Is Veneration an Authentic Christian Practice?

Christianity - it is a faith in which humanity is not abandoned, but redeemed. Where creation can participate in and point to realities greater than itself—to things unseen.

Human beings understand this almost innately. We preserve the belongings of those we have lost. We lift up that which we honor. We treat an ordinary piece of wood differently from a cross. The composition of the material thing is never all that we see, nor is it all that there is.

For Orthodox Christians, sacred images called icons belong within this way of understanding the world. We do not honor them as mere wood and paint, but the greater realities they represent.

This expression of honor, known as veneration, can take on many forms, such as bowing, kissing, saluting, lifting up, or lighting a candle. These gestures appear throughout the world, and their meaning is shaped by the context in which they are given—capable of expressing not only honor, but love, humility, reverence, or even worship, the last of which is reserved for God alone.¹

It is in the veneration of icons that Protestant and Orthodox Christian traditions—despite sharing many beliefs—can seem like worlds apart. This division is especially apparent in the YouTube video by Dr. Gavin Ortlund, titled “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion,” with the thumbnail, “This alone will make you Protestant.”

The heart of Dr. Ortlund's argument is that Christians may use honorable non-living religious objects, including images of Christ and the saints, for teaching, remembrance, or aesthetic purposes. His concern is that Scripture forbids acts of liturgical reverence toward non-living religious objects, such as bowing before and kissing them, which he grounds especially in the Second Commandment.

My position is that the Bible does not forbid the liturgical veneration of sacred objects, including icons. I further believe that such veneration is a coherent conclusion when Scripture, Trinitarian theology, and the Church’s authority are considered together.

So the central points of disagreement can be summarized in two questions:

1) Do the Scriptures, particularly the 2nd commandment, forbid the ongoing liturgical practice of venerating Christian objects, such as icons?

Dr. Ortlund: Yes

Me: No

2) Is the veneration of Christian objects, such as icons, a coherent practice when Scripture, Trinitarian theology, and the Church’s authority are considered together?

Dr. Ortlund: No

Me: Yes

At several points in his video, Dr. Ortlund adds important qualifications that help clarify the precise scope of his objection:

-Dr. Ortlund's quotes will be in blue to help the reader identify them over other quotations-

"Icons are distinct from religious art generally, and the veneration of icons is distinct from other uses of religious art. Commemorative uses, decorative uses, didactic uses. So venerating an icon is not the same as having a painting of the Apostle Paul, preaching in Athens on your office wall or having pictures in churches. It's what we're specifically talking about is the veneration of icons. That is the issue.”²

"Now, this is not to say that the distinction between worship and veneration or other forms of respect has no validity in any context. When a knight bows down to a king, for example, this can be an act of homage, not an act of idolatry. Bowing down to people has a different range of meanings throughout different human cultures, and it occurs in many places of the Bible. But that is disanalogous to an ongoing liturgical act of veneration directed to non-living objects.” (emphasis added)³

"So if a Christian were to kiss a Bible, that's not necessarily venerative, especially if it's not a ritual practice in the context of worship. Basically, Christians should treat physical objects like Bibles or crosses or religious art with respect and with affection.”⁴

These statements establish that Dr. Ortlund’s objection is not with:

1. Christian images or icons themselves

2. Bowing in every instance

3. Kissing and showing affection toward non-living physical objects

   
   

The disagreement, then, concerns the ongoing liturgical veneration of non-living Christian objects through such acts.

I think the most helpful way for me to formulate a response is in two sections:

1. The theology of veneration

2. The history of veneration

As I have stated in previous writings, I am only a layman in the Orthodox Church and claim no special theological qualifications. If I can contribute anything helpful to this discussion, it is not because of my credentials, but because I spent many of my formative years as a Protestant, mostly in a Reformed Baptist setting. I can therefore appreciate many of Dr. Ortlund's concerns surrounding icon veneration, as they were once my own.

The Theology of Veneration:

To show that such liturgical veneration is not forbidden by Scripture, several biblical principles must first be established.

This is particularly important because a recurring response in Dr. Ortlund’s video is that a certain biblical passage, historical example, or theological principle does not itself establish icon veneration.⁵

In many cases, however, the Orthodox argument is more precise: either establishing a principle that contributes to the theology of icon veneration, or demonstrating that passages commonly cited against such acts do not actually forbid them.

My goal, therefore, is to examine those biblical passages and principles alongside Dr. Ortlund’s case against the veneration of icons.

1. Acts of veneration, such as bowing and kissing, are often acceptable in Scripture even when they are not directed toward God, but are condemned when offered as worship to anyone or anything other than God.

Importantly, Dr. Ortlund grants this basic point. As quoted before, he acknowledges that bowing can be “an act of homage, not an act of idolatry,” and that bowing to people has “a different range of meanings.”³

Scripture repeatedly presents bowing as an acceptable act outside of worship, while simultaneously condemning it when offered as worship to anyone other than God.⁶

Similarly, a kiss can have multiple meanings, as the most common expression of love was also used in the most famous act of betrayal.⁷ Therefore, the same act is not always one of veneration, as the meaning it conveys is shaped by its context.

Biblical examples:

Exodus 18:7: “So Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, bowed down, and kissed him.”

Genesis 19:1: "Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening... When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground."

1 Kings 19:18: “Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.”

Revelation 22:8-9: “I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. Then he said to me, ‘See that you do not do that… Worship God.’”

Acts 10:25-26: "As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, 'Stand up; I myself am also a man.'”

2. Incense appears in Scripture as a legitimate liturgical practice, but is condemned when used in idolatry or corrupted religious devotion.

Dr. Ortlund does not discuss his views on incense in detail, so for the purposes of this video, the point is simply to acknowledge that incense can be either a legitimate or condemned liturgical practice depending on its use.

Biblical examples:

Exodus 30:1,7-8: "You shall make an altar to burn incense on... Aaron shall burn on it sweet incense every morning; when he tends the lamps, he shall burn incense on it. And when Aaron lights the lamps at twilight, he shall burn incense on it, a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations."

Leviticus 16:12-13: "Then he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from the altar before the Lord, with his hands full of sweet incense beaten fine, and bring it inside the veil. And he shall put the incense on the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the Testimony, lest he die."

This liturgical use of incense continued into the first century with Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist:

Luke 1:5-6,8-10: "...a certain priest named Zacharias... His wife was of the daughters of Aaron... And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. So it was, that while he was serving as priest before God... according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. And the whole multitude of the people was praying outside at the hour of incense.”

By contrast, Scripture condemns incense when it is offered to idols or used in corrupt religious devotion:

Ezekiel 8:9-11: “Go in, and see the wicked abominations which they are doing there.” So I went in and saw… “all the idols of the house of Israel, portrayed all around on the walls… Each man had a censer in his hand, and a thick cloud of incense went up.”

3. The Incarnation means that the Son of God truly became visible in the flesh and therefore can be depicted. 

This is another point of agreement with Dr. Ortlund. The Son of God truly became man; He was seen, touched, and known in the flesh. Therefore, we can depict Christ as He truly appeared.

There is a historical reason this issue arises surrounding discussions on icon veneration: during the iconoclast controversy, some argued that Christ could not legitimately be depicted at all.⁸ 

Ortlund does not make that argument; as he permits images of Christ in his video on Artificial Intelligence:

"I think it's okay potentially to have some images of Christ. I think that's a product of the Incarnation, and I don't see anything in scripture that prohibits that, to be honest."⁹

On this point there is common ground: icons of Christ are permitted by virtue of the Incarnation.

Biblical examples:

John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

Luke 24:39: “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

1 John 1:1: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life"

4. The Trinitarian Principle: “The Honor of the Image Passes Over to the Archetype”

Dr. Ortlund argues that the Orthodox appeal to this statement from St. Basil is taken out of context:

"There's also misuse of the fathers. The big one is one I've mentioned several times already from Basil. There's a statement that the honor shown to the image is transmitted to the prototype. That was foundational. That was a linchpin for the theology of Nicaea II. In context, it has nothing to do with icon veneration. That statement is a theological argument about the Trinity, the Father and the Son, drawn from the analogy of the emperor and his image on a coin, for instance. So the term image is often equivocated upon by the bishops at Nicaea 2"¹⁰

Ortlund is correct about the immediate context: St. Basil is discussing the Trinity, not icon veneration. But that is not what the Orthodox appeal to Basil is intended to establish.

St. Basil writes:

"With regard to the particularity of the persons, they are one and one, but with regard to common nature, both are one thing. How, then, if they are one and one, are they not two gods? Because it is said there is a king and the image (eikōn) of the king, but not two kings, for the power is not divided, and the glory is not portioned out. As the power that rules over us and the authority is one, so also one, not many, is the doxology from us. On account of this, the honor of the image passes over to the archetype. Therefore, the image is the prototype by way of imitation"¹¹ (emphasis added).

Basil’s point is that, just as honor shown to the image of a king passes to the king without creating two kings, the honor given to Christ is received by the Father without dividing the divine glory or creating two Gods.

This requires us to distinguish Basil’s immediate subject from the principle he uses to explain it.

His subject is the relationship between the Father and the Son, not icon veneration.

But his argument depends upon a broader representative principle: honor directed toward an image (eikōn) passes to the person represented by it.

Orthodox Christians cite Basil to show that this principle was employed in ancient orthodox Trinitarian reasoning—not to claim that Basil was directly teaching on icons or their veneration.

From an Orthodox perspective, this Trinitarian principle reflects a timeless and universal reality.

From Genesis to today, and from China to the USA, lowering oneself before another—or elevating another above oneself—has been recognized as an expression of humility or honor.¹²

The world universally recognizes this shared language of respect at the Olympic Games.

When an American athlete wins gold and stands atop the podium as our flag is raised and our national anthem is played, the honor shown to the athlete is shared by all Americans. This is true even though the flag is not the nation, nor the anthem its people.

The reverse is also true: desecrating the flag—or even allowing it to touch the ground—is considered a genuine insult to those represented.

Materially, a flag is only a multi-colored piece of fabric; yet it represents something greater than the sum of its parts.

Americans explicitly recognize this representative reality in the Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...”

The allegiance does not terminate in the material flag; it is directed through the flag to the republic for which it stands.

And since man is made in God’s image, is it not fitting that this Trinitarian principle should also find expression in human life?

Consider a father and his son: Scripture says that a son bears his father’s image¹³ and recognizes that a son’s wisdom brings his father joy, while his foolishness brings him grief.¹⁴

The claim is not that this principle alone establishes icon veneration.

Rather, it's that ancient orthodox Trinitarian understanding affirms that honor can pass through an image—the eikōn—to the one represented.

Whether this principle legitimately applies to the liturgical veneration of sacred images is another question—one the principle does not attempt to answer by itself.

Biblical examples illustrating this representative principle:

Matthew 10:40: "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me."

Matthew 25:45: "Inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me."

Matthew 25:40: "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me."

John 5:23: "That all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

Biblical examples of one bearing the image (eikōn) of another:

Genesis 1:26-27: "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image (eikōn), according to Our likeness... So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Genesis 5:3: "And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image (eikōn), and named him Seth."

Romans 8:29: "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image (eikōn) of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren."

5. Scripture, including the 2nd commandment, does not teach against icon veneration

Dr. Ortlund appeals to the Second Commandment and related passages as an argument against icon veneration:

"Now, what people will, of course, want to say is that it's not idolatry to venerate icons. This is different, and this is where the distinction between worship and veneration comes in. Let me interact with that a little bit, because my concern is that this distinction is completely alien to both scripture and to the consciousness of the early church. When the scripture condemns bowing to images, it does not ever make that or any comparable qualification. It's the act of bowing down that is part of what is condemned in scripture. The second commandment, but many other passages. Here's Leviticus 26:1. It says, "you shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it for I the Lord. I am the Lord your God." So what people will say is, well... yeah, but these commandments were just against the pagan images, not necessarily against all images. But that very distinction is nowhere in the text. Moreover, as with the early Christian apologists, it's precisely the invisibility of the one true God that forms the basis for the prohibition of images. For example, in Deuteronomy 4, it says, therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 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, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, etc., etc., etc. etc. The worship versus veneration distinction is not visible in scripture with respect to the use of images. Nowhere do you get the idea that it's saying, thou shalt not bow down to images unless, of course, you're venerating them. Then it's fine. That distinction is a later innovation... God's commandments simply prohibit bowing down to images as such, and there's no distinction between worship and veneration, one kind of bowing to images versus another that's visible in connection to those commandments of God. Now, this is not to say that the distinction between worship and veneration or other forms of respect has no validity in any context... But that is disanalogous to an ongoing liturgical act of veneration directed to non-living objects... If Joshua's falling down before the ark is a proof text for icon worship or veneration, we could just as easily insist that David's dancing before the ark in 2. Samuel 6, 14, and 15 is a proof text for ritual dancing before images as an obligatory part of Christian worship. You can't use a one-off event like this to support an ongoing practice when the one-off event is occasioned by a very specific set of circumstances, especially when the text itself never talks about the ark being the specific object of veneration, as opposed to it being the occasion for mourning before God, since the ark represents the presence of God."¹⁵

With Dr. Ortlund’s position in mind, the first two commandments read:

Exodus 20:3-6:

“You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image—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 nor  serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me"

The different positions on the second commandment depend on how broadly these prohibitions are understood. At least three interpretations should be considered:

A) A complete prohibition of all images: God forbids the making of any image in the likeness of anything in creation. Bowing before or serving any image is likewise forbidden.

or

B) Non-idolatrous images are permitted, but bowing before any image is prohibited: God permits the use of images, including in religious settings, but prohibits bowing before any image regardless of intent. This appears to be most consistent with Dr. Ortlund’s position, as he allows for images, but when it comes to bowing to them, he consistently states the following:

"When the scripture condemns bowing to images, it does not ever make that or any comparable qualification. It's the act of bowing down that is part of what is condemned in scripture. The second commandment, but many other passages... God's commandments simply prohibit bowing down to images as such, and there's no distinction between worship and veneration, one kind of bowing to images versus another that's visible in connection to those commandments of God."¹⁶

By contrast, a third interpretation understands these prohibitions even more narrowly:

C) A prohibition of idolatrous images and the worship given to them as other gods: God prohibits making images as objects of divine worship and bowing before or serving them as gods. Neither the making of images nor bowing to them is condemned as such; what is condemned is their use in idolatrous worship.

When the first two commandments are read together—

"You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image..."

—God appears to be commanding the Israelites not to make idolatrous images of false gods in any likeness, and not to bow down to or serve them.

The Septuagint texts, which the Orthodox Study Bible uses as the basis for its Old Testament, make this connection especially clear. Exodus 20:4 reads, “You shall not make for yourself an idol (eidōlon), nor any likeness…” The Greek word eidōlon is commonly translated as “idol,” including in every one of its New Testament occurrences in translations such as the ESV and NKJV.¹⁷

Orthodox Christians rely heavily upon the Septuagint texts, as they were the primary—though not exclusive—source used by the New Testament authors when quoting the Old Testament¹⁸ and subsequently became the principal Old Testament used throughout most of the Church during its first four centuries.¹⁹

When Scripture is read holistically, I believe "C" is the only consistent interpretation.

"A"- A complete prohibition of all images does not seem like a coherent option, as God expressly commands the making of images representing beings in heaven when giving instructions for the Ark of the Covenant:

Exodus 25:18: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work"

Likewise, when Solomon builds the Temple, its walls are adorned with images of things on the earth beneath:

1 Kings 6:29-30: "Then he carved all the walls of the temple all around, both the inner and outer sanctuaries, with carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. And the floor of the temple he overlaid with gold, both the inner and outer sanctuaries."

Option "B"- Non-idolatrous images are permitted, but bowing before any image is prohibited - seems grammatically unlikely. Whatever class of “image,” “idol,” or “likeness” the commandment prohibits making is the same class to which the subsequent pronoun refers: “you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.” Since the command against making images cannot include every image without qualification, the prohibition against bowing to “them” should not suddenly be expanded to include every image. In both clauses, the objects being prohibited are idolatrous images.

Dr. Ortlund also cites Leviticus 26:1 and Deuteronomy 4,²⁰ but these passages are applications of the same prohibition against idolatry in the Second Commandment, not independent commands that extend it to every image or act of bowing.

Option "B" also does not seem consistent with the biblical treatment of the Ark:

Joshua 7:6: "Then Joshua tore his clothes, and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of the Lord until evening, he and the elders of Israel"

The Hebrew Masoretic text describes Joshua and the elders physically prostrating before the Ark, while the Greek Septuagint makes it explicit that the act was ultimately directed to the Lord, as it reads in the Orthodox Study Bible that Joshua “fell to the ground on his face before the Lord until evening.”²¹ These are not competing ideas—or at least they need not be, as the Ark represents the presence of God. In this respect, the scene illustrates a representative logic that St. Basil later employs in a Trinitarian context: the act performed before the material sign passes to the one represented.

A similar pattern appears in Psalm 98:5 LXX [99:5 MT]: "Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at the footstool of His feet; for He is holy"

While First Chronicles closely identifies this footstool with the Ark:

1 Chronicles 28:2: "I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God, and had made preparations to build it."

Dr. Ortlund responds that the Ark is merely the location at which God is worshiped, not itself an object of veneration, and that these passages cannot establish an ongoing liturgical practice:

"and the Ark of the Covenant. So let's deal with that. The temple iconography, for example, that exists in the Old Testament. I'm amazed at how frequently people will appeal to this without addressing the elephant in the room. That is, it's not venerated. The cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, you don't have Israelites coming in and regularly lighting candles beneath them, kissing the cherubim, bowing down, falling prostrate before the Ark of the Covenant as some distinct act of veneration toward the Ark as opposed to the worship given to God or something like that. There's nothing like that. Some people try to read that into Joshua's falling down before the Ark in Joshua 7, verse 6. But this is an act of mourning in response to a military defeat. It's not a continual religious practice... You can't use a one-off event like this to support an ongoing practice when the one-off event is occasioned by a very specific set of circumstances, especially when the text itself never talks about the ark being the specific object of veneration, as opposed to it being the occasion for mourning before God, since the Ark represents the presence of God.  There are just no examples of people venerating the Ark" (emphasis added).²²

Calling the act “mourning before God” does not alter the point being made. Joshua deliberately mourned and prayed before the Ark because, as Ortlund acknowledges, “the Ark represents the presence of God.” The prostration therefore occurred before the sacred created object while being directed beyond it to the Creator of all.

Dr. Ortlund also responds on the Psalm:

"I've even seen people try to appeal to Psalm 99:5 as a support...

let's say the footstool is the Ark of the Covenant here, every modern translation I can find and every commentary I consult always remember renders it at his footstool, this is simply designating the ark as the location at which God is worshipped. Just like in verse 9, the same parallel construction is used. Exalt the Lord our God and worship at His holy mountain, for the Lord our God is holy. If you think verse 5 means arc veneration, then verse 9 means mountain veneration...

efforts like this seem to me to prove not the thing in question, but rather the desperation of the cause of trying to prove the thing in question that people would appeal to a verse like that. If the Israelites as a liturgical act regularly venerated the Ark of the Covenant, why don't we see that? Is it too much to ask that there'd be some mention of it somewhere, especially in light of the fact that would seem to go against other commandments? The ark represented the place of God's special presence among his people is where God speaks to Moses...

the Ark of the Covenant had a special symbolic purpose among the people of God, and it was built at the commandment of God. There's a big difference between iconography that's commanded by God for purposes of symbolism, warning, instruction, and commemoration, versus iconography that's never commanded by God for a purpose, namely veneration that is expressly against God's commandments. Now on top of all that, there's another problem. That is, the ark represented God's presence. So even if you wanted to say the Israelites venerated the ark, that still would not justify the veneration of icons of Mary, saints, people like that"(emphasis added).²³

Dr. Ortlund is correct that neither this psalm nor Joshua 7:6 explicitly establishes a regular liturgical practice of Ark veneration. Nevertheless, it is significant to consider that Joshua’s response after Israel’s defeat was to prostrate himself before the Ark—the very object containing the Law. This response would be difficult to explain if the 2nd Commandment categorically prohibited bowing before a sacred material object. And it seems more plausible that Joshua and the elders did not understand their bowing to be in violation of God’s Law. Moreover, the Psalmist’s command to bow down at God’s footstool suggests that such bodily devotion at the Ark was at least not foreign to Israel’s worship.

Regardless, these passages are not being asked to establish a continued practice of Ark veneration.

The question is whether Scripture, particularly the Second Commandment, prohibits bowing before a sacred material object "as such." On that question, Joshua 7:6 remains significant: Joshua and the elders physically prostrated themselves before the Ark until evening while Joshua addressed God in prayer. Ortlund himself explains why this was permissible—the Ark “represented God’s presence.” His explanation recognizes in principle that a sacred material object may participate representationally in a bodily act of honor without it terminating in the object or becoming idolatrous. For this narrower question, his description of the Ark merely as the “location” of worship becomes a distinction without a meaningful difference.

This is a similar representative logic that St. John of Damascus, an eighth-century monk and theologian, applies to icon veneration: “We therefore venerate the images, not by offering veneration to matter, but through them to those who are depicted in them.”²⁴ Put another way, the icon may be understood as the sacred “location” at which honor is offered to the one depicted.

This brings us back to the narrower point of this section: not yet to make the positive case for icon veneration, but to disarm the biblical case made against it. The verses cited by Dr. Ortlund, including the Second Commandment, do not establish his claimed prohibition against "veneration directed to non-living religious objects." The remaining questions, then, are which sacred objects may rightly receive such veneration and whether the Church possesses the normative authority to prescribe it as an "ongoing liturgical" practice.

6. Every Icon is an eikōn, but not every eikōn is an Icon

The Greek word for image, eikōn, does not itself determine whether that image is holy, ordinary, or idolatrous. Scripture uses eikōn across a wide range of contexts, including:

• the Son as the image of God — 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15

• God’s image in humanity — Genesis 1:26–27

• a father’s image in his son — Genesis 5:3

• Caesar’s image on a coin — Matthew 22:20

• a person’s image or fleeting semblance — Psalm 38:7 LXX [39:6 MT]

• painted representations of people — Ezekiel 23:14

• a statue seen in a prophetic dream — Daniel 2:31

• and an idolatrous image or statue — Deuteronomy 4:16; Daniel 3:7

So when Dr. Ortlund states:

"When the Scripture condemns bowing to images, it does not ever make that or any comparable qualification. It's the act of bowing down that is part of what is condemned in Scripture. The second commandment, but many other passages...Leviticus 26:1. It says, "you shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image"... So what people will say is, well... yeah, but these commandments were just against the pagan images, not necessarily against all images. But that very distinction is nowhere in the text."²⁵

The qualification is present in Scripture, appearing in the distinctions Scripture itself makes:

Human beings are called eikōnes, yet bowing is not permitted in all contexts: Jacob’s family bows before Joseph without condemnation, while Peter commands Cornelius to stand. Lot bows as he greets the angels, while John is told not to. Joshua and the elders bow before the material object of the Ark, while the Second Commandment condemns bowing before a graven image.

Scripture therefore does not treat every image, every eikōn, or every act of bowing as equivalent. The identity of what is represented, the intention of the person bowing, and the context in which it occurs provide the relevant qualifications to determine the meaning of the act. Dr. Ortlund acknowledges this contextual principle when applied to living persons, but draws a categorical boundary at nonliving images:

"Now, this is not to say that the distinction between worship and veneration or other forms of respect has no validity in any context. When a knight bows down to a king, for example, This can be an act of homage, not an act of idolatry. Bowing down to people has a different range of meanings throughout different human cultures, and it occurs in many places of the Bible. But that is disanalogous to an ongoing liturgical act of veneration directed to non-living objects"²⁶

But does Dr. Ortlund consistently draw this boundary at all ongoing acts of honor directed to non-living objects? If he permits American Christians in his congregation to stand at attention and place their hands over their hearts before an elevated flag at an event, then he already accepts that a material object may participate representationally in a bodily act of honor without the act becoming idolatrous.

This comparison is especially relevant as it is not merely a spontaneous act of private respect. It is an ongoing, organized, and communal civic ritual in which a community repeatedly performs bodily acts of honor before a nonliving material representation. Can a community therefore engage in an ongoing ritual of reverence toward a nonliving object so long as the act is civic rather than religious? Or would such an act also violate God’s law?

And consider why dishonor is communicated when someone burns an American flag, deliberately turns their back during the national anthem, or desecrates a Bible, cross, or image of Christ. The offense is not against the paper, wood, fabric, or paint. If it were, how could we explain the moral significance of desecrating such things? Why would showing them honor or dishonor matter at all?

The Orthodox theology surrounding eikōnes remains coherent and biblical: created things can represent and participate in realities beyond themselves, allowing honor to ascend through a hierarchy of image–archetype relationships—from man to the Son of Man, from an earthly king to the King of kings, from the saint to the Sanctifier, and from the Ark to the God whose presence it represented.²⁷

This relationship does not require the image to be a perfect reflection of its archetype.²⁸ A man may bear God’s image while remaining deeply flawed; an earthly king may imperfectly represent the authority of the King of kings; a messenger is not equal to the one who sent him; and the Ark was not itself divine by nature. Christ alone is the perfect Image, eternally begotten of the Father.²⁹ In every other case, the image is created—yet its imperfection does not sever the relationship through which honor can pass beyond it.

This representative relationship does not make every act of honor legitimate; rather, it helps explain why rightly ordered veneration is significant in one's daily life. If created things can direct us beyond themselves, then what we show honor to is not spiritually neutral.

St. John of Damascus addresses this spiritual element of veneration, writing, "if [images] turn out to be... promoting the glory of God and his saints, and inspiring virtue and driving away vice, and leading to the salvation of souls, then to accept and honor them as images... and to venerate and kiss them with eyes and lips, and cleave to them in our hearts”³⁰

"For it is just as bad not to offer the honor due to those who are worthy, as it is to offer inappropriate glory to the worthless. The truth, pursuing a middle way, denies all these absurdities.”³¹

This “middle way” is not about neutrality, but rightly ordered veneration. And I believe the prohibition against idolatry in the Second Commandment expresses a similar concern. God alone is worthy of our worship, but His divine essence is neither enhanced, sustained, nor in any way dependent upon receiving it. Humanity, by contrast, is wholly dependent upon God for life—to have it truly, eternally, and abundantly. In light of this, the Law served as a shadow of the good things to come, revealing His love for those created in His image, as Scripture presents worship as formative: we become like what we give ourselves to—misplaced worship deforms us toward the lifelessness of idols, while true worship transforms us into the eikōn of Christ, the Truth and the Life Himself.³²

Biblical examples:

Acts 17:24-25: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

Psalm 113:12,16 LXX [115:4,8 MT]: “Their idols are silver and gold, The work of men’s hands. . . . Those who make them are like them; So is everyone who trusts in them.”

Romans 1:22-25: Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

2 Corinthians 3:18: "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image (eikōn) from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord."

2 Peter 1:3-4: "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

Hebrews 10:1: "For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

In Conclusion of the Theology of Veneration:

When the theological consequences of Dr. Ortlund’s position on veneration are considered, I believe his account can most charitably be described as incomplete. This becomes most apparent when he addresses some objections in his video:

"Okay, to finish off, let me address a couple of other objections on this third section about the biblical teaching about icons. Some will say, they'll try to make it sound less problematic by saying, oh, but wouldn't you kiss the Bible? However, although kisses can be an expression of veneration, they're not always an expression of veneration. They can be an expression of affection or respect, or even in some cultures, greeting, you know, friendship. So if a Christian, you know, Christian were to kiss a Bible that's not necessarily venerative, especially if it's not a ritual practice in the context of worship. Basically, Christians should treat physical objects like Bibles or crosses or religious art with respect and with affection,"³³ 

But why? Why treat Christian objects "with respect" and "affection" at all? What accounts for this moral significance in his worldview? Do such acts of honor communicate something beyond the material itself? Or are they edifying to the person performing them? If either is true, why limit such honor or edification to a non-liturgical, occasional practice? And if neither is true, then treating such objects with respect would matter no more than treating them with contempt or indifference, for they are just non-living after all.

Dr. Ortlund’s reservations seem to intensify once veneration enters the liturgy, but is God not the source of all holiness? If so, why would honoring the saints lessen His glory rather than magnify it? Is the craftsman dishonored when his workmanship is praised? Or is a father disrespected when his children receive honor? What is it about entering the liturgy that transforms an otherwise legitimate act of "respect" into an act of idolatry?

Similar questions arise for life outside of the liturgical services. Consider the honor shown to our national flag. We raise it, stand before it, and place our right hands over our hearts. Is that permissible because we elevate the material representation rather than bow before it? Or because it is an ongoing civic ritual rather than a liturgical one—as though governments have never demanded worship from their people? Why must prostration before an object be limited to one meaning, yet a kiss may have multiple? Is the Second Commandment’s main concern really how low one may bow before an image? Is that what truly makes an act worship or idolatrous—and, if so, why only when the recipient is material rather than another human being or an angel?

These are not questions I raise only for Dr. Ortlund, as I have had to wrestle with them myself. It was not long ago that, as a Protestant, I would have described my position on images more by what it was not—Roman Catholic—than by what it was. But defining a position mainly by what it rejects can leave us ignorant of the difficult questions that remain.

I am not claiming that Dr. Ortlund has never considered these implications, or perhaps even has good answers to them. A video can only cover so much, and no one can reasonably anticipate every question that may arise. Personally, I have come to appreciate how deeply rooted the Orthodox theology of icon veneration is and the explanatory power it possesses. Consequently, those arguing from a different perspective must offer more than a theology of rejection, but a positive account capable of coherently explaining the complexities of this world.

At this point, the questions begin to move beyond the theology of images. When someone curiously asks, “Why should I venerate icons?” I believe the questions ultimately become ecclesiological. Particularly, whether the Church—as the Body of Christ and pillar and ground of the truth³⁴—possesses the God-given normative authority to bind the faithful to such a practice.

I believe she does, yet my reasoning will have to wait for another day—not because the answer is peripheral to the question at hand, as it is ultimately why I now venerate icons. It's that the ecclesiological questions are so fundamental that they merit a video of their own. Nevertheless, understanding the Orthodox theology of veneration can help explain why Dr. Ortlund’s arguments might carry considerable force within a Protestant worldview, yet provide more questions than answers and remain unconvincing within an Orthodox one.

For those interested in further understanding the Orthodox theology of icons, St. John of Damascus’s Three Treatises on the Divine Images and St. Theodore the Studite’s On the Holy Icons brought into focus theological connections I had only begun to discern when first researching this topic. Now, with the theological distinctions more clearly drawn, we can turn to history: whether veneration of non-living objects truly appears as a late accretion or emerges from an earlier and broader Christian pattern of reverence toward sacred persons, places, and material objects.

Footnotes

1. See St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, trans. and intro. Andrew Louth, Popular Patristics Series 24 (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003), I.14, 27–28; St. Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons, trans. Catharine P. Roth (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981), 38, 43, 60; Second Council of Nicaea (787), “The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice,” in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, ed. Henry R. Percival, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900), 549–51.

2. Gavin Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” Truth Unites, January 9, 2023, PodScripts transcript, 6:37–7:23.

3. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 1:01:11–1:01:51.

4. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 1:08:13–1:08:58.

5. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 52:49–53:32; 53:32–54:19; 1:02:26–1:03:56; 1:08:58–1:09:50.

6. Exod. 18:7; Gen. 19:1; 1 Kgs. 19:18; Rev. 22:8–9; Acts 10:25–26; see also St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, I.8, 25.

7. 1 Pet. 5:14; Luke 22:47–48.

8. Council of Hieria (754), “Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum, Held in Constantinople, A.D. 754,” anathema 9, trans. H. R. Percival, in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, ed. Henry R. Percival, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900), 543–44; reproduced in Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University, https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/source/icono-cncl754.asp.

9. Gavin Ortlund, “These A.I. Videos Raise a Theology Question,” Truth Unites, July 22, 2025, PodScripts transcript, 7:22–8:44.

10. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 53:32–54:19.

11. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit 18.45, trans. Stephen M. Hildebrand, Popular Patristics Series 42 (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 81.

12. Gen. 19:1; St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, I.14, 27, where he describes veneration or bowing as “a symbol of submission and honor.”

13. Gen. 5:3.

14. Prov. 10:1; 17:25.

15. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 58:14–1:01:51; 1:02:26–1:03:56.

16. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 58:14–59:24.

17. Exod. 20:4 LXX; The Orthodox Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008), Exod. 20:4; Blue Letter Bible, “G1497 — eidōlon,” ESV and NKJV New Testament concordances, accessed October 5, 2026.

18. Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 189, 193–94.

19. Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 23, 81–83.

20. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 58:40–59:50.

21. Josh. 7:6 NKJV and ESV; The Orthodox Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008), Josh. 7:6 (St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint).

22. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 1:01:11–1:03:56, where he discusses Old Testament temple imagery and Joshua’s prostration before the Ark, concluding that the Ark “represents the presence of God.”

23. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 1:03:56–1:07:31, where he discusses Psalm 99:5 and 99:9, argues that the Ark functions as the location of worship rather than an object of veneration, and emphasizes that “the Ark represented God’s presence.”

24. St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, III.41, 112.

25. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 58:14–59:24.

26. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 1:01:11–1:01:51.

27. St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, III.18–23, 96–100; III.38–41, 110–12; III.48–49, 114–15; see also John of Damascus, “An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” bk. IV, chs. 15–16, trans. E. W. Watson and L. Pullan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 9, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1899), revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm.

28. St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, III.16, 95–96.

29. St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, I.9, 25, where he describes the Son as the “living, natural and undeviating image of the Father.”

30. St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, II.11, 67, where he writes that one must examine “the truth and the purpose” of images and describes rightly ordered images as promoting God’s glory, virtue, and the salvation of souls.

31. St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, III.1, 81–82.

32. Acts 17:24–25; Ps. 113:12, 16 LXX [115:4, 8 MT]; Rom. 1:22–25; 2 Cor. 3:18; 2 Pet. 1:3–4; Heb. 10:1.

33. Ortlund, “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!,” 1:08:13–1:08:58, where he says, “Christians should treat physical objects like Bibles or crosses or religious art with respect and with affection.”

34. 1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 1:22–23; 1 Tim. 3:15.

Bibliography

Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit. Translated and introduced by Stephen M. Hildebrand. Popular Patristics Series 42. Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011.

Blue Letter Bible. “G1497 — eidōlon.” Strong’s Greek Lexicon. ESV and NKJV concordances. Accessed October 5, 2026. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1497/esv/mgnt/0-1/

Council of Hieria. “Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum, Held in Constantinople, A.D. 754.” 754. Translated by H. R. Percival. In The Seven Ecumenical Councils, edited by Henry R. Percival, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 14, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 543–44. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900. Reproduced in Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University. https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/source/icono-cncl754.asp

Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000.

John of Damascus. “An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.” Translated by E. W. Watson and L. Pullan. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 9, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1899. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm

John of Damascus. Three Treatises on the Divine Images. Translated and introduced by Andrew Louth. Popular Patristics Series 24. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003.

Ortlund, Gavin. “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!” Truth Unites. January 9, 2023. PodScripts transcript. https://podscripts.co/podcasts/truth-unites/icon-veneration-is-clearly-an-accretion

Ortlund, Gavin. “These A.I. Videos Raise a Theology Question.” Truth Unites. July 22, 2025. PodScripts transcript. https://podscripts.co/podcasts/truth-unites/these-ai-videos-raise-a-theology-question

Second Council of Nicaea. “The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice.” 787. In The Seven Ecumenical Councils, edited by Henry R. Percival, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 14, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 549–51. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900.

St. Athanasius Orthodox Academy, ed. The Orthodox Study Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008.

Theodore the Studite. On the Holy Icons. Translated by Catharine P. Roth. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981.