The Iconoclastic Controversy
By: Shanna S.
Setting the scene:
In the years that span Iconoclasm from 730-842 CE, the Byzantine Empire was struggling to stay afloat as Muslim forces weighed in from all sides. At the time of Iconoclasm it appeared as if Byzantium was in a slow and steady decline. At the time of the controversy, the Byzantine Empire was known as the empire of the “baptized people” (Brown, 386). Thus, they held stringently to the belief that only their teachings and customs were empirically orthodox, and all other theological practices and ideologies of the time were really a step away from the ecclesiastical teachings and customs handed down from their patron Fathers (Brown, 387). It was in such a fervent religious context that the heated controversy concerning the veneration of Saints was sparked. Iconoclasm- the destruction of religious images ( images of the Holy Saints, Mary, and Jesus) is a central historical component during this quintessential time in the middle ages. The icons, or images, that have historically been used in worship since the beginning of the Christian tradition have now become a monumental issue for Byzantium.
The controversy concerning the Veneration of the Saints was so paramount because of what was at stake for the people of Byzantium. Muslim invasions had set up a pretense for uncertainty and a potential for devastating warfare in the Empire (Brown 387). The icons- images and portraits of the holy Saints, Jesus, and Mary- were revered by Christians because it was believed that by worshiping and praying to these images it forged for them a kind of protection and enacted an invisible presence of the saints to those on earth. By venerating these icons, the Eastern Orthodox Christians had mediators in heaven on their side; a special force of comfort on earth that allowed them to face the turmoil and drastic challenges of day to day life in a declining empire.
Although, for centuries, icons had been a part of the Byzantine Empire’s orthodox tradition, the images were now being placed in the foreground of churches, shops, and even in some homes (Brown, 388). People were bowing down to, kissing, burning incense for, and indeed worshiping these icons. These acts present a slight problem- as it models pagan worship and goes against Orthodox teachings. The population in the empire was divided on the subject. Specifically, some thought it was mimicking idolatry and by doing so, would allow God to turn away from his people- and allow the Muslims to invade. Jews in this time were abhorred at such practices and reminded Christians of Moses’ Ten Commandments. Muslims also jumped on board, and criticized Christians for giving “life” to such inanimate objects (Brown 390). In some areas of the Byzantine Empire, like in Anatolia, it had only been a century since pagans worshiped idols. The idea that the veneration of saints, could easily be tied to such regressive ideologies, was a heavy burden to bare for a stressed empire (Brown, 390).
The Iconoclast Emperors, Leo III and Constantine V, believed the iconophiles (lovers of images) were committing impious acts by venerating the saints (Brown 391). By destroying the images and purging the Byzantine Empire of icons, the iconoclast emperors and many supportive Christians reasoned they were saving the Empire. They believed God was looking down and having favor on them. The Iconoclast emperors permitted only pictures of the cross to be spared- this, they thought, was bringing orthodoxy back to its starting point. The first phase of the iconoclast controversy took place in a heightened state of panic- Emperor Leo III had believed Byzantium might be abandoned “because by worshipping images, they had lapsed into idolatry” (Brown, 392). Leo III followed by his son Constantine V permitted the destruction of images. After the reign of Constantine V, In 787, Empress Irene came on the scene and called together a council- the 2nd council of Nicaea to overturn the destruction of images. Although victorious, such triumph did not last. 815 CE marks the second period of Iconoclasm, which lasted for roughly twenty-five years.
For almost a century, a prosperous rule in the Byzantine Empire had been paired with the substantial decline of images (Brown, 394). And by the year 840 the Byzantine Empire, almost destroyed by militant forces, had become a mighty nation again. This newly indulged self-confidence brought with it a new perspective on iconoclasm. A desire for Greek culture and history was ramped up through the empire (Brown 394). With this came a newly defined way of incorporating religious icons into the practices of orthodoxy.
John of Damascus, and his Defense of Holy Images
John of Damascus, known as the last great “father of the church” gave a defense for the holy images; that is, the veneration of the Saints (Brown, 397). Although written a century before it became popular, his defense presented a new and novel way of looking at art in the context of orthodoxy. John was a Christian Arab who, growing up in a religiously pious family, was a public servant before leaving home to seek asceticism in a monastery (Brown, 397). He identified as an Orthodox Chalcedonian Christian. He spoke and wrote in Greek.
I do not venerate matter, I venerate the fashioner of matter, who became matter for my sake, and in matter made his abode, and through matter worked my salvation (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 70)
John makes a strong argument in defense of the Veneration of Saints claiming that everything that gives meaning to or yields symbolism for humans is made of matter- in fact, he says, “we” are matter. John probes, “Is not the ink and parchment of the Gospels matter? (Second Treatise on Divine Images 71). He gives the maxim that if we are not going to venerate the saints (icons) and submit to the tradition of the church, then we should do away with the veneration of all other symbols of our salvation- the Gospels, the cross, and all that symbolizes a new “way of life” for Christians. In fact, he says those who use the argument of the old testament (and the examples of pagan worship) to deny the veneration of the saints, might as well keep the old law of the Jews, and live under such law because God’s grace and the new law have no place in them (Second Treatise on Divine Images 71). Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it so that people would not have to be under it anymore- yet these Christians are using old ways of thinking as regards the law to live out their faith. Not something productive to Christian Orthodoxy. John uses an analogy to compare the teachings and traditions of the orthodox faith to a house. He says, “For if we begin remove even a tiny piece of the church, in a short time the whole edifice will be destroyed (Second Treatise on Divine Images 69).” In defense of the images against the argument of idolatry John argues, “How can what cannot be seen be depicted?” (Second Treatise on Divine Images 64). John makes the proclamation that all matter is good- because it is made by God and God is good. It is thus people, in their iniquity, who make matter bad- either by confessing that matter is not from God (which esteems God to be a liar) or else confesses that God himself is evil (Second Treatise on Divine Images 70).
John acknowledges his opposition’s argument: The Veneration of the saints as considered “idolatry.”
John addresses the argument of idolatry from those Christians who are against the veneration of the saints. He, too, uses scripture from the book of Moses and from the prophet David to show his understanding and recognition for the counter argument. John argues that the Israelites in the Old Testament venerated the creation not the creator and thus were given over to idolatry (Second Treatise on Divine Images 64). John argues that God’s strictness of the Israelites was due to their worshiping what was created instead of the creator himself (Second Treatise on Divine Images 65) it wasn't the images per see, that were corrupt, but the Israelites’ hearts. It was because of the idolatry in their hearts that God banned the making/painting of images. In John’s rebuttal he asks Christians to use discretion when searching the scriptures and to be conscientious of God’s prescription for both the people of the old and New Testament. He says just as Doctors do not give the same remedy to treat the same sickness in all patients, but considers specific variables and prescribes accordingly to each patient a treatment specific to his disorder- given age, season, place and time, so it is that God has spoken to his people when they were infantile in their sickness and dead in their sins (speaking of the Israelites and the commandment given to Moses) (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 63). He says in the days of the Old Testament, prophets could not be venerated because of their defiled human nature. Their bodies were considered unclean. But since the divine has now joined with humanity, John argues our very nature has been transformed and glorified so we are no longer slaves to that diseased nature (Second Treatise on Divine Images 67). Here, John is arguing that the old customs, and ways of thinking, cannot simply apply to the new way of life. They are incompatible. Thus to make old arguments applicable to current reality presents a theological dilemma and a moot point (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 68). In fact, John turns this argument on its back when he says that anyone who refuses to acknowledge the veneration of the saints, as has been customary through the apostolic “orthodox” teachings, does more than simply deny their honor, glory and existence, this person commits folly, becomes an enemy of Christ and is led astray by the devil (Second Treatise on Divine Images 68). John says the desire to have the worship of images forbidden, itself, stems from the devil (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 61). John says it is necessary to search out the truth and purpose in recourse for these images. He says if the one who makes it, does so from a pure heart, it can “inspire virtue and lead to salvation” (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 67).
John also denotes a necessary separation of church and state; a division of ecclesiastical and political authority. He gives us this scripture which Jesus having quoted in the gospels said, “render to Caesar therefore the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Second Treatise on Divine Images 69). He questions why it is that emperors should possess so much epistemic authority in these ecclesiastical matters- such decisions as whether or not to venerate a saint. He says is not their place to decide. He privileges the unwritten tradition handed down from the time of the apostles and questions why it is so that the veneration of images, that up until this time has been accepted, is now condemned. In a note of sarcasm he says, “Since many things have been handed down in unwritten form in the Church and preserved up to now, why do you split hairs over the images? Manichees composed the Gospel according to Thomas, are you going to write the gospel according to Leo?” (Second Treatise on Divine Images 72). John then questions the authority of the emperor by asking by what notion the emperor has received such authority to “bind and loose”- which is the Jewish term used historically to describe the process of interpreting, transcribing and reconfiguring scripture so that it coexists harmoniously in a transcendental way, as time is both linear and progressive in nature. John argues that the Orthodox faith should be one reveled on patristic traditions- both written and unwritten not necessarily on imperial cannons (pg. Second Treatise on Divine Images 72).
John’s argument: A Bridge to humanity-- the link between the invisible God and mankind
John’s greatest argument for the Veneration of icons links “humanity to an invisible God” (Brown, 399). He argued God was above all humans could ever fathom, but God drew humanity toward him through a propagation of visible symbols (Brown, 399). Following this logic, images were not merely a product of human invention but were a way for God to connect with humanity; essential even in his reciprocity to humanity (Brown, 399). These images served as mediators to God the Divine (Brown, 400).
John uses arguments from the Apostle Paul and Gregory of Nyssa to make his point: Divine images act as a mirror reflecting God onto humanity. With this, he argues that there is nothing sinful or evil in the honoring of these divine images. In fact, John argues that such images and representations are crucial to the Christian faith, a cornerstone, if you will. He says they present a means of worshiping and honoring the one true God- while simultaneously allowing Christians to reflect on their own imperfections and their need for salvation. This grants them the ability to understand the greatness of what God has done through salvation. And lends an emphasis to the vastness of God’s infinite love and all he gave up when he became flesh. This understanding ( of God’s greatness; his boundless and unfathomable nature- his: love, grace, mercy, compassion, and his sacrifice for mankind) is permeated and reflected through the use of these holy images. To see these images is to see God. It is to acknowledge God’s holy sacrifice and the love he has for his people. John makes the argument that it is God who first made images- and showed “us” images- and made humanity in the likeness of his image (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 75). These images serve a two-fold purpose. They are as much a utensil of worship used to understand and appreciate God’s glory, and greatness while acknowledging the inadequacy of humanity and its need for God, as they are a symbol of God’s great mercy, grace, and power and a link to the divine (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 62).
The take home message
John utilizes many verses in scripture, along with his theological knowledge on doctrine, coupled with his use of logic, reason, and a passion for the Eastern Orthodox faith to make his point serious, that the veneration of holy images is not only acceptable for Christians, but is indeed necessary for the Christian faith- essential even to God's plan for humanity. What’s at stake for these Christians is far greater than anyone realizes if they allow the destruction of images to occur. He argues with vigor the point that if anyone opposes the use of these images, they go against the orthodoxy of the church, oppose the Christian faith, it's tradition, and ultimately deny God.
References
1. Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200-1000. 2nd . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. 384-406. Print.
2. John of Damascus: Three Treatises on the Divine Images. First edition. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir, 2003. Print.
Setting the scene:
In the years that span Iconoclasm from 730-842 CE, the Byzantine Empire was struggling to stay afloat as Muslim forces weighed in from all sides. At the time of Iconoclasm it appeared as if Byzantium was in a slow and steady decline. At the time of the controversy, the Byzantine Empire was known as the empire of the “baptized people” (Brown, 386). Thus, they held stringently to the belief that only their teachings and customs were empirically orthodox, and all other theological practices and ideologies of the time were really a step away from the ecclesiastical teachings and customs handed down from their patron Fathers (Brown, 387). It was in such a fervent religious context that the heated controversy concerning the veneration of Saints was sparked. Iconoclasm- the destruction of religious images ( images of the Holy Saints, Mary, and Jesus) is a central historical component during this quintessential time in the middle ages. The icons, or images, that have historically been used in worship since the beginning of the Christian tradition have now become a monumental issue for Byzantium.
The controversy concerning the Veneration of the Saints was so paramount because of what was at stake for the people of Byzantium. Muslim invasions had set up a pretense for uncertainty and a potential for devastating warfare in the Empire (Brown 387). The icons- images and portraits of the holy Saints, Jesus, and Mary- were revered by Christians because it was believed that by worshiping and praying to these images it forged for them a kind of protection and enacted an invisible presence of the saints to those on earth. By venerating these icons, the Eastern Orthodox Christians had mediators in heaven on their side; a special force of comfort on earth that allowed them to face the turmoil and drastic challenges of day to day life in a declining empire.
Although, for centuries, icons had been a part of the Byzantine Empire’s orthodox tradition, the images were now being placed in the foreground of churches, shops, and even in some homes (Brown, 388). People were bowing down to, kissing, burning incense for, and indeed worshiping these icons. These acts present a slight problem- as it models pagan worship and goes against Orthodox teachings. The population in the empire was divided on the subject. Specifically, some thought it was mimicking idolatry and by doing so, would allow God to turn away from his people- and allow the Muslims to invade. Jews in this time were abhorred at such practices and reminded Christians of Moses’ Ten Commandments. Muslims also jumped on board, and criticized Christians for giving “life” to such inanimate objects (Brown 390). In some areas of the Byzantine Empire, like in Anatolia, it had only been a century since pagans worshiped idols. The idea that the veneration of saints, could easily be tied to such regressive ideologies, was a heavy burden to bare for a stressed empire (Brown, 390).
The Iconoclast Emperors, Leo III and Constantine V, believed the iconophiles (lovers of images) were committing impious acts by venerating the saints (Brown 391). By destroying the images and purging the Byzantine Empire of icons, the iconoclast emperors and many supportive Christians reasoned they were saving the Empire. They believed God was looking down and having favor on them. The Iconoclast emperors permitted only pictures of the cross to be spared- this, they thought, was bringing orthodoxy back to its starting point. The first phase of the iconoclast controversy took place in a heightened state of panic- Emperor Leo III had believed Byzantium might be abandoned “because by worshipping images, they had lapsed into idolatry” (Brown, 392). Leo III followed by his son Constantine V permitted the destruction of images. After the reign of Constantine V, In 787, Empress Irene came on the scene and called together a council- the 2nd council of Nicaea to overturn the destruction of images. Although victorious, such triumph did not last. 815 CE marks the second period of Iconoclasm, which lasted for roughly twenty-five years.
For almost a century, a prosperous rule in the Byzantine Empire had been paired with the substantial decline of images (Brown, 394). And by the year 840 the Byzantine Empire, almost destroyed by militant forces, had become a mighty nation again. This newly indulged self-confidence brought with it a new perspective on iconoclasm. A desire for Greek culture and history was ramped up through the empire (Brown 394). With this came a newly defined way of incorporating religious icons into the practices of orthodoxy.
John of Damascus, and his Defense of Holy Images
John of Damascus, known as the last great “father of the church” gave a defense for the holy images; that is, the veneration of the Saints (Brown, 397). Although written a century before it became popular, his defense presented a new and novel way of looking at art in the context of orthodoxy. John was a Christian Arab who, growing up in a religiously pious family, was a public servant before leaving home to seek asceticism in a monastery (Brown, 397). He identified as an Orthodox Chalcedonian Christian. He spoke and wrote in Greek.
I do not venerate matter, I venerate the fashioner of matter, who became matter for my sake, and in matter made his abode, and through matter worked my salvation (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 70)
John makes a strong argument in defense of the Veneration of Saints claiming that everything that gives meaning to or yields symbolism for humans is made of matter- in fact, he says, “we” are matter. John probes, “Is not the ink and parchment of the Gospels matter? (Second Treatise on Divine Images 71). He gives the maxim that if we are not going to venerate the saints (icons) and submit to the tradition of the church, then we should do away with the veneration of all other symbols of our salvation- the Gospels, the cross, and all that symbolizes a new “way of life” for Christians. In fact, he says those who use the argument of the old testament (and the examples of pagan worship) to deny the veneration of the saints, might as well keep the old law of the Jews, and live under such law because God’s grace and the new law have no place in them (Second Treatise on Divine Images 71). Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it so that people would not have to be under it anymore- yet these Christians are using old ways of thinking as regards the law to live out their faith. Not something productive to Christian Orthodoxy. John uses an analogy to compare the teachings and traditions of the orthodox faith to a house. He says, “For if we begin remove even a tiny piece of the church, in a short time the whole edifice will be destroyed (Second Treatise on Divine Images 69).” In defense of the images against the argument of idolatry John argues, “How can what cannot be seen be depicted?” (Second Treatise on Divine Images 64). John makes the proclamation that all matter is good- because it is made by God and God is good. It is thus people, in their iniquity, who make matter bad- either by confessing that matter is not from God (which esteems God to be a liar) or else confesses that God himself is evil (Second Treatise on Divine Images 70).
John acknowledges his opposition’s argument: The Veneration of the saints as considered “idolatry.”
John addresses the argument of idolatry from those Christians who are against the veneration of the saints. He, too, uses scripture from the book of Moses and from the prophet David to show his understanding and recognition for the counter argument. John argues that the Israelites in the Old Testament venerated the creation not the creator and thus were given over to idolatry (Second Treatise on Divine Images 64). John argues that God’s strictness of the Israelites was due to their worshiping what was created instead of the creator himself (Second Treatise on Divine Images 65) it wasn't the images per see, that were corrupt, but the Israelites’ hearts. It was because of the idolatry in their hearts that God banned the making/painting of images. In John’s rebuttal he asks Christians to use discretion when searching the scriptures and to be conscientious of God’s prescription for both the people of the old and New Testament. He says just as Doctors do not give the same remedy to treat the same sickness in all patients, but considers specific variables and prescribes accordingly to each patient a treatment specific to his disorder- given age, season, place and time, so it is that God has spoken to his people when they were infantile in their sickness and dead in their sins (speaking of the Israelites and the commandment given to Moses) (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 63). He says in the days of the Old Testament, prophets could not be venerated because of their defiled human nature. Their bodies were considered unclean. But since the divine has now joined with humanity, John argues our very nature has been transformed and glorified so we are no longer slaves to that diseased nature (Second Treatise on Divine Images 67). Here, John is arguing that the old customs, and ways of thinking, cannot simply apply to the new way of life. They are incompatible. Thus to make old arguments applicable to current reality presents a theological dilemma and a moot point (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 68). In fact, John turns this argument on its back when he says that anyone who refuses to acknowledge the veneration of the saints, as has been customary through the apostolic “orthodox” teachings, does more than simply deny their honor, glory and existence, this person commits folly, becomes an enemy of Christ and is led astray by the devil (Second Treatise on Divine Images 68). John says the desire to have the worship of images forbidden, itself, stems from the devil (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 61). John says it is necessary to search out the truth and purpose in recourse for these images. He says if the one who makes it, does so from a pure heart, it can “inspire virtue and lead to salvation” (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 67).
John also denotes a necessary separation of church and state; a division of ecclesiastical and political authority. He gives us this scripture which Jesus having quoted in the gospels said, “render to Caesar therefore the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Second Treatise on Divine Images 69). He questions why it is that emperors should possess so much epistemic authority in these ecclesiastical matters- such decisions as whether or not to venerate a saint. He says is not their place to decide. He privileges the unwritten tradition handed down from the time of the apostles and questions why it is so that the veneration of images, that up until this time has been accepted, is now condemned. In a note of sarcasm he says, “Since many things have been handed down in unwritten form in the Church and preserved up to now, why do you split hairs over the images? Manichees composed the Gospel according to Thomas, are you going to write the gospel according to Leo?” (Second Treatise on Divine Images 72). John then questions the authority of the emperor by asking by what notion the emperor has received such authority to “bind and loose”- which is the Jewish term used historically to describe the process of interpreting, transcribing and reconfiguring scripture so that it coexists harmoniously in a transcendental way, as time is both linear and progressive in nature. John argues that the Orthodox faith should be one reveled on patristic traditions- both written and unwritten not necessarily on imperial cannons (pg. Second Treatise on Divine Images 72).
John’s argument: A Bridge to humanity-- the link between the invisible God and mankind
John’s greatest argument for the Veneration of icons links “humanity to an invisible God” (Brown, 399). He argued God was above all humans could ever fathom, but God drew humanity toward him through a propagation of visible symbols (Brown, 399). Following this logic, images were not merely a product of human invention but were a way for God to connect with humanity; essential even in his reciprocity to humanity (Brown, 399). These images served as mediators to God the Divine (Brown, 400).
John uses arguments from the Apostle Paul and Gregory of Nyssa to make his point: Divine images act as a mirror reflecting God onto humanity. With this, he argues that there is nothing sinful or evil in the honoring of these divine images. In fact, John argues that such images and representations are crucial to the Christian faith, a cornerstone, if you will. He says they present a means of worshiping and honoring the one true God- while simultaneously allowing Christians to reflect on their own imperfections and their need for salvation. This grants them the ability to understand the greatness of what God has done through salvation. And lends an emphasis to the vastness of God’s infinite love and all he gave up when he became flesh. This understanding ( of God’s greatness; his boundless and unfathomable nature- his: love, grace, mercy, compassion, and his sacrifice for mankind) is permeated and reflected through the use of these holy images. To see these images is to see God. It is to acknowledge God’s holy sacrifice and the love he has for his people. John makes the argument that it is God who first made images- and showed “us” images- and made humanity in the likeness of his image (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 75). These images serve a two-fold purpose. They are as much a utensil of worship used to understand and appreciate God’s glory, and greatness while acknowledging the inadequacy of humanity and its need for God, as they are a symbol of God’s great mercy, grace, and power and a link to the divine (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 62).
The take home message
John utilizes many verses in scripture, along with his theological knowledge on doctrine, coupled with his use of logic, reason, and a passion for the Eastern Orthodox faith to make his point serious, that the veneration of holy images is not only acceptable for Christians, but is indeed necessary for the Christian faith- essential even to God's plan for humanity. What’s at stake for these Christians is far greater than anyone realizes if they allow the destruction of images to occur. He argues with vigor the point that if anyone opposes the use of these images, they go against the orthodoxy of the church, oppose the Christian faith, it's tradition, and ultimately deny God.
References
1. Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200-1000. 2nd . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. 384-406. Print.
2. John of Damascus: Three Treatises on the Divine Images. First edition. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir, 2003. Print.
Defending Images with John of Damascus
By: Bryce H.
Picture a church. Not a small protestant church that resides in an old house but a Catholic church. It is more than just a Catholic church but a grand cathedral in Europe such as Canterbury. On the ceilings, the walls and the windows live beautiful paintings and ornate murals. Many of the images depict Jesus performing a deed or a great saint. The Virgin Mary may be there to look over the congregation or perhaps an angel or two for protection. It is very likely that these famous icons would have never existed had John of Damascus not written his defense of holy images.
In times of uncertainty and tribulation, especially in the Byzantine and Roman world, many will turn to God for salvation. But, what if he doesn’t come? Is he mad? For many of the Christians in the 7th century tribulation was strong and the outcome was uncertain. With the right behavior they might be saved and inversely, they must stop sinning to be saved. The wrongdoing at the time was believed to be the worship of icons or images. It was these beautiful images that were causing people to stumble blindly into the worship of idols that was angering God. Due to this mentality thousands of icon, paintings and murals were defaced or destroyed with many cries of anguish. In the midst of this this iconoclasm, the destruction of images or icons, John of Damascus writes his defense to save a tradition and to save artistic wonders.
Another piece to take note of is the setting that John wrote in. John wrote at the height of the Islamic conquest where Muslim power reigned over most of the Middle East. This is very important because of the religious traditions held by Islam. With Islam being the religion to bring the Abrahamic tradition back to the truth of God. In doing this, there are many different rules that are in place. One Islamic tradition that is well known is the aniconic, or against the use of images, tradition. Due to this, Islamic art consists of patterns and calligraphy, anything that isn’t an image of a person (Brown , 390). To have John writing is the midst of this time and culture is quite the accomplishment. The only part that seems to make sense is that Islam tends to be religiously tolerant of Christians and Jews. This autonomy and perhaps the viewing of the Byzantine influence as a non-effect allowed John to write a defense against what Islam believes in.
What is important to look at for those of the faith community who are concerned with icons is at John’s use of scripture to back his defense. If he were to make claims without it his argument would have been seen as invalid. John begins with his description of the devil and his part in the iconoclasm. It is the devil that has always corrupted man and continues to corrupt man by suggesting that images are worshipped like idols (Louth, 60-61). John refers to Romans 1:23 where the devil is seen as tricking men to glorify mortal things instead of the immortal God. This pushes the idea that icons are indeed good; it was the devil that made them be viewed as idols.
John’s next argument faces the idea of it being impossible to create and image of God. He agrees with the iconoclasts that it is impossible to create and image of an invisible God. It would mean creating an image that doesn’t exist and then worshipping the image like a God. However, the crux of this argument is that God became visible. By becoming flesh in the form of Jesus, God made himself able to be imaged in the eyes of man (Louth , 61). Images are made in his likeness and contain the true form of Jesus, not some creation of a mortal mind. Furthermore, John notes that the Bible forbids that an image be made for the purpose of idolatry not just because it is forbidden but because it is impossible to recreate a true God (Louth , 64-65). “You have not seen His likeness,” (Deut. 4:15).
What makes the argument even better is that John addresses the opposing views and their evidences. They reference the scripture that says, “Thou shalt not make to thyself the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath” (Ex. 20:4). Abruptly John counters with the command in John 5:39 to “Search the Scriptures.” He notes that God speaks to the prophets in a number of different ways; one of the implied ways is through icons (Louth , 64-65). He takes note of what Acts 17:29 commands Christians to do in relation to icons. “we must not suppose the divinity to be like gold, silver, or stone, the graving of art, a device of man.” However, John brings up that Moses was commanded to make cherubim of gold (Louth , 65-66). How is this any different form the icons and paintings that exist in John’s time? Or what about the cross and the sepulcher? John brings up that these were all made of matter and yet they are revered and honored. Of all of the revered pieces of matter in this world the greatest was a man (Louth , 70-71). This is the crux of John’s argument. To worship a being made of manner as God. Not a god, but God himself. If Christians are to follow the command that Moses gave then by all means they should reject the notion of worshipping Jesus as God. John mentions later on that he worships God through the objects. He worships the cross because it was through it that he was saved. It is through the object that God is worshipped. To worship the matter itself is purely folly (Louth , 75).
As a whole, John’s defense of icons serves its purpose very well. Perhaps the strongest part of his argument is by confronting the iconoclast view and telling them that they are right. It is John’s understanding of the opposing view that better enables him to explain what the scripture truly means. In the end it all comes down to matter. Either you worship the matter as a god, or you worship the significance of the matter that glorifies God. This is the picture that churches hang on their walls. This is the stained glass window image that is breathtaking. These pictures survive thanks to John of Damascus and all those who dared to follow his defense of icons.
References
Brown, Peter. The rise of Western Christendom: triumph and diversity, A.D. 200-1000. 2. ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, .
Louth, Andrew. Three treatises on the divine images. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, .
By: Bryce H.
Picture a church. Not a small protestant church that resides in an old house but a Catholic church. It is more than just a Catholic church but a grand cathedral in Europe such as Canterbury. On the ceilings, the walls and the windows live beautiful paintings and ornate murals. Many of the images depict Jesus performing a deed or a great saint. The Virgin Mary may be there to look over the congregation or perhaps an angel or two for protection. It is very likely that these famous icons would have never existed had John of Damascus not written his defense of holy images.
In times of uncertainty and tribulation, especially in the Byzantine and Roman world, many will turn to God for salvation. But, what if he doesn’t come? Is he mad? For many of the Christians in the 7th century tribulation was strong and the outcome was uncertain. With the right behavior they might be saved and inversely, they must stop sinning to be saved. The wrongdoing at the time was believed to be the worship of icons or images. It was these beautiful images that were causing people to stumble blindly into the worship of idols that was angering God. Due to this mentality thousands of icon, paintings and murals were defaced or destroyed with many cries of anguish. In the midst of this this iconoclasm, the destruction of images or icons, John of Damascus writes his defense to save a tradition and to save artistic wonders.
Another piece to take note of is the setting that John wrote in. John wrote at the height of the Islamic conquest where Muslim power reigned over most of the Middle East. This is very important because of the religious traditions held by Islam. With Islam being the religion to bring the Abrahamic tradition back to the truth of God. In doing this, there are many different rules that are in place. One Islamic tradition that is well known is the aniconic, or against the use of images, tradition. Due to this, Islamic art consists of patterns and calligraphy, anything that isn’t an image of a person (Brown , 390). To have John writing is the midst of this time and culture is quite the accomplishment. The only part that seems to make sense is that Islam tends to be religiously tolerant of Christians and Jews. This autonomy and perhaps the viewing of the Byzantine influence as a non-effect allowed John to write a defense against what Islam believes in.
What is important to look at for those of the faith community who are concerned with icons is at John’s use of scripture to back his defense. If he were to make claims without it his argument would have been seen as invalid. John begins with his description of the devil and his part in the iconoclasm. It is the devil that has always corrupted man and continues to corrupt man by suggesting that images are worshipped like idols (Louth, 60-61). John refers to Romans 1:23 where the devil is seen as tricking men to glorify mortal things instead of the immortal God. This pushes the idea that icons are indeed good; it was the devil that made them be viewed as idols.
John’s next argument faces the idea of it being impossible to create and image of God. He agrees with the iconoclasts that it is impossible to create and image of an invisible God. It would mean creating an image that doesn’t exist and then worshipping the image like a God. However, the crux of this argument is that God became visible. By becoming flesh in the form of Jesus, God made himself able to be imaged in the eyes of man (Louth , 61). Images are made in his likeness and contain the true form of Jesus, not some creation of a mortal mind. Furthermore, John notes that the Bible forbids that an image be made for the purpose of idolatry not just because it is forbidden but because it is impossible to recreate a true God (Louth , 64-65). “You have not seen His likeness,” (Deut. 4:15).
What makes the argument even better is that John addresses the opposing views and their evidences. They reference the scripture that says, “Thou shalt not make to thyself the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath” (Ex. 20:4). Abruptly John counters with the command in John 5:39 to “Search the Scriptures.” He notes that God speaks to the prophets in a number of different ways; one of the implied ways is through icons (Louth , 64-65). He takes note of what Acts 17:29 commands Christians to do in relation to icons. “we must not suppose the divinity to be like gold, silver, or stone, the graving of art, a device of man.” However, John brings up that Moses was commanded to make cherubim of gold (Louth , 65-66). How is this any different form the icons and paintings that exist in John’s time? Or what about the cross and the sepulcher? John brings up that these were all made of matter and yet they are revered and honored. Of all of the revered pieces of matter in this world the greatest was a man (Louth , 70-71). This is the crux of John’s argument. To worship a being made of manner as God. Not a god, but God himself. If Christians are to follow the command that Moses gave then by all means they should reject the notion of worshipping Jesus as God. John mentions later on that he worships God through the objects. He worships the cross because it was through it that he was saved. It is through the object that God is worshipped. To worship the matter itself is purely folly (Louth , 75).
As a whole, John’s defense of icons serves its purpose very well. Perhaps the strongest part of his argument is by confronting the iconoclast view and telling them that they are right. It is John’s understanding of the opposing view that better enables him to explain what the scripture truly means. In the end it all comes down to matter. Either you worship the matter as a god, or you worship the significance of the matter that glorifies God. This is the picture that churches hang on their walls. This is the stained glass window image that is breathtaking. These pictures survive thanks to John of Damascus and all those who dared to follow his defense of icons.
References
Brown, Peter. The rise of Western Christendom: triumph and diversity, A.D. 200-1000. 2. ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, .
Louth, Andrew. Three treatises on the divine images. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, .
John of Damascus and the Iconoclastic Controversy
By: Connor Thomson
Saint John of Damascus was a Syrian Christian prominent in the Catholic world during the first iconoclastic controversy. John did many things in his life being not only a man of God but also a student of law, philosophy, mathematics, and even music. He served as an administrator under the Muslim caliph of Damascus, making his writings extremely insightful and valuable to understanding the opposing sides of the issue. When iconoclasm began to gain popularity in the 8th century John became an outspoken defender of icons. This is made clear in his work “Second Treatise on Divine Images”.
John begins his plea by stating to his audience that he does not wish to gain any sort of fame from this matter, only the good will of God in sight of mankind and himself. John starts his argument by talking about the devil, specifically his motivations, bringing up numerous times in human history that he has used deception as a means to satisfy his evil ends. He uses the oppression of early Christians, the veneration of false idols (pagan religions), and polytheism as examples where the devil has deceived us as an attempt to keep Christians down. For him this is no different to the current icon controversy. He believes that the notion to destroy icons is another attempt by the devil to divide Christians and promote evil on the planet once more. It doesn’t make sense to him how it could be wrong to venerate icons. He does state however that to make an image of humans and venerate them as Gods would be sacrilegious, but claims that the Church does not do that. He brings up an argument to his position with the scriptural interpretations of the Book of Exodus. God does indeed tell Moses to not to create idols to worship, but John states that even though the word of God is always true, he does not always remain consistent. He uses multiple other prophets from the bible and their differing messages from God as example of this. He believes that while God felt it was necessary to ban the Israelites from creating idols (in fear that they might worship false gods), it is now no longer a threat, and that He has no problems with the veneration of icons. He believes that God’s stance with the Israelites does not apply to icons because people do not worship icons as Gods but merely use them as a means to worship the Lord. John sees nothing wrong with this. John attacks his opponents claiming that they abuse matter calling it worthless. The concept of matter was a big part of iconoclastic debates which the supporters of icons honored. He explains what he means by his respect for matter claiming that matter is to be respected but not venerated; “I do not venerate matter, I venerate the fashioner of matter, who become matter for my sake, and in matter made his abode, and through matter worked my salvation” (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 75).
A major theme throughout the document that John brings up quite often is his belief that no one can create a likeness of God. John claims that, besides Jesus, no human has truly seen him. John believes we could never truly comprehend his form let alone create an icon in his image
John makes a blanket statement that anyone who attempts to destroy an image of Christ, Mary, or a saint and does not honor it is an enemy to Christ and God and all other divine forms. John’s argument also has some political undertones. “It is not for emperors to legislate for the Church”. Here John makes it known that he is not okay with the state intruding on religion. Throughout the work he takes shots at Roman Emperors that didn’t support icons. After this I feel like he takes another shot at authority figures by saying that even God doesn’t see us as slaves but “friends”. The only reason I could see John saying this is in relation to how Kings ruled over people during his time.
This text was published during the midst of the first iconoclastic period, which was started by Emperor Leo III. The debate centered on Christian icons and whether or not they should be part of religion. Those that apposed icons were called iconoclasts which literally means “destroyer of images”. Emperor Leo III ordered the removal of icons from several iconic (no pun intended) locations throughout Constantinople. The controversy caused division not only within the religion, but between the church and state as well. While Leo supported iconoclasm, Pope Gregory III condemned it as heretical and even went as far as to excommunicate some of its supporters. You can obviously John dislikes Leo as he takes several digs at him throughout his text. His work shows us many of the central arguments of the controversy as well as his side’s position on them. I’m sure this text was probably widely circulated after its publication in hopes to promote the support of icons.
I found this document to be quite interesting to read. John was a very persuasive writer and the points he makes are very logical and thought provoking. Part of his main argument however I found to be perplexing, specifically his belief that we cannot make an accurate likeness of God, for no human has ever seen him. I’m somewhat new to the Bible so I had trouble with this idea. Doesn’t it state in Genesis that the Lord walked with Abraham and Noah and what not? Doesn’t that mean that they saw God? This part of the document didn’t really make sense to me. In hindsight we can now see that John’s side of the issue came out on top. Churches are still adorned with stained glass windows and icons are not seen as heretical. While all credit cannot be given to him for this, his influence undoubtedly played a role in the protections of icons and for that he has earned his place in history.
Sources
1. Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200-1000. 2nd . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. 384-406. Print.
2. John of Damascus: Three Treatises on the Divine Images. First edition. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir, 2003. Print.
By: Connor Thomson
Saint John of Damascus was a Syrian Christian prominent in the Catholic world during the first iconoclastic controversy. John did many things in his life being not only a man of God but also a student of law, philosophy, mathematics, and even music. He served as an administrator under the Muslim caliph of Damascus, making his writings extremely insightful and valuable to understanding the opposing sides of the issue. When iconoclasm began to gain popularity in the 8th century John became an outspoken defender of icons. This is made clear in his work “Second Treatise on Divine Images”.
John begins his plea by stating to his audience that he does not wish to gain any sort of fame from this matter, only the good will of God in sight of mankind and himself. John starts his argument by talking about the devil, specifically his motivations, bringing up numerous times in human history that he has used deception as a means to satisfy his evil ends. He uses the oppression of early Christians, the veneration of false idols (pagan religions), and polytheism as examples where the devil has deceived us as an attempt to keep Christians down. For him this is no different to the current icon controversy. He believes that the notion to destroy icons is another attempt by the devil to divide Christians and promote evil on the planet once more. It doesn’t make sense to him how it could be wrong to venerate icons. He does state however that to make an image of humans and venerate them as Gods would be sacrilegious, but claims that the Church does not do that. He brings up an argument to his position with the scriptural interpretations of the Book of Exodus. God does indeed tell Moses to not to create idols to worship, but John states that even though the word of God is always true, he does not always remain consistent. He uses multiple other prophets from the bible and their differing messages from God as example of this. He believes that while God felt it was necessary to ban the Israelites from creating idols (in fear that they might worship false gods), it is now no longer a threat, and that He has no problems with the veneration of icons. He believes that God’s stance with the Israelites does not apply to icons because people do not worship icons as Gods but merely use them as a means to worship the Lord. John sees nothing wrong with this. John attacks his opponents claiming that they abuse matter calling it worthless. The concept of matter was a big part of iconoclastic debates which the supporters of icons honored. He explains what he means by his respect for matter claiming that matter is to be respected but not venerated; “I do not venerate matter, I venerate the fashioner of matter, who become matter for my sake, and in matter made his abode, and through matter worked my salvation” (Second Treatise on Divine Images, 75).
A major theme throughout the document that John brings up quite often is his belief that no one can create a likeness of God. John claims that, besides Jesus, no human has truly seen him. John believes we could never truly comprehend his form let alone create an icon in his image
John makes a blanket statement that anyone who attempts to destroy an image of Christ, Mary, or a saint and does not honor it is an enemy to Christ and God and all other divine forms. John’s argument also has some political undertones. “It is not for emperors to legislate for the Church”. Here John makes it known that he is not okay with the state intruding on religion. Throughout the work he takes shots at Roman Emperors that didn’t support icons. After this I feel like he takes another shot at authority figures by saying that even God doesn’t see us as slaves but “friends”. The only reason I could see John saying this is in relation to how Kings ruled over people during his time.
This text was published during the midst of the first iconoclastic period, which was started by Emperor Leo III. The debate centered on Christian icons and whether or not they should be part of religion. Those that apposed icons were called iconoclasts which literally means “destroyer of images”. Emperor Leo III ordered the removal of icons from several iconic (no pun intended) locations throughout Constantinople. The controversy caused division not only within the religion, but between the church and state as well. While Leo supported iconoclasm, Pope Gregory III condemned it as heretical and even went as far as to excommunicate some of its supporters. You can obviously John dislikes Leo as he takes several digs at him throughout his text. His work shows us many of the central arguments of the controversy as well as his side’s position on them. I’m sure this text was probably widely circulated after its publication in hopes to promote the support of icons.
I found this document to be quite interesting to read. John was a very persuasive writer and the points he makes are very logical and thought provoking. Part of his main argument however I found to be perplexing, specifically his belief that we cannot make an accurate likeness of God, for no human has ever seen him. I’m somewhat new to the Bible so I had trouble with this idea. Doesn’t it state in Genesis that the Lord walked with Abraham and Noah and what not? Doesn’t that mean that they saw God? This part of the document didn’t really make sense to me. In hindsight we can now see that John’s side of the issue came out on top. Churches are still adorned with stained glass windows and icons are not seen as heretical. While all credit cannot be given to him for this, his influence undoubtedly played a role in the protections of icons and for that he has earned his place in history.
Sources
1. Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200-1000. 2nd . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. 384-406. Print.
2. John of Damascus: Three Treatises on the Divine Images. First edition. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir, 2003. Print.