of bowing down his head to the staff. ⁹ What is important in these instances is the fact that veneration does not necessarily mean worship. Hence, the question again is about the possibility of non-idolatrous form of veneration, in the sense of honour, which as demonstrated above, can be offered to anybody and anything.

In addressing the concrete forms of expression of veneration, one has to mention that the Greek word proskinesis assumes the physical act bowing oneself to the ground, just as Muslims do nowadays. St John writes about the process of bowing down and the symbolic meaning of it as an expression of respect and honour. ¹⁰ He also specifically attributes varying forms of veneration to different causes and objects. For example, in mentioning the veneration of worship St John points to God as the only God by nature worthy of such veneration. ¹¹ As a second type of veneration, St John writes about ‘veneration offered, on account of God who is naturally venerated, to his friends and servants’, ¹² thus broadly expanding the framework of such veneration to include the veneration of the angels, the places of God and the things sacred to Him, such as the Tabernacle and the Temple, and even veneration through bowing to the rulers ordained by God ¹³ , which further expands the applicability of veneration beyond the religious sphere into the political one.

From St John’s definition of proskinesis it is possible to assume that proskinesis as an act of veneration is not directed exclusively to God, but also to the so-called divine entourage or divine associations or attributes. The offering of veneration, therefore, is possible to people and objects, which are a part of life in a religious, cultural and social context, and even in a political context. However, worship as such, that is latreia, is indeed exclusive to God. Therefore, by diverting latreia away from God one steps right into idolatry. But with proskinesis idolatry does not seem to be possible, because of the broad nature of the term and a large range of appropriate objects for veneration. It seems that the only instance, according to St John, that proskinesis can be idolatrous is when it expresses latreia, which in its turn is redirected away from God. However, on its own, as an act of veneration, that is a sign of respect and honour, proskinesis ceases to be idolatrous. ¹⁴

St John seems to deliberately choose the examples from the Old Testament in order to demonstrate the legitimacy of such veneration as a long-standing religious practice, ¹⁵ which was properly conducted and therefore was worthy to be recounted in the narrative of the Sacred Scripture. The reason for such an in-depth excursus into in the scriptural narrative of the Old Testament seems to be obvious, namely, to counter-oppose the arguments of Iconoclasts, whoever they were, i.e. Christians, Jews, or Muslims selectively using Old Testament law in support of their claim of unnecessary practice of veneration of images, saints and sacred objects. As a response to such arguments St John simply states the following: ‘Such veneration is offered to others as a mark of honour. Either, therefore, reject all veneration or accept all of these forms with its proper reason and manner’. ¹⁶ The saint merely suggests a logical outcome of the argument over veneration. If veneration as such is a legitimate exercise, then it should be accepted in all its appropriate forms of expression, and the criterion for discerning which form of veneration is proper to which subject is as always, indeed twofold, that is, based both on the scriptural narrative and also on the living tradition of the faithful.

Veneration of Matter

The pre-Christian era presented people with a very big gap between the created material world and the Creator of that material world. The idea of venerating the creation could have only worked as an offering of thanksgiving to the Creator for the gift of life and the possibility of pro-creation in the world. However, even in the pre-Christian era created matter could acquire respect and honour as means by which the Creator expressed His love for Creation. This was very much an idea that St John expresses in his treatises when he states that the matter by the very fact of it being a product of creation can not be despised. ¹⁷ From St John’s response, one can extract the argument of Iconoclasts, which must have been leaning towards disregard of the created matter.

What makes St John’s argument even more sound is that he draws upon the ‘fact that the Son of God himself assumed a material form in the Incarnation’. ¹⁸ This is indeed the key answer of Iconophiles to Iconoclasm. The main reason and the only possibility of the fundamental transformation of one’s attitude to the matter is the Incarnation of God, and His descent into the created world as a human being. Through the Incarnation it is not only God that assumed the material human nature, but it is also the material human nature that was able to contain God. This twofold New Testament revelation truly reveals the mystery of the matter and reveals to men and women an unknown of the created material world, which was not experienced before the Incarnation.

The very fact of Incarnation, therefore, gives enough reason for veneration, respect and appreciation of the matter. The matter after the Incarnation revealed its capacity to contain the divine presence in its fullness without being destroyed by it, as was implied in the pre-Incarnation religious history of the humanity. According to the Old Testament narrative, the matter was able to contain memories of experiences of divine presence, as we can see in the stories of Moses and the burning bush, and the whole concept of the sacred space in the biblical narrative. It is only through the New Testament revelation that people were granted with the experience and the knowledge of deification. Deification was revealed also as a possibility for the human body through experiencing the fullness of divine presence, and remaining unbroken by it.

The act of Incarnation brought the awareness of human body into a completely new dimension, which was neither comprehendible nor approachable to the human race before the New Testament Revelation. Not only did human material body not break under the circumstance of the Son of God being born from a human mother, but it is also that it acquired the possibility of partaking in the fullness of the divine presence. Afterwards, in the liturgical context, through taking of the body and blood of Christ during the celebration of the Eucharist, the people are also partaking in Christ’s divinity, not only on a spiritual and mystagogical level, but also on the physical level, by eating the bread and drinking the wine. Hence, the divine qualities of the human soul as well as the human body are enhanced through the partaking in the divine. Material human body, therefore, becomes transformed by deification. This extraordinary leap of the understanding of the matter through Incarnation presents matter in a completely new light, which was hidden from the understanding of the people before God’s Son revealed Himself on earth in human body. Through Incarnation the matter acquired the possibility of being transubstantiated in the framework of one’s own life, and in a much broader context of life everlasting. ¹⁹

Therefore, icons could be seen in the light of all of the above mentioned points in two very important capacities/functions in the life of the Church:

Conclusion