1

IS THERE A BIBLICAL BASIS FOR ICONS? Copyright 1996 © Robert K. Arakaki

One of the biggest secrets in modern Evangelicalism is the quiet flow of Evangelicals

towards Orthodoxy. Evangelicalism and Orthodoxy have much in common and yet there are

also significant differences. One of the major stumbling blocks for many Evangelicals is the use

of icons in Orthodox worship. To many Evangelicals the use of icons seems to violate the

injunction against graven images found in the Ten Commandments. Moreover there seems to be

a dearth of biblical texts pointing to the use of icons in New Testament Christianity. For

Evangelicals the bottomline question surrounding the use of icons will therefore be: Is there a

biblical basis for icons?

I write this article as an Evangelical1 who is open to Orthodoxy.2 This paper comes out of

an earlier paper I wrote while at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary for Prof. Richard

Lovelace entitled: "The Icon and Orthodox Spirituality." I came to the conclusion that the use of

icons is compatible with the basic principles of Evangelical theology. I closed the paper with a

discussion of the possibility of an Evangelical-Orthodox rapprochement. It was noted that while

Scripture constitutes the common ground for Evangelicals and Orthodox Christians, there still

remains a need for a common understanding of Scripture between Evangelicals and Orthodox

Christians. In this article I will attempt to forge a basis for a common understanding between

Evangelicals and Orthodox based upon the Bible that supports the use of icons.

Hermeneutical Framework

If there is anything that stands out as the hallmark of Evangelicalism, it would be the

Evangelicals' high regard for the authority of Scripture. But whenever one talks about the

1 Professor Arakaki entered the Orthodox Church at a later date – Ed. 2I am not a member of the Orthodox Church. My church membership is with the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) and before that with the United Church of Christ (UCC).

2

authority of Scripture, one must also talk about how one will interpret Scripture. Within

Protestantism there are two major hermeneutical frameworks: (1) what Scripture does not enjoin

we are prohibited, or (2) what Scripture does not prohibit we are permitted.

If one were to adhere to the first hermeneutical framework: "what Scripture does not

enjoin we are prohibited", then almost immediately we can close the book on the question.

Although the word " " can be found in the New Testament it would be stretching it to claim

that it refers to the pictorial representations found in Orthodox churches. This constitutes one

major reason why many Evangelicals do not accept the use of icons. However for this position

to be valid, it must be argued that this particular hermeneutical approach is the normative

hermeneutical framework for all Christians, not just for some. However history shows that this

particular hermeneutical approach has its origins in the Protestant Reformation and was

characteristic of one particular stream within Protestantism, the Reformed tradition. The

Lutheran tradition followed the other hermeneutical principle. In other words the first

hermeneutical approach is not characteristic of Protestantism as a whole but only one particular

sector. If, on the other hand, one were to use the second hermeneutical framework: "What

Scripture does not prohibit we are permitted" then the possibility opens up for an Evangelical to

find a biblical basis for the use of icons.

For a long time I was troubled by the fact that although there were references to "images"

or " " in the Bible, it would be stretching it to claim that these provide a solid basis for the

Orthodox usage of icons. This left me in an awkward position of being attracted to icons but not

having a biblical basis for doing so. However one day I noticed that one dominant feature of

icons is the depicting of faces: of Christ, of Mary, of the saints and the angels. When I became

aware of this fact and quickly put this together with the fact that in the Bible there are numerous

3

references to "face" I realized that here was a way of establishing a biblical basis for the use of

icons.

Old Testament Encounters with the Face of God

The word "face" is used in the Old Testament to denote God's personal presence.3 In the

Old Testament we find a tension between God's utter transcendence which separates us from

God and God's love which draws us to God. In Exodus 33 we find both of these two contrasting

themes. In Exodus 33:11 we read: "The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man

speaks with his friend4." (cf. Deuteronomy 5:4, 34:10) This speaks of God's nearness to us, the

possibility of our being able to enter into a personal relationship with God. And yet at the end of

the same chapter we see God emphasizing his utter transcendence. In Exodus 33:20 God tells

Moses: "But you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." and in Exodus 33:23 God

tells Moses: "Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be

seen."

In Genesis 32:30 we read of Jacob's night of struggle with God in which a breakthrough

was made and Jacob received the blessing of God. Jacob memorialized this event by naming the

place "Peniel" (face of God), saying: "It is because I saw God face to face and yet my life was

spared". Jacob knew that for a finite, mortal being like him to experience a direct encounter with

the Almighty was full of peril and danger.

3The Old Testament uses several words for face: panim, aph, ayin, anpin. Of these four words, panim is the most frequently used. The New Testament uses in most cases with the exception of one verse which uses . Although the focus of this paper is on how the biblical writers used the word "face" to denote the divine presence, this is not to deny other ways in which the word "face" has been used in the Bible. Aside from denoting the physical face, the word "face" has other usage such as the earth's surface in "the face of the earth", or direction in "set his face towards", or opposition in "set his face against", or as an expression of worship in "fell on his face." 4I will be italicizing the word "face" as a matter of convenience and as a way of highlighting that which has many times been unintentionally overlooked by the reader.

4

The word "face" (panim) can be used not just to denote God's personal presence but also

his personal blessing. In the Aaronic Blessing Formula found in Numbers 6:22-27, we find the

metaphor of "face" being used in order to denote God as bestowing his personal favor towards

the Israelites.

The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace. There are two mention of God's face in this blessing. Both expressions are vivid and powerful,

and full of emotional impact. The phrase "make his face shine upon you" can be taken to mean

God is looking at us with a big smile on his face. Do you ever notice how a smile makes a

person's face light up? Or how the smile of the mother or father causes the baby to beam with

joy? God's smiling at us tells us that he likes us; that he is favorably disposed to us, and that out

of this happy relationship flows forth the divine blessings. Another phrase used in the Aaronic

Blessing Formula is "turn his face toward you". In blessing us God turns his face towards us,

that is, he accepts us and is in relationship with us. The opposite of this is God turning his back

on us, doing this would signify divine rejection, our being out of relationship with God.

In I Kings 13:6 we find an interesting use of the word "face" (panim) in the matter of

prayer. When the hand of King Jeroboam shriveled up as a sign of divine judgment, the king

implored the prophet, "Intreat now the face of the Lord thy God, and pray for me.... (KJV)” This

interesting turn of the phrase which means to ask something of God is taken literally by the

Orthodox Church whenever the priest stands before the icon of Christ and presents the prayers of

the Church before the icon of Christ.

5

Pictorial Representations in the Tabernacle

The Old Testament Tabernacle was an artistic masterpiece and was far from devoid of

pictorial depictions. In giving Moses instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle God

gave instructions pertaining to the making of the Ark of the Covenant and the curtains of the

Tabernacle. In light of the prohibition against the making of graven images it is something of a

surprise to read that God instructed Moses to make two golden cherubim and to place these

above the cover of the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:17-22). God also instructed Moses to

work the image of the cherubim into the outer curtains of the Tabernacle structure and into the

curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place (Exodus 26:1, 31-33). Thus, the

priests that served in the Tabernacle saw images of the cherubim all around them -- on the outer

curtains surrounding the Tabernacle as well as on the inner curtain that shielded the Most Holy

Place of the Tabernacle.5

Similar artistic details can be found in Solomon's temple. For the Most Holy Place

Solomon had two sculptured cherubim built (I Kings 6:23-28, II Chronicles 3:10-13). Cherubim

were worked into the curtain that covered the entrance to the Most Holy Place (II Chronicles

3:14). Cherubim were also carved onto the two wooden doors for the entrance to the Most Holy

Place and on the walls all around the temple (I Kings 6:31-35, 29-30). What is interesting to

note is the added details of palm trees and open flowers on the walls and inner entrance. The

lavish visual details here stand in sharp contrast to the stark austerity of many Protestant

churches.

At the end of the book of Ezekiel there is a long detailed description of the new temple.

Besides a description of the layout of the building, the temple furnishings, the priesthood, the

6

layout of the land, there is also a description of wall carvings (Ezekiel 41:15-26). The wall

carvings consisted of palm trees and of cherubim. More specifically, it should be noted that the

wall carvings were that of the faces of the cherubim, human or leonine. This mention of the

depiction of the human faces of the cherubim comes remarkably close to describing the

Orthodox icons. This passage tells of wall carvings all around the inner and outer sanctuary.

These images were not confined to a few places in the temple but could be seen all over the new

temple.

The basic lesson to be learned here is that God intended that pictorial representations or

images be part of the Old Testament pattern of worship and that the use of these images did not

contradict the injunction in the Ten Commandments against graven images.

The Psalms: Seeking God's Face

Where the Pentateuch contained instructions for the ordering of Old Testament worship,

the Psalms contains the heartbeat of Old Testament worship. In the Psalms we find expression

of the ultimate goal of our prayers and our worship: union with God. In Psalm 27:8-9 David

writes,

My heart says of you, "Seek his face!" Your face, Lord, I will seek. Do not hide your face from me, do not turn your servant away in anger; you have been my helper. Do not reject me or forsake me, O God my savior.

Here the word "face" signifies "presence", i.e., the psalmists desire to experience God's presence.

When we pray we enter into God's presence, we seek to draw near to God in prayer, i.e., we

"seek his face". In Psalm 4:6 we read of David's request to God: "Let the light of your face shine

5It is interesting to note that in the early days of Christianity there existed the practice of making pictorial depictions on cloth, a practice that likely has Old Testament precedent which in time evolved into the more widely images painted on wooden boards.

7

upon us, O Lord." In psalm 105:4 we find a similar theme: "Look to the Lord and his strength;

seek his face always."

In the psalms there are several references to God's face shining upon his servants as a

sign of his divine favor upon them. Psalm 67 begins with: "May God be gracious to us and bless

us and make his face shine upon us." In psalm 119:135 we read: "Make your face shine upon

your servant and teach me your decrees." In Psalm 31:16 David prays: "Let your face shine

upon your servant." The use of "face" to denote God's favor or grace in these psalms echo

strongly the Aaronic Blessing Formula in Numbers 6:22-27.

In psalm 80, which falls into the category of the psalms of penitence, we find three times

the refrain:

Restore us, O God; make your face shine upon us, that we may be saved. (Psalm 80:3,7, and 19) In this psalm God is asked to make his anger cease against Israel and once again restore his

divine favor upon the nation. A similar reference to seeking God's face is found in Hosea 5:15:

"And they will seek my face; in their misery they will earnestly seek me." Here seeking God's

face is part of the process of repentance, i.e., of turning from sin and turning towards God.

The Incarnation

The unfolding of God's revelation in the Old Testament reaches its culmination with the

coming of Christ. The opening lines of the book of Hebrews tell how the history of God's

progressive revelation reaches its definitive climax in Christ:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son whom he appointed heir of all things. (Hebrews 1:1-2)

8

The superiority of Christ is proven by the fact that the coming of the Son supersedes all previous

Old Testament revelation. In the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel the Apostle John makes a

similar point.

For the law was given through Moses: grace and truth was given through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. (John 1:17-18)

The revelatory significance of the Incarnation lies in the fact where the prophetic message

consisted of people receiving the Word of God; the Incarnation consisted of the Word of God

taking on human nature.

One consequence of the Incarnation is that God can now be seen by people. This is

evident in the several passages where emphasis is placed on the fact that they have in fact seen

the Incarnate Word of God. John in his Gospel writes,

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14, emphasis added)

John emphasizes this point repeatedly in his epistle:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched.... (I John 1:1, emphasis added)

The word "seen" is used again in I John 1:2 and 1:3. In verse 3 John insists that the Incarnation

constitutes the basis for the apostolic testimony and also the basis for Christian fellowship and

that to deny the Incarnation was to deny the Christian faith (I John 4:2-3).

The significance of the Incarnation becomes clear when we examine the words used by

the biblical authors to describe how Jesus reveals the Father. The writer of Hebrews writes: "The

Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation ( of his being...."

(Hebrews 1:3) Paul writes of Jesus Christ, "He is the image ( of the invisible God."

9

(Colossians 1:15, cf. II Corinthians 4:4) The words used point, not to an indirect revelation, but

to a direct revelation. For this reason Jesus tells Philip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the

Father." (John 14:9)

The question may be asked: So what does all this have to do with the Orthodox practice

of icons? There are several reasons. Orthodoxy sees the Incarnation as essential for our

salvation. The Incarnation made it possible for humanity to behold God, to come face to face

with God. For Orthodox Christians the Incarnation provides the theological basis for the use of

icons. The Word made flesh also means the Word made visible. Orthodoxy takes seriously the

fact that in the Incarnation the Word of God took on a human face with eyes, ears, nose, chin,

and lips by depicting these physical features in the icons of Christ. For Orthodox Christians the

Bible is the verbal icon of Christ and the images are visual icons of Christ.

The Incarnation, then, marks a decisive turning point in salvation history. In the

Incarnation the prophecy is fulfilled: the Virgin gives birth to a son and gives him the name

Immanuel. In the Incarnation the prayers of the Old Testament is answered: God takes on a

human face. The Incarnation together with Christ's death on the cross and his glorious

resurrection constitutes the climax of God's work of redemption in human history. Where

Evangelicalism makes mention of the Incarnation from time to time, Orthodoxy on the other

hand makes mention of the Incarnation every week in its Liturgy and celebrates the Incarnation

in its use of icons.

The Christian Life: Becoming Icons of Christ

When we became Christians, a process of transformation began in which we become

more and more like Christ. A new nature is acquired which undergoes renewal as we grow in

our knowledge of who God is. Paul writes, "Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off

10

your old self with its practices, and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in

knowledge in the image ( ) of its Creator." (Colossians 3:9-10) This process of

transformation is actually the restoring of the imago dei that God implanted in humanity at

Creation but was disfigured in the Fall (cf. Genesis 1:26-27).

In II Corinthians Paul uses Moses' encounter with God in the Tabernacle as an illustration

of how knowing Christ has a transforming impact on a Christian. It seems that whenever Moses

entered the Tabernacle and spent time with God, he left the Tabernacle radiant with the shekinah

glory (II Corinthians 3:13). Paul writing about our situation has this to say:

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness6 ( ) with ever increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (II Corinthians 3:18).

Paul is not arguing here for the use of icons. To make such an assertion is bad exegesis. But the

underlying point is that of the underlying motif the Christian beholding Christ. As we behold

Christ we will be transformed "from glory to glory". In the King James Version the phrase "into

his likeness" is rendered "into the same image". The same image as what? The answer seems to

be: the same image as Christ! In other words the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit within us

results in our being transformed into "icons" of Christ.

This passage is followed a little later by another passage which uses the face metaphor to

refer to the light of Christ shining in our hearts giving us hope and comfort. Paul writes,

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." (II Corinthians 4:6)

This is a complex sentence but basically it tells us that God's light is shining in our hearts

bringing into our lives an awareness of God's glory which is made manifest in Christ's face. The

11

reference to Christ's face is a reference to Christ's Incarnation. This literal reading of the verse

leads us to understand that God's glory was revealed by means of the physical face with eyes,

ears, nose, chin and cheeks that Jesus acquired in his Incarnation. This verse suggest an attempt

by the early Church to remember afresh Christ's Incarnation which is one of the basic reasons

why we have icons.7

Our being transformed into Christ's likeness will reach its climax at Christ's return in

glory. In Romans 8:29 Paul tells how God has predestined us "to be conformed to the likeness

( ) of his Son". In I Corinthians 15:49 Paul tells how on the day of resurrection we will

"bear the likeness ( ) of the man from heaven". This idea is expressed by other apostolic

writers, e.g., John who writes that "when he (Christ) appears, we shall be like him" (I John 3:2).

In summary, the biblical motif of the icon (image, face) is an important one for

understanding the Christian life. God is at work in our lives, conforming us into the image of his

Son. We become icons of Christ just as Christ is the icon of God! Orthodox theology has a

word for this process of Christian growth: theosis. We become partakers of the divine nature (II

Peter 1:4).

Eschatology: We Will See God's Face

The Apocalypse closes the biblical canon. Although confusing and frightening to many

Christians it nonetheless constitutes a part of Scripture and for this reason should be read and

listened to. In the first chapter the apostle John sees the risen Christ in the fullness of his glory.

John writes, "His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance." (Revelation 1:16) This

6It is unfortunate that the New International Version is inconsistent in its translation of the Greek word " ". It uses the less vivid "likeness" in reference to the Christian but uses the more direct "image" in reference to Christ. The King James Version on the other hand is more consistent in its translation of " ". 7Where the Evangelical understanding of the Incarnation is that it was a one time event that has come and gone, Orthodoxy sees the Incarnation as continuing through the icons. In other words when Jesus ascended into heaven,

12

passage echoes Daniel's apocalyptic vision of the Son of Man whose face was like lightning

(Daniel 10:6) and Jesus' transfiguration (Matthew 17:2 and Luke 9:29). The description of the

face culminates the list of details describing the risen and glorified Christ. Upon seeing Christ's

face, the Apostle John's immediate response was to prostrate him.

In the last chapter of Revelation John describes the life in the age to come. What is

especially interesting is Revelation 22:3-4,

No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.

The phrase: "they will see his face" is the promise that although at the present time we cannot see

God, the day will come when we will be in his presence and we will be able to behold his face.

Standing in God's presence and seeing the face of God summarizes the Christian hope.

A parallel theme can be found in I Corinthians 13, the well-known chapter in which Paul

describes the virtues of love. He closes this elegant and moving passage with:

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child; I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully even as I am fully known (emphasis added).

For the present moment reality is hazy and confusing. God is there but we cannot see him. But

the day will come when we shall see God face to face.

Thus, the icon points to the end of the present age and to the coming of the eternal reign

of Christ. The icon of Christ is a promise that we will one day see God face to face. It is a

promise that humanity's age long exile and pilgrimage will end with a glorious homecoming in

the New Jerusalem where we will gather before the throne of God.

he did not become once again a distant disembodied being but continues his Incarnation through the Church which is his Body.

13

Biblical Guidelines for the Practical Use of Icons

The purpose of icons is more than to help us think about God but to relate to God.

During my three years in Berkeley when I was doing doctoral studies at the Graduate

Theological Union I attended an Orthodox Church. At first I saw the icons as religious pictures.

But gradually over time I became aware of the icons mediating Christ's invisible presence during

the worship service. I became aware that to see Christ in the icon is to see Christ himself.

Looking at an icon is a moment of personal encounter with the divine mystery. To look

at the icon of Jesus is to see Jesus himself. We find biblical support for this phenomenon in a

surprising place. When Jacob met his brother Esau in the desert after many years of separation

and estrangement, he told him, "For to see your face is like seeing the face of God...." (Genesis

33:10). If we take this passage literally, we can derive the principle that an ordinary face can be

used depict the divine presence. However this event cannot be read as being a theophany,

consequently Jacob's remark should be taken metaphorically. Building upon this principle, we

get the principle that the depiction of a face can be used to depict the divine presence. When we

come to New Testament we encounter the mystery of the Incarnation in which the divine Word

came down from heaven and took on a human face. Jesus told Philip, "Anyone who has seen me

has seen the Father." (John 14:9) Where Genesis 33:10 can be taken either metaphorically or

indirectly but not directly, Jesus' declaration to Philip can be taken literally and directly.

Because Jesus has now risen and having ascended to heaven fills the whole universe (Ephesians

4:10), the very real possibility exists of encountering Jesus through the icon.

In II Corinthians is a verse, which provides us with a good guideline for how to look at an

icon. Paul writes,

So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (II Corinthians 4:18).

14

One looks at an icon not for the purpose of finding out what Jesus looked like while on earth;

rather one looks at an icon in order to become aware of the glorious, risen Christ. That is why

icons are full of symbolic significance. The icons function to point us towards the mysterious

presence of Christ. To look only for the physical features of Jesus in an icon is to know Christ

"after the flesh" (II Corinthians 5:16 KJV). When one looks at an icon one first sees a depiction

of the physical features of Jesus Christ, after prayerful reflection one will become aware of the

reality of the risen, ascended Christ who is now in heaven.

The Evangelical-Orthodox Option

In the beginning of this paper I discussed the two hermeneutical frameworks of

Protestantism. It should be noted that the two hermeneutical frameworks of Protestantism both

neglect the role of tradition. I would like to suggest that there exists a third option, which is to

operate on the basis that whatever Scripture teaches must be followed and that where Scripture is

silent we follow the teachings of the Church Fathers. This is the path of the Evangelical-

Orthodox.8 This is the path of an Evangelical who affirms the authority of Scripture and at the

same time avoids the hermeneutical chaos of Protestantism9 by following the historic teachings

of the Church. The Evangelical-Orthodox recognizes that faith in Christ is not something done

in autonomous independence but within the context of community, i.e., the Church. The

Evangelical-Orthodox seeks to understand Scripture in the context of the larger Christian

community both past and present. Following this path does not entail a shift from independence

to dependence but rather a shift to interdependence -- we seek to use our God given talents to

8The term "Evangelical-Orthodox" is meant to describe a particular approach to being Evangelical. It is not intended to describe any particular group of Christians. 9What I mean by the "hermeneutical chaos of Protestantism" are major issues that have long divided Protestantism: mode of baptism, the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and form of church government all of which are

15

understand Scripture the best we can while at the same interacting with the historic teaching of

the Church. The Evangelical-Orthodox way also entails the recognition that our thinking about

God cannot be separated from our worship of God. Theology and worship are interconnected on

a fundamental level -- lex orandi, lex credendi "the rule of worship is the rule of faith".

Conclusion

A study of the Bible shows that the usage of icons in worship can be considered biblical.

But care must be taken to avoid misunderstandings and confusion. It is not biblical in the sense

that the Bible teaches explicitly: you must use icons for worship. However it is biblical in the

sense that the Bible shows that the use of icons is congruent with the use of pictorial

representations in Old Testament Tabernacle. It is biblical in the sense that it is consistent with

the biblical principle that the face of God denotes the divine presence. It is also biblical in the

sense that it is consistent with the biblical principle that the goal of our worship and our prayer is

the seeking God's face. Furthermore it is biblical in the sense that it affirms the Incarnation of

the Divine Word who took in assuming human flesh for our salvation acquired a human nature

and took on a human face. And it is biblical in that just as Christ is the icon of God, we are icons

of Christ.

In summary, this particular study of Scripture shows that the Orthodox understanding and

usage of icons in its worship is consistent with the teaching of Scripture. This is also the position

taken by the early Church at the Seventh Ecumenical Council when it stated:

We preserve, without innovations, all the Church traditions established for us, whether written or not written10, one of which is icon-painting as corresponding to what the Gospels preach and relate.... (emphasis added)

based upon competing interpretations of Scripture. It is ironic and tragic that Protestantism should be united on the authority of Scripture and at the same time so divided by their differing interpretations of Scripture. 10It should be noted that this understanding of tradition is very biblical and is really a paraphrase of Paul's understanding of tradition stated in II Thessalonians 2:15.

16

"Corresponding to what the Gospels preach and relate" is another way of saying: This is Bible-

based. Having shown that there is indeed a biblical basis for the use of icons in Christian

worship and prayer, it is my hope that Evangelicals will take a more open minded stance to icons

and will enter into a dialogue with Orthodox Christians about the meaning and significance of

icons for worship and prayer.

I ended my Gordon-Conwell paper noting that if a biblical basis for the use of icons could

indeed be established that the day may come when Evangelicals and Orthodox will join together

in common worship of the one true God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I end this paper with the

conclusion that it is a very real possibility and that that day may not be that far off. May God

hasten that day!

17

Calvin's Legacy The Logic of Calvin's Iconoclasm The Philological Argument The Historical Argument Did Calvin Understand Eastern Orthodoxy? Conclusion: Was Calvin Wrong? Can a Calvinist Venerate the Icons? The Challenge of the Icons

One of the most striking differences between Eastern Orthodox worship and Protestant worship is icons. When one enters an Orthodox church one encounters a profusion of images. One sees the icon of Jesus Christ the Word made flesh. One also sees an icon of the Virgin Mary, icons of the angels, and icons of the saints. On the other hand when one enters most Protestant churches one sees an austere absence of images.

This is not to say that Protestant churches suffer from an absence of aesthetics. There is a certain abstract beauty in the internal architecture of Protestant sanctuaries: the steps leading up to the altar, pulpits standing to the side, the cross hanging from the ceiling, and the interplay of wood, stone, and glass are all beautifully designed.

What accounts for the stark difference between Orthodox and Protestant worship experience? Why did they diverge into two different worship traditions? One major part of the answer to these questions can be found in the Protestant Reformation, especially that of the Reformed tradition. Protestantism's iconoclasm can in large part be traced to John Calvin. This page describes and critiques Calvin's argument against the use of icons in Christian worship.

Calvin's Legacy As one of the leading theologians of the Protestant Reformation John Calvin helped define and shape Protestant theology. One of Calvin's lasting legacies is Protestantism's iconoclasm. According to Georg Kretschmar, "Calvin built up the most precise and radical position opposed to the icon theology of the 787 Council of Nicea" (1990:80). Where Luther was quite tolerant of images in churches, Calvin and his followers were much more vigorous in their opposition to images in the church. As a consequence, Protestant places of worship have a stark austerity in comparison to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches. [1]

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicea II, stands as a landmark in church history. It was at this council that the Church decisively affirmed the use of icons for worship. It was here that icons were recognized as being an integral part of liturgical worship and of the historic Christian Faith. Any attempt to disprove the veneration of icons must come to grips with the decision made at Nicea II and early theologians like St. John of Damascus. Therefore, one of the tasks of this page is not only to assess Calvin's position on the icons on its own ground, but also in relation to historic Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy.

BACK TO TOP

The Logic of Calvin's Iconoclasm In order to understand Calvin's opposition to icons, we must first understand the logic of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. [2] Calvin devotes no little attention to the issue of icons. He devotes three chapters of this book to attacking the icons (Book I, chapters 10-12). Only after we can show that we understand Calvin's arguments against the icons, can we proceed to critically assess the validity of Calvin's iconoclasm.

18

The starting point of Calvin's Institutes is the question: How can we know God? In Book I we see him denying the possibility of knowing God through creation but affirming the possibility of knowing God through the Scriptures. We have taught that the knowledge of God, otherwise quite clearly set forth in the system of the universe and in all creatures, is nonetheless more intimately and also more vividly revealed in his Word (Institutes 1.10.1). For Calvin, God's transcendence not only rendered him unknowable, it also made him beyond human comprehension. Therefore, it became axiomatic that any human attempt to depict the transcendent God in a visible representation was not only a gross superstition, it also deformed our understanding of the true God and distorts our worship of the one true God (see Institutes 1.11.9). ...we must cling to this principle: God's glory is corrupted by an impious falsehood whenever any form is attached to him (Institutes 1.11.1). This principle is valid in light of the predominance of paganism in the ancient world. The Old Testament injunctions against idols and graven images were necessary in order to protect the purity of Israel's monotheism. However it seems that such a sweeping statement about "any form" would even rule out the possibility of the Incarnation of the Word of God. St. Paul in his letter to the Philippians 2:6-7 described the Incarnation in terms of Jesus having the "form of God" and taking on the "form of a servant".

Calvin seems to have assumed that in both the Old and New Testament worship of God was totally devoid of images: "What punishments do the prophets, apostles, martyrs, deserve, in whose days no images existed?" (Institutes 1.11.16). However either Calvin is overstating his case or he ignores biblical references to art forms in the Old Testament tabernacles: the sculpted cherubim over the ark of the tabernacle, the faces of the cherubim woven into the tabernacle curtains, and the twelve bulls that held up the Sea of cast metal (see Exodus 26, I Kings 6 & 7). There is also the carved images of cherubim and palm trees in the New Temple (Ezekiel 41:15 ff.).

Archaeological evidence shows that as late as the 3rd Century, Jewish synagogues appear to have used images in their interiors, as demonstrated by the findings from the synagogue at Dura Europos in modern Syria (circa 240-250 A.D.).

Calvin's failure to treat the use of images in synagoge worship, in contrast to the appearance of images in the Old or New Testament may be attributed to lack of archaeological scholarship in his day. However, it does clearly illustrate that the use of images in the Old Testament is representative of the actual temple

19

and synagogue practice of Judaism. What is astonishing is that Calvin seems not to have dealt with these passages in his Institutes. [3]

In Institutes 1.11.3 Calvin takes note of the fact that God did manifest himself in the Old Testament through visual forms but that these do not justify attempts to depict God. For Calvin even the depictions of cherubim in the Old Testament Tabernacle cannot justify the use of images. Hence it is perfectly clear that those who try to defend images of God and the saints with the example of those cherubim are raving madmen. What, indeed, I beg you, did those paltry little images mean? Solely that images are not suited to represent God's mysteries (Institutes 1.11.3). For Calvin the nature and purpose of the Tabernacle was not to manifest the divine presence as to point to its hiddenness. He writes, The mercy seat from which God manifested the presence of his power under the law was so constructed as to suggest that the best way to contemplate the divine is where minds are lifted above themselves with admiration. Indeed, the cherubim with wings outspread covered it; the veil shrouded it; the place itself deeply enough hidden concealed it [Exodus 25:17-21] (Institutes 1.11.3). Did Calvin overemphasize the concealing aspects of the Tabernacle? It is probably more accurate to say that the Tabernacle both revealed and concealed the divine Presence. The divine Presence, the shekinah glory, was situated deep within the Holy of Holies. This was the place where only the High Priest could enter and only once a year, and points to the Tabernacle's concealing function. However there is also the Tabernacle's revealing function. Visual depictions of the cherubim were far more profuse than Calvin lets on. Images of the cherubim were visible on the inner-curtain of the Holy Place and on the curtains that made up the Tabernacle structure (Exodus 26). A more fair reading of the biblical text will lead us to conclude that the visual arts were an integral part of Old Testament worship.

Calvin's hostility to the use of images stemmed from his desire for the glory of God -- soli deo gloria. Anything that detracted from God's glory or obscured it was to be vigorously opposed. His hostility was also based upon his belief that it is it is impossible to visually depict God who is invisible and transcendent. We believe it wrong that God should be represented by a visible appearance, because he himself has forbidden it [Exodus 20:4] and it cannot be done without some defacing of his glory (Institutes 1.11.12). Calvin had no objection to sculpture and paintings in themselves. He recognized them to be gifts from God and legitimate in their own proper spheres (Institutes 1.11.12). But he strongly objected to their use in the realm of religious worship and teaching. Calvin argues that visual representation were allowable with respect to creation but not with respect to God. 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 (Institutes 1.11.12). This argument is similar to the position taken by Eastern Orthodoxy. The Orthodox position is that God the Father cannot be represented in the icons. The Orthodox position also holds that because God the Son took on human flesh in his Incarnation, it was possible to depict the Son in the icons. St. John of Damascus anticipated the main thrust of Calvin's argument against icons when he argued that the Old Testament injunction against images was given in order to prevent the Israelites from attempting to represent the invisible God. He noted however that the situation changed with the incarnation of Divine Word. It is clearly a prohibition against representing the invisible God. But when you see Him who has no body become man for you, then you will make representations of His human aspect. When the Invisible, having clothed Himself in the flesh, become visible, then represent the likeness of Him who has appeared. When He who, having been the consubstantial Image of the Father, emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant, thus becoming bound in quantity and quality, having taken on the carnal image, then paint and make visible to everyone Him who desired to become visible (in Ouspensky 1978:44).

20

Calvin's failure to deal with St. John of Damascus probably constitutes the greatest weakness in his polemic against the icons. It is a serious oversight because St. John of Damascus provided the classic biblical and theological defense for the veneration of icons.

Perhaps the saddest thing about it is that St. John's theological apologetic for the use of icons reflects centuries of church history, back to early Christian faith and practice-this is not a Medieval theological concoction. This can clearly be seen in the archeological reconstruction of the early Christian church at Dura Europos (circa 240-250 A.D.), which is the earliest Christian church yet to be found.

Of note is that this church was built and in use a full seventy five years before Constantine's Edict of Toleration, thus representing typical practice while the early Church was still under the duress of persecution-thus representing typical practice. This makes Calvin's polemic against the icons one of the greatest missed opportunities in church history. This omission means that there was no real engagement between the Reformed and Eastern Orthodox theological traditions in the sixteenth century. The two traditions are like two ships passing each other in the middle of the night.

BACK TO TOP

The Philological Argument As a Renaissance humanist scholar one of the tools that Calvin employed was the discipline of philology or historical linguistics (Bouwsma 1988:12). Calvin's critique of the semantic distinction between dulia "veneration" and latreia "worship" in Institutes 1.11.11, 1.12.2 and 1.12.3 would seem to be one of his strongest attacks against the veneration of icons. The defenders of icons argued that they were attributing to icons "veneration", not "adoration". In response to this, Calvin resorts to a number of proof texts to demolish this claim.

However Calvin's philological argument misses the point. The dulia/latreia distinction was unique to medieval Catholicism. John Cochlaeus, a contemporary of Calvin, used this distinction in response to Calvin's Inventory of Relics (see Calvin 1960:111 n. 21). This distinction was not used at Nicea II (see Cavarnos 1973:9-10). This tells us that Calvin was not familiar with the official Orthodox position on icons. More importantly, it means that Calvin's polemic against icons never effectively refuted the Orthodox position on icons.

The closest Calvin comes to rebutting the terminology of Nicea II is in his study of the word proskuneo. Calvin marshals a whole list of prooftexts where honor improperly given is strongly discouraged: Satan's

21

temptation of Jesus (Matthew 4:10), John's prostration to the angel in Revelation (Revelation 19:10 & 22:8-9), Cornelius' falling before Peter's feet (Acts 10:25). The word used in these three passages is proskuneo which can have the abstract meaning 'to worship' or the more concrete meaning of the act of prostrating one's self before someone and kissing their feet (see Arndt and Gingrich). It was the custom among the Persians to prostrate one's self before the king and kiss his feet. Because the Persians saw the king as an incarnate deity, this political act was charged with sacred meaning. Nicea II used the word proskuneo for the veneration of icons but at the same time qualifies it by attaching timetike (to honor) to it. This is the word used in "Honor your father and mother". However it appears that Nicea II did a more than adequate job in defining and circumscribing the terminology for the veneration of icons and so anticipated much of Calvin's philological arguments.

BACK TO TOP

The Historical Argument Calvin's historical argument is seriously flawed. In Institutes 1.11.13 he is under the impression that for the first 500 years the Christian churches were devoid of images and that it was only with the decline of doctrinal purity that images began to appear in the churches. 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 (Institutes 1.11.13). An example of the weakness of Calvin's understanding of early and historic Christianity is that Calvin seems to be unaware of (or he ignores) Eusebius' Church History in which mention is made of colored portraits that were made of Christ and his apostles (7:18). The fact that Eusebius lived c. 265 to c. 339 and that the final version of his Church History appeared in A.D. 325 deals a devastating blow to Calvin's historical argument. Furthermore it undermines his theory of church history. The presence of icons in the early church implies either that icons were an integral part of the early Christian tradition or that Christianity had suffered corruption from its early days. To assume the latter position is extremely problematic. It calls into question Christ's promises to be with the Church always, to guide it by the Holy Spirit, and to establish it in truth.

BACK TO TOP

Did Calvin Understand Eastern Orthodoxy? The numerous omissions and oversights in Calvin's polemic against the icons reflect not so much weaknesses in Calvin's scholarship but constraints imposed upon him by historical circumstances. One factor to consider is that Calvin probably never saw an icon in his life. Also Geneva had been devoid of images for a number of years when Calvin arrived in 1535.

Calvin did know of the Orthodox veneration of icons and it appears that Calvin was aware of the different ways Western Roman and Eastern Orthodox Christians venerated the icons. However there is no evidence of Calvin ever having had direct contact with Orthodox Christians. Thus, Calvin's disparaging remark about the "Greek Christians" in Institutes 1.11.4 can be seen as the result of uninformed stereotyping. [4]

Similar constraints probably applied to Calvin's understanding of Nicea II. Calvin knew of the decision of Nicea II in 787 to affirm the use of icons (Institutes 1.11.14). To refute the pro-iconist stance of Nicea II Calvin drew upon the anti-iconist Libri Carolini. But what must be kept in mind is that all this was quite new to Calvin. Kretschmar points out that the decisions of Nicea II was published in 1540 and the Libri Carolini became available in 1549 (1990:79).

This leads Kretschmar to conclude that Calvin's opposition to icons was not based upon direct encounters with icons nor was it founded upon familiarity with Orthodox theology. The way Calvin actually deals with the 8th-century Councils of the iconoclast controversy shows he did not really get to grips with the questions at issue in the Byzantine theology of that age. For that matter he

22

probably never saw an icon in his life (1990:80). Some of Calvin's polemic is understandable in the context of the Reformation and as a reaction to the excessive ornamentation of medieval European Catholic churches. St. Bernard of Clairvaux was troubled by this excessive ornamentation that resulted in the Church "resplendent in her walls and beggarly in her poor" (Coulton 1928:573). The extravagance of religious art was compounded by the absence of a regulating principle. Unlike the Eastern artistic tradition which had an art-manual, in the West there was no centralization of its artistic tradition (Coulton 1928:243-244). This resulted in Western European religious art being much more free in their depiction of God. Michaelangelo's depiction of God the Father with the long flowing beard in The Creation of Adam in the famous Sistine Chapel frescoes would not be allowed in the Orthodox tradition. During 1300s the Trinity was often depicted in the form of a man with three mouths, three noses, and four eyes or in the form of a head with three faces (see Coulton 1928:378). The excesses were such that the Roman Catholic Church was forced to curb these excesses during the Counter-Reformation.

BACK TO TOP

Conclusion: Was Calvin Wrong? In conclusion, Calvin's polemic against the icons is unconvincing because of four significant flaws: (1) Calvin's philological argument (dulia vs. latreia) has no bearing on the terminology of Nicea II, (2) Calvin's historical argument is plain wrong, (3) Calvin's theological argument failed to take into account the theological implication of the Incarnation as spelled out by John of Damascus, and (4) Calvin's biblical proof text overlooked some important passages.

Because Calvin never dealt directly with the historic Christian nor the Eastern Orthodox position on icons, he never effectively refuted the Orthodox position nor addressed the historic Early Christian teaching and practice. His polemic may be valid in the context of the Reformation and when viewed against the abuses and excesses that the Reformation set out to right. However it should be noted that medieval Catholicism by Calvin's time had diverged significantly from Eastern Orthodoxy and Nicea II. For this reason it can be claimed that Calvin's polemic against the icons is incomplete and possibly invalid.

Calvin's polemic against the icons flows from the deep structure of his theology. Calvin's theological system rests on two major premises: (1) that God is utterly transcendent and unknowable, and (2) God's transcendence is bridged by means of divine revelation, particularly the Bible as the Word of God. The preeminence given to the written Word of God in Calvin's theological system builds upon Martin Luther's discovery of the radical power of the Gospel to transform the sinner. In the Reformed tradition the preaching of the Word of God takes priority to the exclusion of everything else: the sacraments, the icons, the saints.

Calvin's emphasis on the written Word of God as the basis for sure knowledge of God leads him to exclude images as means for teaching people about God.

A similar claim can be made for the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the icons. The Orthodox Church's veneration of icons flows from the logic of patristic theology. The Orthodox theological system rests on two premises: (1) that God is utterly transcendent and unknowable, and (2) that God's transcendence has been bridged through the Incarnation. For Orthodox Christians the Incarnation forms the basis for the icons. Christianity is the revelation not only of the Word of God, but also of the Image of God, in which His likeness is revealed (Leonid Ouspensky in Forest 1997:57). The Incarnation was crucial to the theology of the early Church. The significance of the Incarnation was such that one cannot understand the Christology of the early Church apart from it. In the same way one cannot understand the decisions of the ecumenical councils [5] apart from the Incarnation. The interplay between these two factors helped determine the outcome of Nicea II. Alain Blancy notes, The Council's theology was a theology of the Incarnation and it depended directly on the Christology of Chalcedon which had been defined four centuries previously. The canons of Nicea make it clear, in

23

particular, that representation of the figure of Christ was not merely legitimate but requisite, because of and on the basis of the Incarnation (1990:40). The issue then becomes not just a matter of images but of Christology. If the hypostatic union is indeed (as taught in the Chalcedonian Definition) a personal unity of the divine and human natures of Christ then the icons of Christ and the veneration directed towards them complement each other. Blancy writes: "True God and true man without separation and without confusion: the Christology of Chalcedon fits the case of the icon perfectly and is expressed in it" (Blancy 1990:40). For Protestants who accept the first four Councils this presents something of a challenge. [6] Nicea II (the seventh council) becomes a logical extension of the theology of Chalcedon (the fourth council). The Protestant who accepts the Council of Chalcedon must then wonder if accepting Chalcedon leads logically to accepting Nicea II.

From the standpoint of historical theology, the Reformed understanding of the Incarnation represents a paradigm shift in theology. [7] Although Calvin did not deal directly with the concept of the Incarnation as providing a basis for icons, the Second Helvetic Confession did. The Second Helvetic Confession [8] (chapter IV) decisively dismisses any attempt to use the Incarnation to justify icons of Christ: Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. A further reading of this confession shows that this dismissal arises not out a mere prejudice against icons but out of a radically different understanding of the Incarnation. He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever [John 16:7]. The attitude of the Second Helvetic Confession towards the Incarnation stands in sharp contrast to Nicea II: One of the traditions which we thus preserve is that of making representational paintings, which is in accord with the history of the preaching of the Gospel, as confirming the real and not merely imaginary incarnation of God the Word (Logos).... (in Cavarnos 1973:10; emphasis added) The difference here is not minor but profound. Theological differences over the Incarnation inevitably lead to differences in practice. Where Calvinism emphasizes the written Word, Orthodoxy's emphasis is on the Word made flesh. The Calvinist emphasis on the written Word results in the centrality of the pulpit and the preaching ministry in worship. Orthodoxy with its emphasis on the Word made flesh leads to liturgical worship, liturgical vestments, the use of incense and icons, and most importantly the centrality of the Eucharist in worship. Although Calvin and the early Church Fathers believed in the Incarnation, their understanding of the Incarnation led to divergent theologies and practices.

BACK TO TOP

Can a Calvinist Venerate the Icons? In the end it must be recognized that anyone who actively venerates the icons has to some degree made a decisive break from Calvin and Calvinism. To venerate the icons involves acting on theological principles alien to Calvinism. The veneration of the icons is good example of the principle lex orans, lex credens -- the rule of worship is the rule of faith. This ancient theological principle teaches that the way we worship regulates the way we do theology. Conversely, the way we do theology affects the way we worship. This ancient theological principle was a common understanding in the early Church, is also good sociology, and applies to Calvinism.

As has been shown in this treatment, Calvin's opposition to the icons arises from the underlying logic of Calvin's theology. Calvin's primary motive for his anti-iconist stance lies his in concern for the recovery of a true knowledge of God which leads to pure worship in the Church as well as the reform of the Church. For this reason the Protestant Reformation was concerned not just with the reformation of theology but also with the reformation of worship. Thus, the plain interiors of Protestant churches are not tangential but integral to Protestantism and its theology. The bare interiors are an embodiment of Protestantism's theology, especially its emphasis on the primacy of Scripture. Therefore, iconoclasm cannot be easily detached from Calvin's theology.

24

This leaves Evangelicals interested in historic Christianity in general, and Eastern Orthodoxy in particular, in a quandary; or to put it more positively at a crossroads. They can either follow the more recent paradigm of Protestantism or they can follow the paradigm of historic Christianity.

BACK TO TOP

The Challenge of the Icons Although icons may seem to be a quaint curiosity to many Evangelicals, the icons in fact pose a profound theological challenge to Evangelical Christians. Icons stand as a significant challenge to Evangelicalism because it calls into question its Protestant presuppositions. One consequence of this realization is that Calvin's failure to effectively deal with Nicea II and the historic Christian teaching on icons means that the burden is on the Calvinists of the twentieth century. It is the responsibility of Calvin's descendants to pick up where Calvin has left off.

We are now living at a historic moment when genuine dialogue can take place between the Christians of the Reformed tradition and Christians from the Eastern Orthodox tradition--a tradition that retains the historic understanding and use of icons continues down to this day. There is an unprecedented openness among Protestants to Orthodoxy. Kretschmar notes that until recently it was only the specialists who were aware of the Orthodox theology of icons (1990:84), but there has begun some attempts by Protestants to take icons seriously. Some believe that icons are compatible with Calvinism, e.g., Alain Blancy's chapter which has the subtitle "Towards a Reformed Theology of the Icon". There will be Calvinists and other Protestants of the Reformed tradition who will continue to insist that the Orthodox position on icons is wrong. Hopefully though, Evangelicals and Christians of the Reformed tradition will not cavalierly dismiss the icons but take up the challenge to meet and dialogue with Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Robert Arakaki

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Fourth revised and augmented edition, 1952. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1952.

Blancy, Alain. "Protestantism and the Seventh Ecumenical Council: Towards a Reformed Theology of the Icon." In Icons: Windows On Eternity, pp. 35-45. Compiled by Gennadios Limouris. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990.

Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ford Lewis Battles, translator. The Library of Christian Classics. Volume XX. John T. McNeill, editor. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960.

Cavarnos, Constantine. The Icon: Its Spiritual Basis and Purpose. Authoritative Christian texts, translated from the original Greek and edited with notes by Constantine Cavarnos. First published 1955. Belmont, Massachusetts: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1973.

Coulton, G.G. Art and the Reformation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928.

Demus, Otto. Byzantine Art and the West. The Wrightsman Lectures III. New York: New York University Press, 1970.

Eusebius. The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. G.A. Williamson, translator. New York: Penguin Books, 1965.

Forest, Jim. Praying With Icons. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1997

25

Gillquist, Peter E., ed. Coming Home: Why Protestant Clergy Are Becoming Orthodox. Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 1992.

Kennedy, Jon. "Orthodoxy on the Rise" in Again Magazine, pp. 24-27. (August 1997) Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 1997.

Kretschmar, Georg. "The Reformation and the Theology of Images." In Icons: Windows On Eternity, pp. 76-85. Compiled by Gennadios Limouris. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition, Enlarged 1970. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Volume 2, Number 2. Otto Neurath, Editor-in-Chief. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Leith, John H., ed. Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present. Third edition, 1982. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1963.

Ouspensky, Leonid. Theology of the Icon. Vol. I. Trans. Anthony Gythiel. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1978.

Schonborn, Christoph. "Theological Presuppositions of the Image Controversy." In Icons: Windows On Eternity, pp. 86-92. Compiled by Gennadios Limouris. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990.

Ugolnik, Anthony. The Illuminating Icon. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.

Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. Reprinted 1973. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1963.

BACK TO TOP

[1] There are notable exceptions within Protestantism, e.g., Lutheranism and Anglicanism.

[2] The word "Institutes" comes from the Latin institutio which can signify: (1) instruction, (2) a summary, (3) a manual, or all three (Bouwsma 1988:17).

[3] This can be verified using the Scripture index provided in the back of Vol. II of the Battles' edition.

[4] Calvin writes, "But we must note that a "likeness" no less than a "graven image" is forbidden. Thus is the foolish scruple of the Greek Christians refuted. For they consider that they have acquitted themselves beautifully if they do not make sculptures of God, while they wantonly indulge in pictures more than any other nation" (1.11.4).

[5] The seven Ecumenical Councils were crucial to the theological development of the early Church. It was at these gatherings that the Church set forth the theological benchmarks of the Christian faith: Nicea I (A.D. 325) which affirmed the full divinity of Christ; the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) which affirmed the two natures of Christ; and Nicea II (A.D. 787) which affirmed the icons.

[6] Prof. Garth Rosell, Professor of Church History at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, noted that Protestants accept the first four Ecumenical Councils, whereas Orthodox and Roman Catholics accept all seven Ecumenical Councils. Although much of Evangelicalism pay little or no attention to the early Ecumenical Councils, Evangelicals who belong to mainline denominations or who take theology seriously accept to some degree the decisions of the early councils, e.g., the divinity of Christ, the dual nature of Christ as truly divine and truly human.

[7] The phrase "paradigm shift" is taken from Thomas Kuhn's classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[8] The Second Helvetic Confession has been described as "the most universal of Reformed creeds" (see Leith's Creeds of the Churches p. 131).