Veneration of Saints and Images

BEFORE proceeding with our study of this subject, it would be well to establish what is meant by the term “saint.” In Catholic usage there is both a general and a specialized meaning given to the word: “All human beings whose souls are in heaven are saints. … But we cannot give public veneration to one who is not canonized or beatified. … To one who is beatified, only a limited public devotion is permitted. One who is beatified is called ‘blessed;’ one who is canonized is styled ‘saint.’”*

* Cassilly, op. cit., p. 69

To most Catholics the term “saints” instinctively calls to mind those past followers of Christ who were especially noted for their faith or acts of heroism, and later officially recognized and canonized by the church. “Ordinarily the inquiry into the question whether a person has practiced heroic virtue, which inquiry must precede beatification, is not begun until fifty years after his death. But of recent years there have been some remarkable exceptions to this rule. … Before beatification two certain and unquestionable miracles must be worked at the intercession of the person whose cause is being considered; and after beatification, before canonization, two additional miracles must be proven.”*

* Ibid.

This, however, is not the sense in which the word “saints” has been used in this treatise, because it is not so defined in the Scriptures. In the New Testament the word is used synonymously with those who compose the church, the footstep followers and disciples of Jesus Christ. The term is used with equal propriety to describe those still striving to serve Christ in this life, or those who have passed beyond. The necessary qualifications are faithfulness and obedience to God amidst the adversity and persecution inherent in the real Christian life.

To bear out this thought, let us notice some purely scriptural usages of the word. Turning first to I Corinthians 1:2 we find the Apostle Paul introducing his letter in this way: “To the assembly of God existing in Corinth, purified in Christ Jesus: to the chosen saints.” (Fenton) And in Philippians 1:1 he wrote: “To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi.” Yes, Paul realized that all true Christians who were called out of this world were also considered to be saints of God.

Many other examples could also be cited. Before Paul’s conversion it was written of him: “How much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:13) As Peter was bearing witness to the truth, the scripture reads: “He came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda.” (Acts 9:32) In every case where “saints” is used, we are made to realize that all true followers of the Master who are living up to their privileges of sacrifice and service to God are considered as such, and therefore should appropriate this term to themselves.

In comparison with the Scriptures, Catholic usage of “saint” appears very limited, since it can only be applied to Catholics themselves, and never during their own lifetime upon earth. “The Catholic Church declares only Catholics to be saints. … The heroic and integrally Christian life which makes a person a saint can be lived only within the Catholic Church. … There and there alone are found those who qualify as saints.”*

* Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, But Why Don’t You Pray to the Saints?, p. 1

But now let us move on to a consideration of the place which the saints, the angels, and their images hold in the worship and devotion of Catholics. Why does the Catholic Church hold up the saints and the angels to veneration? We will let a Catholic source provide the answer: “That we may be encouraged to imitate their virtues and that we may be helped by their intercession.”*

* Cassilly, op. cit., p. 68

Here is some of the reasoning advanced to justify and encourage the offering of prayers to the saints: “In heaven the saints know about conditions on earth. … We can pray to them, and … God enables them to know our prayers. … They want to help … and they can help. … They have influence with God; and that influence is at our disposal. It becomes effective through prayer.”*

* Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, But Why Don’t You Pray to the Saints?, pp. 41,42,44

“It is natural for us to approach persons in authority through mutual friends. If we desire a favor from a king or president, instead of going to him directly, we frequently ask one who has influence with him to speak for us. In a similar way, when we consider our own unworthiness, we feel that we have a better chance to obtain a spiritual favor, if we ask the saints who are so close to God to intercede for us.”*

* Cassilly, op. cit.

Prayers to the saints may be formal or informal. An example of the former is a prayer taken from the liturgical act of the Mass which is said on the sixth of December: “O God, who didst honor the holy pontiff Nicholas with countless miracles, we ask that through his merits and intercession we may be freed from the flames of hell.”* In addition, “each Catholic usually has some special saints whom he admires in a particular way. … These he is urged to imitate and to call upon frequently.”**

* Vila, op. cit., p. 31
** Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, But Why Don’t You Pray to the Saints?, p. 44

The entire foundation of praying to the saints is thus seen to be based upon purely human conception and reasoning. Sometimes, as we have shown, and we believe in this instance as well, these human ideas not only find no basis in the Scriptures, but actually run counter to the Bible’s teachings. All that was said previously in connection with Mary’s alleged intercessory abilities applies here as well. Not in all the Bible is there a single admonition for the believer to offer a prayer to Mary, to a saint, or to an angel. Always the exhortation is, “In everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God,” and we might add, only through the merits of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.—Phil. 4:6

However, even within the sphere of the Catholic Church there have been outstanding spokesmen who cried out against reliance upon the saints. Notice how St. Ambrose demolishes the chief argument that is raised to justify the need for saints as intercessors: “He writes that to address God through his creatures, and to compare him who sees everything with the kings of the earth, whom we can’t approach except through their courtiers, is a crime of divine lese majesty (Epistle to Romulus, 1).”*

* Vila, op. cit., pp. 33,34

The Catholic Church endeavors to justify the worship of Mary, the saints, and angels by teaching that there are different degrees or quality of worship. The highest form of worship is “latria,” reserved only for God. Next comes “hyperdulia,” properly rendered to Mary, slightly inferior in quality. Finally, there is “dulia,” properly offered to saints and angels, somewhat more inferior, yet still part of worship. Let us see how this is delineated in the Catechism of Christian Doctrine, used in England: “Divine honor or worship … belongs to God alone. We should pay to the angels and saints an inferior honor or worship, for this is due to them as the servants and special friends of God. We should give to relics, crucifixes and holy pictures a relative honor, as they relate to Christ and his saints and are memorials of them.”*

* “Veneration of Images,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, VII, 672

Here, then, is a system or worship which includes as its principal objects God, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the saints, the angels, and images of holy things. It is the way that Catholics are taught to carry out their devotions and add to their own sanctity. But the vital question becomes, is it the way taught in the Scriptures?

Worship of God the Father and worship of his Son Jesus Christ are both clearly illustrated and called for in the Bible. Concerning the Father, Jesus said: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matt. 4:10) Of the Son it is written: “Let all the angels of God worship him,” and “All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” (Heb. 1:6, John 5:23) There is no question of propriety whatsoever when it comes to rendering grateful worship to the Almighty God, the Creator and Sovereign of the universe, and to his only begotten Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Here we are in wholehearted accord.

However, this is the sum total and full extent of acceptable worship as described in the Scriptures. The kind of worship that is offered to God and to Christ is of the same order of magnitude, and no other kind of worship is shown to be proper. Search as we might, we will not be able to find a scriptural breakdown of worship into various degrees for different beings or objects. There is no support whatsoever for the Catholic hypothesis that an inferior kind of worship should be granted Mary, the angels, the saints, and images of holy things.

To the contrary, the divine disapproval of rendering reverence and worship to any but God or Christ is shown over and over. Turn first to Acts 14:8-18, where Paul and Barnabas are depicted on a missionary journey into Asia. At Lystra, Paul noticed a man who had been a cripple all his life, and observed also that he had the faith necessary to be healed of his affliction. Paul therefore commanded, “Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.

“Then the priest of Jupiter … brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth. … And with these sayings scarce restrained they the people, that they had not done sacrifice unto them.”

What an exciting experience for these early missionaries! But it was more than this, because we believe its recording in the Scriptures was meant to provide us with a valuable lesson. Notice that under no circumstances did Paul and Barnabas desire to have worship directed to themselves, even if it meant forcibly restraining the people from doing so.

In another account, found in Acts 10:25,26, Peter is shown reproving the first Gentile convert for endeavoring to worship him: “And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshiped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” Then in Revelation 22:8,9, as a result of John’s experience, we have a clear-cut indication that not even angels are to receive our worship: “When I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, … worship God.”

In endeavoring to pinpoint the origin of worshiping of saints and martyrs, we are led to the very same conclusions as those that apply to the Virgin Mary. Catholics are led to believe that the custom is as old as the Church itself: “It has been the immemorial practice and tradition of the Church to venerate the martyrs and other saints, to institute feasts and dedicate churches in their honor.”* But in investigating this area we find it is not possible to establish a Christian basis for this custom, for the simple reason that it was not, in fact, Christian to begin with. Its adoption occurred only after the simplicity of the original Christian doctrine was abandoned. Evidently it was incorporated into the faith of the later Church to simplify the forced conversion of the masses of heathen. The saints and angels were given the same exalted positions that the great number of gods and demigods previously had held in the minds of such converts.

* Cassilly, op. cit., p. 68

“The Christian Theodoret openly rejoiced that martyrs had been substituted for the pagan gods and given their glory. Sometimes, as did Gregory Thaumaturgos, officials of the Church encouraged the practice. … It is natural to assume an historic connexion between pagan ceremonies on the one hand and on the other the offering of lamps and flowers to the saints, the placing of food before the dead, the feasts in memory of the martyrs, and visits paid to them deep in the night.”*

* Latourette, op. cit., pp. 319-321

The Place of Images

We come now to an area of Catholic practice which many Protestants consider to be verging upon the superstitious and sacrilegious—that of venerating images. The official Catholic position was stated by the Council of Trent in 1543: “The Holy Synod commands that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honor and reverence are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshiped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images … but because the honor shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honor the saints whose likeness they bear.”*

* “Veneration of Images,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, VII, 671

Here is an area where Catholics find extreme difficulty in attempting to harmonize the teachings of the Church with the clear statements of Scripture. Compare the foregoing Catholic view with the second of the well-known Ten Commandments, for example: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath … Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.”—Exod. 20:4,5

These Bible verses are so plain and the instructions so explicit that for many years the Catholic Church has been reluctant to make them well-known. In the official Church catechisms it is standard practice to group the first two commandments together, under the general heading of the First Commandment. The over-all number of commandments is kept the same by dividing the Tenth Commandment into two parts.* By doing this it is possible to minimize the import of the Second Commandment, and to include only a partial quotation of it along with the entire First Commandment. Thus, many Catholics who rely heavily upon their catechism for scriptural understanding are prevented from having the complete instructions of God relative to the making and honoring of images. We would urge our readers to verify this by carefully comparing the listing of the Ten Commandments as they appear in the twentieth chapter of Exodus with that in a Catholic catechism.

* Deharbe, op. cit., pp. 22-29; Vila, op. cit., pp. 17,18

When confronted with the complete statement of the Second Commandment as it appears in the Bible, Catholic authorities offer several different explanations. Two are suggested in the footnote for this verse in the Douay Bible: First, it is stated that this passage forbids only images which are made to be worshiped with divine honor, implying that images which receive a lesser degree of worship are allowable; second, that images in the house of God were expressly authorized in the Old Testament, as shown in the Jewish Tabernacle arrangement.*

* The Douay Bible House, The Holy Bible, footnote p. 85

The first allegation has already been answered from the Scriptures, which were found to tolerate only one kind of worship—the true worship of God and Christ. Statements of other Catholic authorities also help to defeat this argument: “The First Commandment would seem absolutely to forbid the making of any kind of representation of men, animals, or even plants. … The people are not only told not to adore images nor serve them; they are not even to make any graven thing or the likeness—it would seem—of anything at all. … In distinction to the nations around, Israel was to worship an unseen God. … Any attempt to represent the God of Israel graphically is always put down as being abominable idolatry. Except for the human heads of the cherubim, we read nothing of statues of men in the lawful cult of the Old Testament. In this point at least, the Jew seems to have understood the commandment to forbid the making of such statues.”*

* “Veneration of Images,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, VII, 664,665

With these sentiments we ate in complete accord. But what about the second allegation concerning the images of cherubim which stood on both sides of the ark in the most holy compartment of the tabernacle? (Exod. 25:18-20) Were these used as objects of inferior worship such as Catholics today employ for their variety of images?

In studying the matter we find that the Israelites in general never even saw these cherubim. Though encamped about the tabernacle, they were never permitted to enter it. A high linen fence prevented them from seeing into the court which surrounded it. As a matter of fact, only the high priest was allowed to enter into the most holy compartment to carry out the rites of his priestly function. Nor were these cherubim designed to be worshiped at all, but rather, to serve as representations of certain of the attributes of the Almighty God, who manifested the glory of his presence in the most holy. Thus, another effort to defend the worship of images upon the basis of Scripture is seen to fall utterly short of its mark.

Catholic authorities are always careful to point out that when they advocate the veneration of images it is not because they feel that any special powers or abilities are inherently present in them, but only because they are reminders of the true persons whom they represent. But again let us notice how completely contrary to the teachings of Scripture even this qualification is found to be. As already verified from Catholic sources, the second commandment forbade the making and possessing of any kind of graven image, whether it be of false gods, men, or even of the true God himself. This is brought out very forcibly in Deuteronomy 4:15-18, where it is stated that God purposely refrained from showing himself to the Israelites in any form, so that they would have no basis for making a graven likeness to him:

“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast, … any winged fowl, … any thing that creepeth, … any fish.” Hence, not only does God forbid the idolatrous worship of images or false gods, but he is equally as displeased with the making of graven images of the true God, if such a thing were possible to do!

Observe how the inspired words of Paul reveal that the wrath of God is kindled against those who insist on making such images or representations of the true God: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men … because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God. … but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. … Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more [margin, or, rather] than the Creator, who is blessed forever.”—Rom. 1:18,21-23,25

The second commandment of God, in the all-inclusive manner in which it is stated in the Bible, leaves no room for exceptions or compromise. When all else fails, the only way Catholics really can reconcile it with their practice is by rejecting it altogether with the assertion that it was a Jewish ordinance and is no longer binding upon Christians today: “The clause: ‘Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image,’ etc., … is clearly not natural law, nor can anyone prove the inherent wickedness of making a graven thing; therefore it is divine positive law of the Old Dispensation that no more applies to Christians … It was once for all abrogated by the promulgation of the Gospel.”*

* Ibid., pp. 670,671

However, again we must identify this view as a purely human conception which is not supported by Scripture. Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17) Paul said: “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and just, and good.” (Rom. 7:12) We recognize that the Jewish Law consisted of two basic parts—moral and ceremonial. It is true that the carrying out of the ceremonial features has been done away with and is no longer obligatory upon Christians. But the moral features, as represented in the Ten Commandments, continue forever. Surely, what was holy, just, and good in one dispensation does not become modified in another, from God’s eternal viewpoint of what is beneficial to his creatures. Therefore we should not try to use such reasoning in an effort to justify the neglect of keeping these straightforward commandments of God.

It is difficult to comprehend how Catholic authorities on the one hand could have such a clear understanding of why God forbade the Israelites to make images, and on the other hand fail to appreciate that the very same reasoning holds true for Christians of today. For example, here is their comment on Exodus 20:3-5, partially referred to earlier: “The people are not only told not to adore images nor serve them; they are not even to make any graven thing or the likeness—it would seem—of anything at all. One could understand so far-reaching a command at that time. If they made statues or pictures, they probably would end by adoring them.”*

* Ibid., p. 664

Yes, the recurring facts of Jewish history bear out this supposition. When the Israelites proved unfaithful to God and made various god-images for themselves, they did fall into the error of adoring and worshiping them. But, we ask, is this not exactly what has taken place in Catholic circles also, as admitted by Catholic scholars? Notice the extremes to which encouraging the veneration of images has led in the past:

“One must admit that just before the Iconoclast outbreak, things had gone very far in the direction of image worship. Even then it is inconceivable that anyone, except perhaps the most grossly stupid peasant, could have thought that an image could hear prayers, or do anything for us. And yet the way in which some people treated their holy icons argues more than the merely relative honor that Catholics are taught to observe towards them.

“In the first place, images had multiplied to an enormous extent everywhere; the walls of churches were covered inside from floor to roof with icons, … they hung in a place of honor in every room, over every shop; they covered cups, garments, furniture, rings; wherever a possible space was found, it was filled with a picture of Christ, our Lady, or a saint. … Icons were crowned with garlands, incensed, kissed. Lamps burned before them, hymns were sung in their honor. They were applied to sick persons by contact, set out in the path of a fire or flood to stop it by a sort of magic. In many prayers of this time the natural inference from the words would be that the actual picture is addressed.”*

* Ibid., p. 668

Thus fallen man’s inclination to adore that which is made by his own hands, instead of the true and living God, is shown to be no less a problem in the Christian dispensation than in the Jewish. I)o not these excerpts from the history of catholicism dramatize the same need to heed the commandments of God along these lines as was in evidence when the divine dealings were more directly with the Israelites?

If history is to be of any value to us today, certainly Christians should profit from the experiences of God’s ancient people. Let us recall that it was for this very reason—the making and adoring of graven images—that Israel was cast off from God’s favor and scattered into all the world: “When … ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of anything, and shall do evil in the sight of the Lord thy God, to provoke him to anger: … ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land … And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen.”—Deut. 4:25-27

Because of her unfaithfulness, Israel lost the opportunity to become members of the royal priesthood or body of Christ—that select company which God will use in blessing all the nations of earth. The Apostle Paul, in his masterful sermon recorded in the eleventh chapter of Romans, tells us that it was as a result of Israel’s fall that the great salvation could come unto the Gentiles. The natural branches of the olive tree were broken off because of unbelief, and wild branches from among the Gentiles were permitted to be grafted in, to partake of the glorious promise made to Abraham.

But notice Paul’s grave warning to all who come into this close relationship with God: “If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”—Rom. 11:21,22

Now, then, if the making and venerating of graven images contributed directly to Israel’s downfall and prompted the severity of God to descend upon her, what shall we say for Christians engaged in this very same practice today? We simply do not believe it is possible to merit a share of God’s goodness and favor if this displeasing practice is continued. Disobedience can lead only to the cutting off which Paul predicted.

Origin of Image Worship

Let us now explore the origin of this practice of venerating pictures and statues in the Christian church. Catholic scholars themselves freely concede that there is no evidence to show that this was engaged in by the Early Church: “For the first period we have no information. There are so few references to images at all in the earliest Christian literature that we should hardly have suspected their ubiquitous presence were they not actually there in the catacombs as the most convincing argument. But these catacomb paintings tell us nothing about how they were treated. We may take it for granted … that the first Christians understood quite well that paintings may not have any share in the adoration due to God alone.”*

* Ibid., p. 667

Once again we find the Catholic Church making an appeal to works of art in an effort to establish a doctrine. But we are not supplied with a single scrap of evidence which even implies that these pictures were considered sacred, or that any kind of worship was accorded to them.

The earliest Christians, of course, were of Jewish vintage. They were all thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament and the earlier commandments which God had given their nation. In practicing and propagating their new Christian faith, the furthest thing from their minds would have been to return to the forbidden act of constructing and venerating images. This was what they observed in all the pagan lands around them; this was what their faith in the one true God caused them to reject; and their nonconformity in this respect was one of the chief causes of their persecution.

For those prepared to approach the study of church history in an objective manner, it is a fairly simple matter to determine the attitude of the early Christians toward images. One source writes plainly: “Images were unknown in the worship of the primitive Christians; and this fact was, indeed, made the ground of a charge of atheism on the part of the heathen against the Christians.”*

* McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia, IV., 503

Coming to the writings of the Early Church fathers, we find there is no question where they stand on this matter. Throughout the course of the church’s development, there were men of God who “feared the ever-growing cult of images and saw in it danger of a return to the old idolatry. We need hardly quote in this connection the invectives of the apostolic fathers against idols (Athenagoras, Theophilus, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Tertullian, Cyprian) in which they denounce not only the worship, but even the manufacture and possession of such images. …

“Eusebius of Caesarea (d. A.D. 340), the father of Church history, must be counted among the enemies of icons. … They are a ‘heathen custom’; he wrote many arguments to persuade Constantine’s sister Constantia not to keep a statue of our Lord. A contemporary bishop, Asterius of Amasia, also tried to oppose the spreading tendency. … Epiphanius of Salamis (d. A.D. 403), tore down a curtain in a church in Palestine because it had a picture of Christ or a saint.” Philostorgius, as late as the fifth century, and Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, were also prominent in opposing the veneration of images as a Christian practice.”*

* “Veneration of Images,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, VII, 669

There is also preserved in the historical records an example of an Early Church resolution which was passed in an effort to maintain the purity of the Christian faith and practice: “Canon XXXVI of the Synod of Elvira is important. This was a general synod of the Church of Spain held … about the year 300. … The canon reads: ‘It is ordained that pictures are not to be in churches, so that which is worshiped and adored shall not be painted on walls.’”*

* Ibid.

But the vigorous admonitions of the church fathers and the efforts of various individual churches were powerless to quell the tide surging toward the adoption of images in the church. Again we are faced with the question, if image worship was not a part of the early Christian faith, from where did it emanate? And was the decision to adopt the practice based truly upon Christian principles, or was it merely part of an over-all program designed to simplify the conversion of the pagan masses?

In searching for the true origin of image worship, we discover before going very far that here is another area where Catholic scholars find it difficult to avoid confirming a pagan link. Observe, for example, what is said concerning the current Catholic practice of crowning statues and pictures of the Virgin Mary:

“The coronation of images is an example of an old and obvious symbolic sign of honor that has become a fixed rite. The Greek pagans offered golden crowns to their idols as specially worthy gifts. St. Irenaeus (d. A.D. 202) already notices that certain Christian heretics crown their images; he disapproves of the practice. … The offering of crowns to adorn images became a common practice in the Eastern Churches. … At Rome, too, a ceremony evolved out of this pious practice. … The Chapter of St. Peter have a right to crown statues and pictures of our Lady since the seventeenth century.”*

* Ibid., p. 670

What a clear and revealing outline, tracing the development of this practice to its origin! First it was the Greek pagans who delighted in offering gifts to their idols. In the second century certain Christian heretics were observed to have copied the custom, employing images of Christian saints instead of the pagan idols. They were severely reprimanded for doing so by a prominent spokesman of the Early Church. Nevertheless, the custom spread and finally was adopted by the church at large. Today, it is common practice in the Catholic Church and considered a special privilege to crown statues and pictures of the Virgin Mary!

By the fourth century the church had become so thoroughly saturated with pagan customs that the new converts were permitted to continue their old practices under Christian guise: “Philostorgius says that in the fourth century the Christian Roman citizens in the East offered gifts, incense, even prayers (!) to the statues of the emperor. It would be natural that people who bowed to, kissed, incensed the imperial eagles and images of Caesar, … should give the same signs to the cross, the images of Christ, and the altar. So … there grew up traditions of respect that gradually became fixed, as does all ceremonial. Such practices spread in some measure to Rome and the West, but their home was the Court at Constantinople.”*

* Ibid., p. 667

But it remains for the Catholic scholar Cardinal Newman to make the clearest admission in this regard: “… images at a later date … are all of pagan origin and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.”* Some Catholics have even viewed with pride their church’s incorporation of various pagan rites, in the belief that a greater universality is thus expressed.

* Cardinal John H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 373

For our answer to this we turn to the words of our Master, who taught that only truth can sanctify, and in particular, God’s written Word of truth, the Holy Scriptures: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy Word is truth.” (John 17:17) If we accept Jesus’ testimony, the act of adopting pagan error into the church is seen in its proper light. The mere approval of a religious practice by certain officials of a church does not serve to sanctify it, if it is not also in harmony with God’s will as revealed in the Bible. The Christian church was commissioned to pass on in their purity the eternal truths left by its founder, not to compromise them with pagan error.

Worshiping in Spirit and in Truth

In bringing this subject to a conclusion, we would like to point out some of the dangers that are present in image worship. First there is always the possibility of confusing the object with what it is supposed to represent. This problem is especially acute among the lesser educated in both Catholic and pagan lands. The Apostle Paul counseled us against falling into this error when he said: “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”—Acts 17:29

Next there is the danger of thinking that the sacred image possesses inherent grace or special powers which can benefit the believer. We have already seen the extremes to which this belief led in earlier times. In our own day we are all familiar with the practice of wearing or carrying small images of the saints, considered by many to bring blessings and good fortune. But hear the sober words of the prophet Habakkuk: “What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth Cardinal John H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of therein, to make dumb idols? Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it.”—Hab. 2:18,19

Undoubtedly the greatest danger of all in the practice of venerating images is that it serves to detract from the true worship of the one Almighty God and his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Paul wrote: “To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (I Cor. 8:6) The church father Cyprian wrote: “Why do you bow your body captive before foolish images and creations of earth? God made you upright, … your countenance is raised upwards to heaven and to God. Look thither, lift your eyes thitherward, seek God in the highest.”*

* Vila, op. cit., p. 23

Our Lord Jesus himself also described the nature of true worship when he said: “The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” (John 4:23) We have a partial insight into what Jesus meant by this from the words of Clement of Alexandria: “For, in sooth, the image is only dead matter shaped by the craftsman’s hand. But we have no sensible image of sensible matter, but an image that is perceived by the mind alone—God, who alone is truly God.”*

* Ibid., pp. 22,23

Yes, when we examine Christianity in contrast with heathen religions, we find that it is unique in not requiring idols or images to assist in worship. The Christian’s conception of God is not based upon the forms or likenesses which his art is capable of producing. It is a purely mental image which is given life, form, and reality by the revelation of Scripture. It is from a study of God’s written word that we perceive the wisdom, justice, love, and power of our God. As shown earlier, the deeper appreciation of God’s plans and purposes is revealed to those who humbly ask of him, who have given their lives in consecration to him, and who are granted the guidance of his Holy Spirit.

The true worship of God is based upon faith—faith both in his existence and in his ability to bring to pass all that he has spoken. Faith, by the very definition of the word, does not require pictorial representations or images, since it is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb. 11:1) This evidence of the reality of spiritual and heavenly things is provided for us in God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures.

If we have the Bible, and the correct understanding of it as provided by the Holy Spirit, we have all the ingredients necessary to carry out the true worship of God. If we are careful in using this means of grace to exercise our spiritual senses, there will be no need to turn to graven works of art or any other source. Through an appreciation of the character and plan of God, we will desire to render worship which will be acceptable to him, the true worship which is “in spirit and in truth.”—John 4:24

| Home Page | Table of Contents |