It was mentioned before that there were those in the early Church who likely opposed the use of images in worship. As the use of Christian art grew through the centuries, the number of its critics did as well. Their argument stemmed from the Mosaic prohibition against the use of images to portray God. In this prohibition, God told Moses, “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5a). The reason for this prohibition stemmed from the strong inclination of the ancient peoples to worship idols. This idolatry and superstition was contagious and the Israelites tended toward it just as any other nation had. It was God’s intention to purge Israel of this by prohibiting anything that may come to resemble an idol. Those who opposed the icons argued that those who promoted them were doing just what this commandment prohibited- and were falling into idolatry.
Also discussed above was the Church’s right to use all that is beautiful in her expression of her faith. As the Church continued to grow, it was only natural that certain elements of interpretation that did not correspond with the Church’s faith leaked in from the lingering paganism of her converts. These ultimately led to abuses. Ouspensky (1992) recounts that
There were ways of venerating the sacred images which could be mistaken for blasphemy. Asterius of Amasea recounts in the seventh century that embroidered images of saints decorated the ceremonial robes of members of the Byzantine aristocracy. In Alexandria, men and women walked on the streets dressed in clothing decorated with sacred images. An excessive veneration of icons was apparent in the practice admitted by the Church. Thus, icons sometimes served as godfathers or godmothers in baptism and at monastic tonsure. There were even stranger cases. Some priests scraped the colors off icons, mixed them with the Holy Gifts and distributed this mixture to the faithful as if the divine Body and Blood had to be perfected with something sacred. Other priests celebrated the liturgy on an icon instead of an altar.
These actions scandalized those who did not understand the purpose of images and led some to reject icons completely. At other times, as Ouspensky (1992) notes, the images themselves were not done correctly by those who wrote them, often portraying Christ in a way unfamiliar to most Christians or in scandalous ways. But as Schönborn (1994) wrote,
The most objectionable aspect of the icon cult, of course, was not the ever-present possibility of abuse but the fact that images were venerated at all. The outward signs of this cult: candles or lamps, incense, kissing, prostration- all these expressions of the image cult smacked alarmingly of the pagan practices of idolatry.
It was ultimately upon the question of the prohibition of images that their primary objection rested. Those who opposed the veneration of images became know as “iconoclasts” or “image-breakers” due to the fact that they often smashed icons and religious images.
Outside pressures by Jews and Muslims were placed on the Church. According to Ouspensky (1992), in the 8th century, the Jews began taking the prohibition against images very seriously, even destroying their own images that had been in their synagogues for centuries. In 723, Caliph Yezid gave an order to remove and destroy Christian icons throughout his territory, which led to many Muslims the destruction of images, though it was neither consistent nor systematic.
The iconoclasts contained many heretical groups that had been condemned by the previous councils such as Monophysites, Manicheans, and Theopaschites amongst others. They also had the support of the Byzantine Emperor- Leo III- on their side. Schönborn (1994) argues that Leo III saw himself as a religious reformer. He writes,
He felt called to restore in his realm the true religion, which was degraded and betrayed by the cult of images. Such cult of images is pagan idolatry, to be eradicated: “Hezekiah, the King of the Jews, after eight hundred years removed the Bronze Serpent from the Temple; and I, after eight hundred years, had the idols removed from the Church,” the emperor reportedly said. Leo considered himself a priest-king, called by God as shepherd of God’s people, that is, the Roman Empire.
The controversy came to a head in 726 when Leo III openly took a stance against the use and veneration of icons. He attempted to persuade the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Germanus, and Pope St. Gregory II in Rome to adhere to his iconoclastic position. Both refused and the Patriarch of Constantinople was deposed to be replaced by an iconoclast (Ouspensky, 1992). In 730, an iconoclastic decree was signed by the emperor and the new patriarch, forbidding the use of images. The first iconoclastic action was to destroy an icon of Christ that hung over one of the entrances to the emperor’s palace. This created outrage and the person sent by the emperor was murdered (Schönborn, 1994). This launched a bloody feud, resulting in the death of many confessors and martyrs.
Ouspensky (1992) describes some of the persecution of the monks, who were the leaders of the “iconophiles” (image-lovers): “They were fiercely persecuted. Their heads were shattered against icons, they were sewn into sacks and drowned, they were forced to break their monastic vows, and the hands of iconographers were burned.” Over 50,000 of these monks fled to Italy where great iconographic works continued to be made with the Pope’s blessing and encouragement. Many of the iconophiles fled to remote monasteries that allowed them to continue venerating icons. Evseyeva et al., (2007) describes what the iconoclasts did to earn their names: “Artistic works of the preceding ages on Christian themes were mercilessly destroyed. Mosaics and frescoes were torn down from the walls and icons burned… the walls were then painted with new frescoes…” Ironically, the iconoclasts replaced icons with images, though without religious significance. These were usually secular paintings country sides, horse races, theatrical performances, and games. The iconoclasts were not opposed to art in principle, just images that depict divine figures or could be made into an idol.
One of the powerful voices that strongly denounced the iconoclasts at this time was St. John of Damascus. As a monk who lived in the region of Jerusalem and outside of the Byzantine Empire, John was free to criticize the emperor heavily for his iconoclasm (Louth, 2003). He goes down in history as the primary apologist of the veneration of icons in this period. In his three treatises on the subject, John provided a stinging rebuke to the iconoclasts as well as a strong apology for the use and veneration of icons.
St. John of Damascus, Defender of Icons
According to John, the prohibition of images in the Old Testament was due to the fact that God did not possess any physical appearance. To represent the invisible, incommensurable and uncircumscribable God as something primitive such as a golden calf would always fail and turn the worshipper away from God. Arguing that the divine command needed to be read with the spirit of the law in mind, he wrote, “You see that the single purpose of this is that one should not worship, or offer the veneration of worship, to creation instead of Creator, but only to the One who fashioned all” (John of Damascus, 2003). To try to ascribe an image to God by which one could acknowledge him would always fall into the error of idolatry. In order to show that the iconoclastic reading of Exodus was insufficient, he raised the question of why God also issued the command in Exodus to build two golden statues of cherubim for the Ark of the Covenant. John demonstrated the absurdity of their argument by showing that it led to the conclusion that God was fickle or contradictory, something his opponents would not have accepted.
He then explains why an image of Christ would not contradict the divine command:
Of old, God the incorporeal and formless was never depicted, but now that God has been seen in the flesh and has associated with human kind, I depict what I have seen of God. I do not venerate matter, I venerate the fashioner of matter, who became matter for my sake and accepted to dwell in matter and through matter worked my salvation, and I will not cease from reverencing matter, through which my salvation was worked. I do not reverence it as God- far from it; how can that which has come to be from nothing be God? (John of Damascus, 2003)
It is precisely through the Incarnation of God the Son that images are possible. Before God had assumed a human nature and body, it was impossible to make an image that would accurately depict him. But in the Incarnation, God allowed himself to be seen and thus an image can be made of him. To use an analogy, a photographer cannot take a picture of someone unless that someone can be physically seen. He may take a picture of a flower or a rock and claim that this is the person he was attempting to photograph, but it would be a downright lie and an affront to the person’s dignity to believe it and treat it as such. But if that person allows himself to be seen by the photographer, the photographer may take a picture that in a certain way captures enough of the essence of the person to which one can say that this is he.
Over and above this, John also indicates a more subtle danger. To reject images is to reject the doctrine of the Incarnation, which is fundamental to the Christian Faith. An explicit rejection of images implicitly accepts a form of Gnosticism.[1] John of Damascus not only wishes to promote the good of holy images, but also desires to keep his fellow Christians from falling into a far worse heresy.
John strongly argues that matter has been sanctified through the Incarnation and is inherently good. Yet he is careful to differentiate between veneration of the object itself and veneration of the person or symbol as signified by the object:
If I venerate the image of the cross, made of whatever wood, shall I not venerate the image of the crucified one, showing the saving cross? That I do not venerate matter is plain. For once the pattern of the cross is destroyed and (say) it is made of wood, then I will consign the wood to the fire, and so with images (John of Damascus, 2003).
The fierce persecutions lasted throughout the reigns of both Leo and his son Constantine Copronymus. Following the death of the latter, Leo IV ascended to the throne and the persecutions slowed. He was a moderate who was indifferent to the iconoclastic debate. Following his death in 780 his wife Irene, an iconophile, came to the throne. She immediately began working to bring orthodoxy back and arranged for an ecumenical council. A council was soon called in Nicaea in 787 and was attended by 350 bishops (Ouspensky, 1992). The council upheld the teaching of John of Damascus and reestablished the veneration of images. A sense of normalcy returned to the Church. This, however, was short-lived and following the rise of Leo V, the iconoclastic persecutions were reinstated. However, the emperor did not enjoy the support of a large number of bishops this time as Constantine Copronymus had. Leo V worked to find a concession with the bishops, but they refused him. A new wave of persecution began and a new minor council was called. Iconoclasm had lost some doctrinal energy following Nicaea II, having no new arguments, but this did not stop the launch of another vicious persecution of iconophiles. It wasn’t until the Empress Theodora inherited the empire that the persecution ended. The iconoclasts were excommunicated (Ouspensky, 1992) and a strong sense of normalcy returned to the Church. Following this, iconoclasm never became as big of a threat again, though it continued to appear at different times throughout history in various cultures.[2]
The victory of the iconophiles is still celebrated in the Eastern Churches on the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. The question of whether the veneration of images still remains one of the greatest moments in Christian history and for good reason. To reject Christian images is to reject every aspect of the Incarnation. Iconography has proved itself as an essential part of the Christian faith. It is a unique form of art that has endured a great amount of trial, but has endured because of its lasting value and connection to eternal truths. Icons prove themselves to be a visible link with the Church’s past and will continue to provide spiritual nourishment and inspire devotion in future generations of Christians to come.
[1] Gnosticism is a heresy that rejects the goodness of matter. In effect, it rejects Christ’s redemption (enacted through a material body) and nullifies the core of Christianity. It was strongly repudiated by the Church Fathers. John recognizes here that there is much more at stake than Christians refusing to worship Christ through art.
[2] One of the most notable for the Western Church was the Protestant Reformation.
To see all posts on Iconography, click here.
The Slave of the Immaculate 