Every year, on the first Sunday of Great Lent, the Eastern Orthodox Church reaffirms the anathemas pronounced at Nicaea II:
If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.[1]
In Eastern Orthodox theology, the refusal to acknowledge the validity of icons (images of Christ, Mary, the saints, etc.) and the refusal to venerate icons by way of bowing, kissing, and the like, are damnable heresies. With such a serious charge, how are Protestants to think about the issue? In this article, I want to first briefly explain Eastern Orthodoxy’s theology of icons before providing a biblical critique of the practice.
An Overview of Eastern Orthodoxy’s Theology of Icons
In large part, Eastern Orthodoxy owes its theology of icons to St. John of Damascus (or John Damascene, 676–749 AD), who was very outspoken against the iconoclastic movement initiated by Emperor Leo III. The iconoclasts (those against icons) relied heavily on appeals to the second commandment given to Moses at Mount Sinai, which forbids the creation of images that attempt to portray God (Exod. 20:4–6; Deut. 5:8–10). In response, Damascene argued that the prohibition against images was based on the fact that no image could faithfully represent the invisible, infinite God; however, in the incarnation, the situation had changed.
Does the Incarnation Mandate Icons?
Orthodox theologian Andrew Louth has helpfully summarized Damascene’s reasoning on allowing for icons: “the Jews were forbidden to make images, because they were disposed to idolatry, but Christians, who believe in the incarnation, are free from that propensity and so may and must make icons.”[2] In other words, “When the invisible becomes visible in the flesh, then you may depict the likeness of something seen.”[3] This reasoning is well captured by the rhetorical question posed by Christoph von Schönborn: “How could it then be an infringement of God’s dignity to also depict the incarnate God in an image?”[4]
According to Eastern Orthodoxy, if one rejects the place of icons in Christian worship, this brings into question one’s affirmation of the reality of the incarnation. In fact, for the Orthodox, it was the reality of the incarnation—the eternal Son of God coming in the flesh—that gave icons their place in worship. Louth’s summary mentioned above is also revealing with regards to the place icons have in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy. The use of icons is simply not a matter of private opinion or devotion; the incarnation not only permits, but demands images to be used during worship (note Louth’s above shift from “may and must make icons”).
Worship (Latria) and Honor (Proskynesis)
A significant point to consider is that Eastern Orthodoxy offers a distinction between two forms of veneration. The first type is the veneration of worship which is offered to God alone.[5] The second is veneration offered to the “friends and servants” of God as a “mark of honor,” that is, it is a gesture of honor and respect.[6] The terminology often used to communicate this distinction is that of latria and proskynesis. As Louth explains, proskynesis “properly refers to an action, the action of bowing down to the ground” while latria is taken to refer to worship; to offer latria to anything or anyone other than God, Louth acknowledges, is idolatry.[7] The distinction between latria and proskynesis serves a helpful purpose in that it seems to help Eastern Orthodoxy out of the charge of idolatry with respect to venerating God (worship) in contrast to venerating images (honor).
A Biblical Critique
From a Protestant perspective, that is, one that is committed to the ultimate authority and sufficiency of Scripture for both faith and practice, a critique of Eastern Orthodoxy’s theology and use of icons must address two questions, one practical and one theological. First, is it possible to separate veneration from worship not by definition but in practice? Second, according to Scripture is it permissible to make images of Christ in general and for worship in particular?
Separation of Veneration and Worship
This distinction between veneration and worship does not absolve Eastern Orthodoxy from accusations of idolatry. In the first place, the distinction itself creates a certain problem on the question specifically of icons representing Christ. On the one hand, if only “honorable veneration” is offered to an image of Christ, it would imply that Christ in his humanity is merely equal to other men, simply deserving honor, not worship. On the other hand, if worship is offered before the image, the image unavoidably becomes an object of idolatrous worship.[8]
One may object that the distinction between terms is a matter of intention, not action. That is, since veneration in either sense in which Eastern Orthodoxy understands it involves bowing oneself down in submission, it is possible to physically bow down to an icon of Christ in veneration (proskynesis) while offering spiritual worship to him in one’s heart (latria). The problem with this objection is that it assumes that veneration and worship can be practically distinguished.[9]
The Eastern Orthodox distinction between “worship” and “veneration” turns out to be a distinction largely without difference, which can be shown by two biblical observations. First, passages such as Exod. 20:4–5 (LXX) demonstrate that the Greek terms rendered “worship” and “veneration” are both normally used in the context of worshipping God. In that passage, God explicitly forbids both latria and proskynesis of idolatrous images. Second, a broad survey of how the word proskyneō—the verbal form of the word rendered “veneration”—is used, especially in the New Testament, reveals that the term used for “veneration” mostly appears in contexts that refer to worship, not simple honorable respect (e.g., Matt. 2:11; 4:9–10; Acts 8:27; 1 Cor. 14:25; Heb. 1:6).[10]
The lack of practical distinction between veneration and worship is most evident in the Eastern Orthodox custom of pilgrimages and the veneration of icons and relics. As an example, consider the annual pilgrimage many Orthodox Christians make to Tinos, Greece, in order to visit “the Miraculous Icon of Virgin Mary.”[11] As an extreme act of devotion, pilgrims crawl on their hands and knees for half a mile(!) from the harbor to the church building in hopes of physically touching the icon and receiving an answer to prayer—acts that go far beyond what can reasonably be considered “honorable veneration.”[12]
Eastern Orthodoxy might object that traveling to venerate an icon or a relic does not mean that the object is worshipped. However, as I’ve already shown, veneration and worship are indistinguishable according to Scripture; one cannot venerate an icon or relic without offering worship to the same. The distinction between veneration and worship is all but lost in practice as the icon becomes associated with divine power and presence, thus leading to a dependence upon the icon in the spiritual life of the worshipper.
Eastern Orthodoxy might further respond by saying that God had performed miracles and sanctioned worship through “icons” in the Old Testament, like the cherubim above the mercy seat (Exod. 25:18–22), the bronze serpent (Num. 21:8–9), and the carved imagery in Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs. 6:23–35).[13] However, it is important to notice that in none of those cases are the miraculous works associated with a devoted veneration of the “icon.” In each case the object was created at God’s explicit direction. In the case of the bronze serpent, it was later destroyed because it was being worshipped as an idol (2 Kgs. 18:4)!
Images of Christ: Are They Permissible?
The debate between Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxy on the issue of icons ultimately hinges upon the question as to whether or not the second commandment forbids images of Christ. Eastern Orthodoxy answers negatively, further anathematizing any who suggest that the second commandment is to be applied to images of Christ. Protestants, on the other hand, argue that the second commandment explicitly forbids both the production of images of Christ and their use in worship.[14]
As it relates to the former, the second commandment unambiguously prohibits any attempt at representing God with a physical image. To this point, the Eastern Orthodox would agree, as deity cannot be depicted by physical objects. However, the Eastern Orthodox argument in favor of icons is that in the incarnation, God the Son did become visible in Jesus of Nazareth and therefore the second commandment does not apply to Christ.
Nonetheless, similar to the dilemma caused by distinguishing between veneration and worship noted above, the problem with this logic is that if Christ can only be depicted according to his human nature, as Eastern Orthodoxy affirms, there is an unavoidable division made in his person. The great Puritan writer, Thomas Watson, made this precise point in his classic The Ten Commandments: “It is Christ’s Godhead, united to his manhood, that makes him to be Christ; therefore, to picture his manhood, when we cannot picture his Godhead, is a sin, because we make him to be but half Christ—we separate what God has joined, we leave out that which is the chief thing which makes him to be Christ.”[15] To depict Christ in an image is a practical form of the ancient Nestorian heresy, the idea that there are two separate persons—divine and human—in Christ, as opposed to the correct view that there are two natures and one person in Christ.[16]
To further develop this point, it should be observed that the second commandment reached its fulfillment in the incarnation. What I mean is that in the incarnation, God has provided the only acceptable “image” through whom acceptable worship may be offered to him. To create an image of Christ, regardless of one’s intention, is to create an idol, as the only acceptable “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15) is God the Son incarnate as he truly exists—two natures joined in one person. As Eastern Orthodoxy concedes, images of Jesus cannot capture his divine nature, and as such, the image represents nothing more than just a man. While Eastern Orthodoxy expresses grave concern to recognize the reality of the incarnation, images of Christ, the true Image, functionally deny it.
Even if images of Christ were permissible, one final question remains: Should such images be used in the liturgical life of the Church as Eastern Orthodoxy demands? On this point, the second commandment is also instructive. The purpose of the second commandment, Watson observes, is to prohibit “the worship of the true God in a false manner.”[17] Whether one views the Decalogue as eternal moral law is not relevant to this point as the underlying principle remains the same; namely, God alone has the right to determine how he is worshipped.
This observation is particularly important regarding how Eastern Orthodoxy argues for images in worship. According to Eastern Orthodoxy, when a person venerates an image of Christ, the honor and worship pass through the image to the real person of Christ. However, the principle expressed above—God alone determines how to be worshipped—renders this view extremely problematic. Theologian Francis Turretin (1623–1687) explains, “the honor [veneration] of the image does not pass over to the prototype and exemplar, unless he himself (who is the exemplar) has so willed or ordained. But if on the contrary he has prohibited any image of himself to be made or to be honored, he is treated injuriously if anyone goes against his will.”[18] Even if images of Christ were not generally problematic, which they are, God has not commanded his people to worship him by the use of images.[19] Again to cite Turretin, “that cannot help being idolatrous worship by which God is worshipped in a manner not due, but unlawful and forbidden.”[20]
Conclusion
Against Eastern Orthodoxy’s dogma that images of Christ can and must be included in the liturgical life of the Church, the biblical testimony and historic practice of the Church warns against such tradition. Furthermore, the justified charge of idolatry against the Eastern Orthodox use of icons is twofold. First, veneration cannot be separated from worship; both in Scripture and practice this observation proves true. Second, creating an image of Christ portrays him in a way in which he does not truly exist (that is, as merely a man). Even if images of Christ were valid, using them in worship would be offering worship to the Lord in an unauthorized way, which is, of course, to offer no true worship. Eastern Orthodoxy has a rising appeal, especially among young Western men.[21] In light of this, I implore those who are being drawn to this religious movement with the words of the apostle Paul: “Flee from idolatry” (1 Cor. 10:14).
*****
- Translation adapted from Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 1:135–38. The text recited annually on the Sunday of Orthodoxy is the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which incorporates but is not identical to the conciliar anathemas; for the Synodikon, see Jean Gouillard, “Le Synodikon de l’Orthodoxie: édition et commentaire,” Travaux et Mémoires 2 (1967): 1–316. ↑
- St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, trans. Andrew Louth (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003), 13. ↑
- Damascus, Three Treatises, 24. ↑
Christoph von Schönborn, God’s Human Face: The Christ-Icon (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1994), 234. ↑
- Damascus, Three Treatises, 27. ↑
Damascus, Three Treatises, 27–28. ↑
Damascus, Three Treatises, 11. ↑
Eastern Orthodoxy asserts that the honor paid to the image “passes through” the image (the ectype) to the person (the archetype). But again, if an image of Christ in an icon is venerated, is it only honorable veneration that passes through to the Christ? If not, at what point does the veneration of honor change to the veneration of worship? The difficulty of these questions highlights that while it is quite easy to defend formal distinctions between veneration and worship, defending a practical distinction is something rather different. ↑
Eastern Orthodoxy is aware of this critique. In response, Damascus cited examples such as Jacob bowing to Esau or Joseph’s brothers bowing down to him (Gen. 33:3; 42:6). Damascus, Three Treatises, 28. Nevertheless, such examples do nothing by way of demonstrating a practical distinction, as such an argument is founded on the unwarranted assumption that ancient cultural practices (bowing as a sign of paying homage) are normative for biblical worship. A stronger Eastern Orthodox response may point out that the same Hebrew term, shâchâh (to bow down) is used both in referring to paying respect (such as Gen. 33:3) and in the context of worship (Exod. 23:24) which would seem to support the idea that respect and worship can be practically distinguished. However, it should be observed that context determines the usage. When used in non-worship contexts (i.e., Joseph’s brothers bowing to him), the term is to be understood as an act of respect; when the term is used in worship, it is descriptive of true worship (Exod. 24:1) or idolatry (Exod. 32:8). This observation proves problematic for Eastern Orthodoxy as the context in which images are discussed is the context of worship (i.e., the liturgy of the Church). Thus, even if a practical distinction is granted, the intent of the action is still determined by context—the action of “bowing down” in worship contexts either refers to true worship (with God as its object) or idolatry.
Additionally, John Murray has succinctly explained the inseparability of the image from the person: “A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship.” John Murray, “Pictures of Christ,” Reformed Herald 16 (February 1961): 65–66. While the verb itself has a broader semantic range and is used of reverence shown to humans (e.g., Gen. 23:7 LXX; 1 Sam. 24:8 LXX), the majority of occurrences in the New Testament are used to denote worship. See s.v. “proskyneō,” and the discussion in Heinrich Greeven, “proskyneō,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76), 6:758–66. ↑
- See India Doyle, “Why Greek Orthodox Christians Crawl Up a Hill on 15 August,” Culture Trip, August 14, 2018. ↑
“When you take a ferry to Tinos you will arrive at the main port. The church sits at the top of a hill, about 800 metres away.” See “Visiting Panagia Evangelistria of Tinos,” Insights Greece, August 15, 2021. The custom of pilgrimages raises an important question: If the icon is just representational and not in itself an object of devotion, what then requires the pilgrimage? Why not create a replica of the icon and honor it at one’s own local congregation? Observing the trend in his own day, John Calvin rhetorically posed the question this way: “Why is there so much difference among the images of the same God, that one is passed over or honored in a common manner, but upon another is bestowed every solemn honor? Why do they tire themselves out with votive pilgrimages to see images whose like they have at home?” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 1:110 (1.11.10). ↑
- See “The Icon FAQ,” Orthodox Christian Information Center, accessed May 21, 2026. ↑
Contrary to Eastern Orthodoxy’s claim that icon veneration was the common practice of the Church, historical theology vindicates the view that icon veneration was largely condemned as a practice by both pre- and post-Nicene theologians. As a brief sample of those who have condemned the practice: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius of Salamis, Andreas Karlstadt, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, Francis Turretin, Thomas Vincent, Thomas Watson, John Owen, and John Murray. Representative primary-sources include Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.25.6 (on the Carpocratian use of images of Christ); Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.5 and Protrepticus 4; Origen, Against Celsus 6.66 and 7.64–66; Eusebius of Caesarea, Letter to Constantia Augusta (PG 20:1545–49); and Epiphanius of Salamis, Letter to John of Jerusalem (preserved in Jerome, Letter 51.9). See also David VanDrunen, “Pictures of Jesus and the Sovereignty of Divine Revelation: Recent Literature and the Biblical Doctrine of the Second Commandment,” Confessional Presbyterian 5 (2009): 1–15. For a more detailed response concerning Eastern Orthodoxy’s claim to antiquity, see Tony Costa, “The Challenge of Eastern Orthodoxy: Comparing Evangelical and Eastern Orthodox Theology,” Christ Over All, May 11, 2026 ↑
Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 62. ↑
- Nestorianism teaches the division of Christ’s two natures, arguing that the two natures—divine and human—exist in one body as two persons. ↑
Watson, Ten Commandments, 60. ↑
- Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994), 2:61. ↑
- “The correlated truth to divine self-institution is divine limitation. God sets the boundaries and determines what may and may not be included in His worship.” James M. Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: An Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2022), 422. ↑
- Turretin, Institutes, 2:56. ↑
- On this trend, see Ruth Graham, “Orthodox Church Pews Are Overflowing with Converts,” New York Times, November 18, 2025; Trevin Wax, “Is Eastern Orthodoxy the Next Big Thing for Young Men?,” The Gospel Coalition, January 7, 2025; Pew Research Center, Religious Landscape Study, “Orthodox Christian,” accessed May 19, 2026. ↑
