Customer Reviews

On the Divine Images: Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine Images

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I highly recommend this book to Orthodox converts (I certainly wish I had read it earlier than I did...it explained so much) as well as non-Orthodox Christians to explain why the Orthodox venerate (NOT worship!) icons of Christ and his saints.

St. John explains how the Incarnation must be safeguarded. He also discusses several different forms of worship, which go from absolute worship to relative worship (which could more aptly called veneration or respect.) The use of images in Christian worship was controversial during St. John's time (8th Century) and for many people (formerly including myself) it is still quite a controversial issue today. This book, more than anything else, helped melt away my aversion to images in Church.

This is obviously a complicated topic and still controversial for many people, so I won't elaborate further. Anything I can say won't do justice to St. John's words, so read them for yourself. The first part of the book is a tad slow, but the third treatise is an absolute goldmine. (It is all great really, it is just that the third treatise particularly spoke to me.)

At just over 100 pages the book doesn't require an enormous investment of time (although one could study it thoroughly), and the inexpensive price can't be beat. Kudos to St. Vladimir's Seminary for helping keep this Saint's words available in English!

St. John of Damascus wrote during the height of the iconoclastic controversy during the 8th century and this little book contains the bulk of his three apologies against those who sought to destroy icons and keep them apart from Church worship.

His argument runs like this: If Christ was fully God and fully man, then matter must not be seen as fundamentally evil. In fact, (and here St. John of Damascus follows St. Athanasius) if Christ took upon our human flesh, then matter has actually been redeemed. Icons, then, as a pictorial representation of a transcendent reality should be seen in the same light: their being made is not at all heretical and the reverence that is paid to them is a way of worshiping the God they signify, rather than they themselves as created objects. The theology behind icons is, for St. John of Damascus, fundamentally incarnational.

The book is quick, easy reading that will give every preson something to reflect on. Such a short, simple text is easily accessible to both the scholar (or, if you are like me, the arm-chair theologian) and the worshiper. For those of you interested in better understanding Christian thought, this is worth having in your library.

Historical Background:
A medieval Syrian statesman with the name and title: Al mansour Ibn Sergon, or Yuhanna Al Damashki: John of Damascus was the Moslem Khaliph's minister (Vezir) in Damascus, he spoke Arabic but read and wrote in both Syriac and Greek.. Yuhanna was a learned presbyter as was the tradition for sons of Oriental Christian families in some parts of the Islamic Empire. Later on he became a hermit joining one of the monasteries in the region. During the great schism of the iconoclastic controversy that tormented the neighboring Byzantine empire,in the 8th century, John wrote his three apologies against those who sought to destroy icons, to prevent all traces of iconic worship.

The Theological debate:
St. John's defense is a basic reading for Christians interested in iconography,its orthodoxy, and theological defense.Yuhanna starts by differentiating between the veneration given to Saints and their icons and the worship offered only to the Heavenly Lord. His defense of icons is supported by Church tradition of the veneration of the relics of Saints in a 3rd & 4th century. The cult of martyrs and protector saints grew accumulating many inherited rituals from balming with fragrants, to safekeeping, revering their relics, and painting icons for the saints.
He claims that "Since Christ is fully God and was fully man, He sanctified matter during his earthly ministry, including it in the scheme of salvation, baptism in water, communion of His body in bnread and wine. The body must not be seen as evil, a remnant Gnostic view in the early Church. St. John refers to Alexandrine salvation theology of redemption through Theosis, as elaborated by St. Athanasius.He avoids St Cyril's Sotereology, Eucharist is the presence of Christ among us. He used St. Gregory allegation:"Whatever is not assumed, cannot be redeemed". Christ took upon him our human flesh, so that we can be redeemed in His incarnational nature. Our Lord IC XC redeemed the whole universe, including humanity. Icons, are pictorial representation of a transcendental reality that could be defended in the same context. The theology behind the icons; St. John debates is how the reality of the Incarnation must be safeguarded. Defending the Chaledonian position, he argued that Jesus the Christ was the "Icon" of God, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed. He defends;" I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease from worshipping the matter through which my salvation has been effected." !?

Aversion to images in Doxology:
The miaphysite theology dominated the Empire even after Islam. The most formidable theologian were Copts and Syrians on both sides but largely miaphysites. Severus of Antioch, Theodosius of Alexandria, john of Damascus and later Maximus the Confessor represented the main stream and never refuted Icons. That is why both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox venerate icons, the Orientals put less emphasis on the rituals.
The use of images in Christian worship was controversial during St. John's time (8th Century) as is still today for many Christians. Aversion to images in Church worship is obviously a complicated topic and still unacceptable by many Christians, most Protestants, some Catholics, and few Oriental Orthodox, who first introduced the Icons for teaching purposes. Some argue that even if icons are acceptable for all saints, even thinking of our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ in a three dimensional or spatial way is primitive if not heretic. Since He is One with the Father in the unconceived Trinity in Unity, He is God appearing in flesh.

Praying in Spirit and Truth?
The dominant Miaphysites theology, would not totally support this logic. Since it was more concerned with the unity of the person of Christ, something an Icon cannot demonstrate how Divine nature could be revealed. The close association of Melkite worship with icon veneration was tied to Byzantine understanding of the concept "image" of God, that Christ renew by His incarnation. The debates on Christology in the 6th century at the time of the great Christologists Severus of Antioch and john Philoponus, never died out but always regenerated into new shapes, appeared first time in the Theopachite declaration, and thereafter in Apophatic theology written by the Syrian Miaphysite mystic under the pseudonym Dionysius the Areoopagite.

An Orthodox via Media:
Alexandrian Orthodoxy is best reflected in their mystics; Abba Kyrillos Thematurge, the holy wonder worker addressing the Saints through their icons being the victorious Church.The mystical view of the miaphysites theology of love and fellowship may be portrayed best by the Coptic Icon of Our Lord protecting St. Menas, a martyr! (Louvre Museum.)
Meanwhile, Protestant dogmatics see that ;"Corrupted Byzantine emphasis that lent itself to an expression of faithwhere icons assumed a central role, and the allegation that 'The triumph of Orthodoxy' is expressed in the feast of restoring the sacred art, is not only unorthodox but groudless. Dr. George Bebawi, Director of Cambridge Institute of Christian Orthodox Studies,and professor of Patristics explains that the vital educational office of the Icons is tarnished by the ritualistic lip service. He takes the ancient Coptic murals as exemplified by the pre icon era in Dier Bawit to prove that the Coptic Church that introduced Iconography, used them as a teaching means posting them high on the walls or cieling, or unreachable above the iconstatis.

SUGGESTED READINGS;
To help readers understand how some rituals originate even in pagan tradition and could be utilized to satisfy human love for beauty, music, incense, the following may be considered in its logical order,
1. Introducing the Orthodox Church, Anthony Coniaris, Light & Life, 1982 (look under Icons to find how the Copts of Alexandria used a pagan Greek Roman era to teach the illiterate)
2. God's Human Face: The Christ Icon, by Cardinal Christopher Schonborn
3. The Meaning of Icons, by Leonid Ouspensky, Vladimir Lossky, SVS , 1999
4. The Art of the Icon: A Theology of Beauty, by Paul Evdokimov, 1989.
5. Theology of the Icon (2-Volume Set) , by Leonid Ouspensky, 1992

Great read for Protestants seriously [I said seriously] inquiring and searching and studying the Orthodox faith. Helps you understand the reasoning behind icons [Orthodox DO NOT worship them] and the need for icons to help us worship the true God in the way He wants to truly worship Him. He made us in His image right? He sent Christ as the express image of Himself right? Icons are windows to heaven and open up the seriously seeking servant of the Lord to the beauty of holiness.

This book explains effectively the importance of Icons and what the difference is between Worship, Honor and Veneration. But the reader doesn't have to stop here. One can also read (Exodus 26 Certainly Exodus 25:19.) to learn about the neccesity of divine images in Gods House of Worship.

ON THE DIVINE IMAGES is a series of apologies written by St John of Damascus in the 8th century against the iconoclasm begun by Byzantine emperor Leo III. The writer was safe from persecution in the monastery of St Sabbas in Palestine, outside of the Byzantine empire, and the destruction of images by his fellow Christians in Byzantium, who had long resisted the image-hating Muslim hordes, must have seemed like the greatest madness to him.

At the heart of St John of Damascus' argument is that the Son of God become matter and therefore can be depicted; to resist depictions of Jesus Christ is to reject that Christ was fully man, a heresy the Church had already confronted and defeated at earlier ecumenical councils. Images of Christ are necessary to safeguard this truth about His nature, St John says. "I do not worship matter, but I worship the creator of matter who became matter for my sake..." He also shows how the use of material objects and even images in worship enjoys sanction in the Old Testament, for the Ark of the Covenant was adorned with cherubim and Aaron's staff and the tablets were placed within, and God commanded Moses to make an image of a serpent to heal all who were bitten by snakes.

The work consists of three apologies. The first is the most passionate, but the latter two are more logically structured. It is in the third apology that St John of Damascus makes the well-known distinction between absolute worship, given to the Trinity alone, and "relative worship", or veneration, given to material objects which remind us of God, to the saints who have gone before, and to our fellow Christians. After each apology follows a list of citations from the Church Fathers supporting the use of images, indicating that images have been around since the first days of the Church and were not an innovation of the era of St John of Damascus.

I found some parts of St John of Damascus' apology to be wanting. For example, he does not give a strong argument as to how veneration of an image passes to its prototype. The attestation of the Church that it is so is enough to convince Orthodox Christians, but it would still be nice to see a chain of reasoning. Maybe I have gotten too used to modern philosophical writers like Richard Swinburne, but I like theological arguments to be very rigorous.

The translation of this work is based originally on that of Mary H. Allies published in 1898. David Anderson revised and amplified it, correcting errors and eliminating archaic language. Footnotes are given to indicate Scriptural references. Anderson has chosen to cut out the citations after the third apology which had already appeared in earlier portions. The translation is quite readable, though I suppose that most of the target audience of this edition is already trained enough to read the original Greek.

If Exodus 26 isn't enough to convince someone of the need, not just the validity or choice of having icons in worship, but the need to have them then this work will. Written by Saint John of Damascus in the late eighth century, it is a masterpiece.

He sets forth clearly and precisely from the Scriptures the difference between worship (proskuneo) and veneration (latreo), that later of which is done to icons just as one has pictures of their loved ones in their homes, especially those who have reposed. After reading this no one can say icons/images are idolotry lest they call God an idoloter when he commanded Moses to make graven images of Cherbim on the Ark, pomegranits on Aaron's priestly robes, and all the other examples of it. He also explains the 10 commandments ban the worship of images which is false imagery, not the veneration of true imagery.

John was able to write most of his works against the iconoclasts (icon destoyers) because he lived outside of the Byzantine Empire which was then ruled by a few successively heretical and insane rulers. John lived in Jerusalem, even though he was brought up in the lap of wealth and greatness in Damascus and was at one time a high ranking official in the Muslim Caliph's government. He later renounced all of that and became a monk and was able to write profusely because the Muslim rulers had grown so lax and lazy in their religion and wanted only to enjoy the pleasures of their herums and eat fine foods. When John did receive the Caliph's attention is was negative and resulted in him loosing his right hand (his writing hand) only for it to be miraculously reattached in front of the Caliph who immediately backed down and let St. John do what he would do, that is writing what he wanted and when he wanted.

The thought and force with which he wrote is superb and undeniable, even the few modern iconoclasts left around have to admit that.