Skip to content
Quod Ubique The Common Confession of the Universal Church

Layer 2 · 14

The Lawfulness of Religious Images (Icons)

The Common Witness

The historic church has consistently witnessed that the making and veneration of religious images — icons, mosaics, frescoes, sculptures, stained glass — is not a violation of the second commandment but a legitimate expression of Christian devotion, grounded ultimately in the Incarnation itself. God who is invisible became visible in Jesus Christ; the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. If God can take a human face, then a human face can depict God-made-man. This is the theological heart of the pro-icon position, articulated definitively at the Second Council of Nicaea (787) — the last ecumenical council received by both East and West.

The consensus is not that images are required, still less that any particular theology of images (the Byzantine distinction between latreia and proskynesis, for example) must be adopted. It is that images are lawful — that their use in worship, instruction, and devotion does not constitute idolatry. This conviction is shared by the vast majority of Christian tradition, with dissent confined primarily to the Reformed and Free Church traditions. The iconoclastic controversy of the eighth and ninth centuries was the single most significant internal debate on this question, and its resolution in favor of images at Nicaea II has been received as authoritative by the majority of Christendom ever since.

Note: the specific theology of images — the Byzantine distinction between veneration and worship, the Western emphasis on didactic function, the degree to which three-dimensional statuary differs from flat icons — belongs to Layer 3. What is affirmed here at Layer 2 is the more basic principle: that sacred images are lawful and not inherently idolatrous.

Scriptural Warrant

  • “And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat… There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you” (Exodus 25:18, 22) — God himself commanded the making of images (the cherubim) in the most sacred worship context imaginable: the mercy seat atop the Ark of the Covenant
  • “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) — Christ is the eikon of the invisible God; the Incarnation is itself the supreme divine image, vindicating the principle that the invisible can be made visible
  • “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory” (John 1:14) — the visibility of God in the flesh is the theological foundation for depicting him in art
  • “Philip said to him, ‘Lord, show us the Father.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Whoever has seen me has seen the Father’” (John 14:8–9) — to see Christ is to see God; this seeing is the ground of all Christian iconography
  • “In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim” (Isaiah 6:1–2) — the prophetic vision of God’s glory includes visible, depictable forms
  • “And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live’” (Numbers 21:8) — a commanded image with salvific function, prefiguring the cross (John 3:14)
  • “For the king had made… two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high… He carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers” (1 Kings 6:23, 29) — Solomon’s Temple, built under divine instruction, was filled with carved images in the most sacred worship space in Israel

The scriptural evidence demonstrates that the second commandment cannot be an absolute prohibition of all images, since God himself commanded images in the contexts of both tabernacle and temple worship. The prohibition targets idols — images worshipped as gods — not representations of the divine glory or depictions of sacred history.

Patristic and Historical Attestation

Basil of Caesarea (c. 329–379)

Basil articulated the principle that became foundational for icon theology: “The honor paid to the image passes to the prototype” (De Spiritu Sancto 18.45 [*]). This maxim was cited at the Second Council of Nicaea and became the theological cornerstone of the Eastern defense of icons. When one venerates an icon of Christ, the honor is directed not to the wood and paint but to the Person depicted.

John of Damascus (c. 676–749)

John’s Three Treatises on the Divine Images constitute the definitive theological defense of icons. He argued from the Incarnation: “In former times God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see” (On the Divine Images 1.16). He distinguished between the absolute worship (latreia) due to God alone and the relative honor (proskynesis) that may be shown to sacred images, the saints, and holy objects. John’s typology of different kinds of images — natural (the Son as image of the Father), commemorative, instructive — provided the intellectual framework adopted by Nicaea II.

Gregory the Great (c. 540–604)

In his Letter to Serenus, Bishop of Marseille (c. 600), Gregory rebuked Serenus for destroying images in his diocese, while also cautioning against their abuse: “It is one thing to adore a picture, another through a picture’s story to learn what is to be adored. For what writing presents to readers, a picture presents to the unlearned who look at it… especially to the nations, a picture serves as reading” (Registrum Epistolarum 11.10). Gregory’s formula — images as “books for the illiterate” — became the standard Western defense and was cited repeatedly at Nicaea II and throughout the medieval period.

Theodore the Studite (759–826)

Theodore, the great monastic defender of icons during the second iconoclastic period, argued that to deny the possibility of depicting Christ is to deny the reality of the Incarnation: “If we may not make an image of Christ, then the Word was not truly made flesh” (Antirrheticus 1.7). Theodore’s christological argument — that iconoclasm is implicitly docetic — was adopted by the council that definitively restored icons in 843.

The Catacomb Paintings (2nd–4th centuries)

The earliest Christian art in the Roman catacombs — depictions of Christ as the Good Shepherd, of Jonah, of the Eucharistic meal, of biblical scenes — demonstrates that the use of images in Christian worship and devotion was not a late development but a practice of the pre-Constantinian church. Archaeological evidence from Dura-Europos (c. 235) includes a house church with elaborate biblical frescoes, predating any official permission or theological defense. This material evidence is significant: Christians were making and using images before any theologian defended the practice, suggesting that it was a natural expression of incarnational faith.

Tradition-Formulary Evidence

Roman Catholic

The Second Council of Nicaea (787), received by Rome, defined that “the venerable and holy images… are to be set up in the holy churches of God… for the more they are continually seen in artistic representation, the more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes.” The Council of Trent (1563), Session XXV, reaffirmed the lawfulness of images and their veneration, while insisting that “no divinity or virtue is believed to be in them.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church §2131–2132 reiterates the Nicene teaching.

Eastern Orthodox

The Second Council of Nicaea is the seventh and last ecumenical council received by Orthodoxy, and the theology of icons is central to Orthodox identity. The Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy (First Sunday of Lent) celebrates the restoration of icons in 843 and is understood as a vindication of the Incarnation itself. The iconostasis — the icon screen separating nave and sanctuary — is a constitutive element of Orthodox church architecture and liturgy.

Lutheran

Luther retained images in churches, explicitly rejecting the iconoclasm of Karlstadt and Zwingli. In Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525), Luther wrote: “I have allowed and not forbidden the outward removal of images, so long as this takes place without rioting and uproar and is done by the proper authorities… But I am not of the opinion that they should be destroyed by force.” Lutheran churches have historically included crucifixes, altarpieces (notably Cranach’s altarpiece at Wittenberg), and devotional images. The Augsburg Confession does not address images directly, and Lutheran practice has been broadly permissive.

Reformed

The Reformed tradition represents the principal dissent. The Heidelberg Catechism Q96–98 teaches that “God cannot and may not be visibly portrayed in any way” and that images should not be tolerated in churches as “books for the laity.” The Westminster Larger Catechism Q109 forbids “the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image.” Calvin’s Institutes 1.11 provides the systematic theological rejection. The Reformed tradition produced the most thoroughgoing iconoclasm of the Reformation period.

Anglican

The Anglican position is mixed but broadly permissive. The Thirty-Nine Articles do not directly address images, though Art. XXII rejects practices that might be associated with image-superstition. The Edwardine injunctions (1547) ordered the removal of images that were objects of pilgrimage or veneration, but the Elizabethan settlement permitted decorative and instructive images. The Homily Against Peril of Idolatry (1563) is strongly cautionary, but it was never enforced as a blanket prohibition. In practice, Anglican churches have ranged from the near-iconoclasm of Puritan influence to the rich imagery of the Anglo-Catholic revival. The majority Anglican practice has been permissive of images — stained glass, crucifixes, reredos paintings — without adopting a formal theology of veneration. Lancelot Andrewes and the Caroline divines retained and defended sacred images as consistent with the Incarnation.

The Dissenting Minority

The dissenting position is held primarily by the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition and Free Church Protestantism, with roots in the radical wing of the Reformation and theological precedent in the iconoclastic controversies of the eighth and ninth centuries.

This is a substantial minority — the Reformed tradition is one of the largest Protestant families — and its arguments deserve serious engagement.

The strongest case against religious images rests on several considerations:

Scriptural: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Exodus 20:4–5). The second commandment is plain, categorical, and unrestricted. “Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure” (Deuteronomy 4:15–16) — God deliberately withheld a visible form at Sinai, and this withholding is normative. The prophets’ polemic against images is relentless (Isaiah 44:9–20; Jeremiah 10:1–16; Habakkuk 2:18–19).

Theological: The distinction between latreia (worship) and proskynesis (veneration) is too subtle for ordinary practice and collapses in reality. The history of image-use in Christianity is inseparable from the history of image-abuse: pilgrims kissing icons for miraculous healing, relics and statues becoming objects of superstitious devotion, the faithful unable in practice to distinguish honor to the prototype from attachment to the object. If the danger is predictable and pervasive, the prudent course is prohibition, not regulation.

Historical: Iconoclasm is not a Reformation invention. The Byzantine iconoclastic emperors (726–843) and their supporting bishops and theologians argued from Scripture and tradition. The Council of Hieria (754), attended by 338 bishops, condemned icons before Nicaea II reversed the judgment. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–403) reportedly tore down a curtain with an image of Christ, writing: “I beg you to have the curtain taken away… for it is contrary to our religion” [*].

The Reformed dissent is theologically serious and has produced some of the most austere and beautiful worship spaces in Christian history — the whitewashed churches of the Dutch Reformed tradition are their own kind of aesthetic statement. Nevertheless, the majority tradition responds that the cherubim on the ark demonstrate that the second commandment forbids idols (images worshipped as gods), not all sacred images; that the Incarnation fundamentally changed the theological situation — the uncircumscribable God has circumscribed himself in human flesh; that the distinction between worship and veneration, while subtle, is real and practiced daily in ordinary life (one honors a photograph of a loved one without worshipping it); and that the abuse of a thing does not abolish its proper use (abusus non tollit usum).

For Further Study

  • John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, c. 730 — the definitive theological defense of icons
  • Jaroslav Pelikan, Imago Dei: The Byzantine Apologia for Icons, 1990 — historical and theological analysis of the iconoclastic controversy
  • Charles Barber, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm, 2002 — the intellectual history of both sides
  • Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.11, 1559 — the strongest Reformed case against images
  • Leonid Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, 2 vols., 1978 — the modern Orthodox classic on icon theology
  • Ambrosios Giakalis, Images of the Divine: The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, 1994 — detailed study of Nicaea II’s theological reasoning