Reply To An Objector Re: Image Veneration #1
Defending Veneration Of Standards, Signets, And Cultic Cups
SPOILERS AHEAD - A preview of my deep dive on pre-Nicene image veneration
My recent presentation (link) on image veneration in the pre-Nicene Church on Seraphim Hamilton’s YT channel has received a range of responses, ranging from rejoicing to incredulous stares. The comments have at various points included serious engagement with the evidence I presented. I wanted to share some of the objections I’ve received, and how I would respond to them.
We have to work hard to free ourselves from a modern mindset. We have to understand how deeply ritualistic, honor-centered, hierarchical, and embodied the ancients were. When we do this, and understand how they made gestures of respect through various objects, it becomes much easier to see where image veneration is in the pre-Nicene Church.
This post is a copy of my response to one of the objectors. I hope it will further clarify what I’m arguing for, and how I’m using the various evidences I presented. For this particular objector, a major problem with my presentation was that it made leaps in logic in interpreting the texts in St. Ignatius, Clement, and Tertullian. How do you get image veneration out of the statements about standards, signets, and images on cups? I recommend re-watching the parts of the video about these three early authors to capture some of the details related to what I’ll say below. You can also see what I’ve written about St. Ignatius and Clement on this site. One big take-away is that we have to work hard to free ourselves from a modern mindset. We have to understand how deeply ritualistic, honor-centered, hierarchical, and embodied the ancients were. When we do this, and understand how they made gestures of respect through various objects, it becomes much easier to see where image veneration is in the pre-Nicene Church.
The next part of my video with Seraphim will be premiering soon, which will lay out archeological and other kinds of evidence beyond the pre-Nicene author’s statements which express or entail image veneration. But the below response is going to be more of a preview of the deep dive into the evidence that will be recorded later in August, the goal of which is to further substantiate everything I argued so far.
I’ve focused only on the pre-Nicene evidence, but will try and reply about the Biblical material in a later comment. Hope this helps!
Objection 1: The standard St. Ignatius is talking about is Christ, not the cross, since Christ’s resurrection is in view:
Response: The phrase “Of this fruit we are, by His divinely blessed passion” has as the antecedent of “this” his cross, which is in view throughout the entire section of the letter, including immediately before: “and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed for us in His flesh.” He is obviously talking about the cross right before, and he says we are the fruit of it “by His divinely blessed passion.” The reference to the cross as tree of life is also present elsewhere in the Saint, who says that any people who are planted by God the Father will "appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible" (Letter to the Trallians, XI). We see a similar teaching in the Epistle of Barnabas about the tree of the cross during (arguably) the same time period. The fact that the cross is in view is further confirmed by the fact that the exact Greek wording used to describe the lifting up of the standard is the same as in Matthew 27:32: “And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.” (ἠγγάρευσαν ἵνα ἄρῃ τὸν σταυρὸν). To trace why the resurrection is in view at the same time, please see my response to objection 2.
Objection 2: St. Ignatius’ goal in the letter is not to express veneration of the cross, but combat an early form of Docetism (the heresy which denies Jesus is human, and instead regards Him as appearing to be human).
Response: It is precisely as part of his combatting of proto-Docetism that St. Ignatius ends up claiming that the cross is a standard. The resurrection of the Incarnate Son of God reverses the meaning of the cross. Christ’s resurrection turns the cross—the supreme instrument of degradation and death, a sign and weapon against human glory and life—into something "lifted up", heaven-directed, a trophy and symbol of victory that spreads life and honor eternally. Saint Ignatius' teaching about the cross as standard is an extension of His teaching that the Son of God becomes flesh to share His glory/honor with creation.
Christ’s resurrection turns the cross—the supreme instrument of degradation and death, a sign and weapon against human glory and life—into something "lifted up", heaven-directed, a trophy and symbol of victory that spreads life and honor eternally.
Objection 3: It is eisegesis (reading something into the text from your own ideas which isn’t there in the original) to read this as a reference to veneration of icons
Response: Do you think lifting up, gathering around, and focusing on a flag is a way of honoring it? Do you acknowledge that the Romans did this (and far more than modern people) with a battle sýssimon (σύσσημον)? The claim isn't that St. Ignatius is talking about a portrait icon, but that he's talking about the cross of Christ and by extension the images of it Christians would make and possess. We know that visual representations of the cross were present in Christianity during this time period, and several 2nd and early 3rd century authors echo what Saint Ignatius says about the cross as a standard. Further, many early Christian authors accuse Romans of inadvertently reverencing the cross because their battle standards share its form. This interpretation of Saint Ignatius as talking about the cross as an exalted object of reverence (and by extension, images of it that Christians make) therefore, is the opposite of eisegesis—it is a highly-contextualized reading based on cultural backgrounds and widespread sub-Apostolic testimony.
Objection 4: Signet rings were valuable because they were used to seal documents—not because they were considered holy objects. Pliny the elder talks about hiding signets so that they won’t get stolen: “And so far from its being enough to keep the very keys sealed, often the signet ring is taken from the owner's finger while he is overpowered with sleep, or actually lying on his death bed.”
Response: Of course Pliny wants the ring hidden to avoid theft as a practical measure in some sense. But what makes a signet valuable enough that someone would want to steal it? The motive would not just be financial and gain-related; when we account for the hierarchical and embodied perspective of older cultures, it is easy to see how this theft would instead be primarily related to status and honor. For ancient people, honor and status came from your connection to gods or great ancestors (who came from the gods). This is why gods and ancestors were typical signet images, because the signet was connected to sacred sources of honor. And it explains and illuminates why Pliny would speak of bringing the ring forth as from a sanctuary as opposed to merely a hiding place.
Also, by way of analogy, there was concern in the Roman world that idols could be stolen or defaced, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an act of honoring the idol to place it veiled in the middle of a sanctuary. Preventing people from having access to something can therefore be grounded in the fact that it is set-apart, sacred, like an image of a god or an ancestor. Thus, concealing something to prevent theft doesn’t mean you aren’t concealing something sacred.
To deny that signet-images were treated by Christians in an honoring way is to misunderstand the kind of object in question.
The having of a signet-image confers honor upon the wearer, which is why Joseph is venerated and bowed to (Genesis 41:38-44) immediately after Pharaoh appoints him to bear the royal signet-image. This response of the people is connected to the signet-image's intrinsically honorable quality in the ancient understanding. This explains why the Roman emperor also had a specially-appointed signet bearer who would transport the image, as well as the practice of kissing the golden imperial ring. Because gold was considered to be more honorable (honor-able, as in evocative of honor), the power to grant someone the right to wear a gold ring was typically reserved for the emperor. Saint Methodius of Olympus in the third Century confirms this common understanding about the use of gold for crafting images:
"…the images of our kings here, even though they be not formed of the more precious materials — gold or silver — are honoured by all. For men do not, while they treat with respect those of the far more precious material, slight those of a less valuable, but honour every image in the world…" (2nd Discourse on the Resurrection)
But Clement says that Christ can grant the right to wear "a finger-ring of gold." The signet image would therefore be either composed of or housed in the material most evocative of honor and various gestures of respect. To deny that signet-images were treated by Christians in an honoring way is to misunderstand the kind of object in question.
Objection 5: anyone can make an image of the Good Shepherd, but that doesn’t mean he or she will venerate it. Tertullian’s comments about the Good Shepherd image on the cup are about their educational value, not image veneration.
Response: The argument from Tertullian isn't that the image of the Good Shepherd taken in isolation means image veneration. It's the fact that it is being used on a cultic cup which (by means of that painting) has been set apart for worship of the divine Being (Christ in this case) who is imaged on it. This is a common ancient near-eastern practice, as I briefly laid out in the video in relation to the Lycurgus cup and symposium cups (though many other examples could be brought forward). In its ancient context, the acknowledgement given to the image directs worship to the divine being who is portrayed.
This is why Tertullian is basically saying to his opponents (who are not rigorists about post-baptismal sin like he is) "if you use the Shepherd of Hermas as your source of doctrine, we might as well say you have the Shepherd of Hermas and not the Good Shepherd depicted on your cups." The one whose image is acknowleded is the one who is worshipped; that divine being is the patron or guardian of the mystery-banquet, the one into whom the worshipper is mystically initiated by the ritual (hence the language of initiation, patronage, imbibing).
Hey Michael, thanks for giving my Substack a read. I think ultimately I'm aiming more to build up confidence among Orthodox Christians, help tip people over the edge who are on the fence about things, and give something for open-minded critics to consider. Of course I'd like Dr. Ortlund to change his mind and consider Orthodoxy, but you are right to point out that there's a lot to work through. The change is one of mindset and perception too, and not just intellectual. So it requires time, exposure, and openness within the heart. If one's exposure to Orthodoxy is basically all online... that's probably not going to happen.
It is true that many evangelicals take their understanding of Christianity as "pure" or default, as free from cultural influence and biases, neutral with respect to aesthetics, etc. And yes, this does need to be challenged. I think over time as people become more familiar with Orthodoxy, they begin to see its beauty and are drawn magnetically in.
It is unfortunate that your undertaking of this defense of sacred iconography is aimed at Gavin Ortlund. He is so far down the Protestant ladder (in terms of high church vs low church) that only a thorough shock to his entire worldview can get him and others like him to even begin to understand what you’re talking about. Evangelicals are so blind to the common expressions of their particular Western strand of Christianity (to the point they don’t realize they they too have particular aesthetics and an abundance of cultural traditions that are completely modern and Eurocentric) that they think it is somehow a default Christianity with nothing added on, when indeed it is almost entirely immersed in a particular culture that has been exported internationally since colonial times to the misfortune of the whole world.