The Difference between Reformed and Lutheran Perspectives on the Use of Icons in Ecclesiastical Architecture

I find that, in the debate over the use of icons, when it comes to Lutheran and Reformed arguments, the two groups are speaking past one another.

First, some Reformed folk often speak of the Lutheran veneration of images and use the second commandment to argue against it. Lutherans do not view themselves as venerating images, but instead using images didactically, i.e., to remind, inspire, teach about the story or idea that the image represents. No one, at least no one who understands Lutheran theology, is worshiping or venerating the images.

Second, Lutherans often counter by saying that many images are used in the Old Testament, but this is a bit of a straw man fallacy, as the Reformed are not arguing against the use of any image, or at least they shouldn't be, but against images of God and Christ.

Third, Lutherans often think that the entire debate is centered around whether they worship or venerate the images; but this is not the issue. The issue is whether the Bible prohibits the act of representing God or Christ with an image, regardless of whether the image is being used as an object or vehicle of worship or veneration. Hence, Lutherans tend to think that if they can show the second commandment is about worshiping through an idol, or about other gods, etc. then they have won the debate and their Reformed counterparts simply need to study more.

The problem is that the Sinai Theology in Exodus and Deuteronomy indicate that God does not want to be represented by an image at all, for any reason, and so prohibits the making of an image that would represent Him. The contrast in the texts are not between a rightly used image and a wrongly used image, but between image and word. For instance, in Deuteronomy 4:12-20, YHWH instructs His people to make no image of Him because they saw no image of Him on Sinai. Since He did not reveal Himself in an image, but through what was spoken, they are to pay extra close attention to what He has spoken, i.e., what He did reveal on Sinai.

Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land that you are going over to possess. “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, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.  
And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day.

One might argue that the additional warning about worshiping other gods means that the entire prohibition is just about other gods, but this ignores the context. The additional warning is just that: additional. The original command is connected to the fact that they saw no form of God and so must represent Him by what He has spoken, and not by what is seen.

This is a continuation of the larger Sinai Theology that one sees in Exodus 32. A golden calf is made, not representing other gods, but representing YHWH. Hence, Aaron says that it is the God who brought them out of Egypt, and the following day, therefore, will be a feast to YHWH.

This is in the context that contrasts Moses receiving the written law on tablets with the Israelite desire to have a physical image that represents God. Note that the physical image is not meant to look like God. No one thought YHWH was a young bull anymore than they thought Baal was a young bull (a symbol that often represented him). It was simply meant to teach about YHWH (the bull represents the strength with which YHWH delivered them out of Egypt and the fertility of the land that flows with milk and honey into which He was bringing them). It is a fitting image for YHWH. No one thought that it was YHWH, only that it represented Him. In other words, this image, as all images in the ancient Near Eastern world, is constructed for didactic purposes and for veneration.

So the issue is whether God only had a problem with the use of the image for veneration, but not a problem with the didactic use. Because of the contrast between the word as God's representative and the image as represenatative in Sinai Theology, it seems clear that God has a problem with the physical image representing Him for any reason, i.e., with it being created at all. This is why there simply is no "right use" of any image of God found in Scripture.

Some Lutherans will acknowledge this when it comes to God (as do the Eastern Orthodox), but not when it comes to Christ, since, in line with the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the incarnation means that God has now expressed Himself through a physical form. Unlike the council, however, Lutherans do not conclude what logically follows from that idea, i.e., that one can worship Christ through the image and venerate it. Either way, the idea that the incarnation changes things is an argument made by the Eastern theologians like John of Damascus.

It is clearly a prohibition against representing the invisible God.  But when you see Him who has no body become man for you, then you will make representations of His human aspect.  When the Invisible, having clothed Himself in the flesh, become visible, then represent the likeness of Him who has appeared.  When He who, having been the consubstantial Image of the Father, emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant, thus becoming bound in quantity and quality, having taken on the carnal image, then paint and make visible to everyone Him who desired to become visible (in Ouspensky 1978:44).

The problem with this idea is that John's Gospel adopts the Sinai Theology and applies it to Christ. His adoption of it is seen clearly in John 4, where He argues to the woman at the well that God is not worshiped through a physical representation, like a temple or hill, but through Spirit and Truth, i.e., the unseen Person of the Trinity creating through what God has spoken. John then applies this to Christ when Christ declares that it is actually beneficial that He goes away, so that the Spirit of Truth comes to the disciples and reveals all things to them, reminds them of Christ's words, convicts, etc. Until then, the disciples see Christ, but not really. Only after He leaves will they really see/comprehend Him. Hence, the physical is a hindrance, not a help to following Christ. This is why it is said to Thomas that those who do not see and believe are blessed. Hence, Christ is called the "Word," He alone has words of eternal life, the words He speaks are Spirit and life, to abide in His word is to abide in Him and Him to abide in His disciples, etc. 

John argues this because the apostles are dying off. He is likely the last one. He wants to convey that no physical presence of the apostles is necessary to worship and know Christ because Christ's physical presence is not necessary, and even a hindrance because it causes one to think he sees and follows Christ by following Him physically. To truly follow Christ is to abide in His words. This is the truth of the Sinai Theology that negates the idea that because Christ is now incarnate representing Him as a teaching aid is somehow helpful rather than a hindrance that would be prohibited.

It should be said that all scholars agree (how could they not) that no images of Christ or God were ever used in the first couple centuries of the Christian church. It was not until the church had become more Greco-Roman than Jewish that images of Christ that began to resemble the gods like Zeus were created to replace the images of the Empire's former paganism.

The issue of debate, therefore, is not over whether one venerates the image, but whether God has a problem with the making of divine images for any reason at all. In this regard, I find the usual path of argumentation from both sides to be off course.



We have taught that the knowledge of God, otherwise quite clearly set forth in the system of the universe and in all creatures, is nonetheless more intimately and also more vividly revealed in his Word (John Calvin, Institutes 1.10.1).

Q 96. What is God's will for us in the second commandment.

A. That we in no way make any image of God nor worship him in any other way than has been commanded in God's Word.

Q 97. May we then not make any image at all?

A. God cannot and may not be visibly portrayed in any way. Although creatures may be portrayed, yet God forbids making or having such images if one's intention is to worship them or to serve God through them.

Q 98. But may not images be permitted in churches in place of books for the unlearned?

A. No, we should not try to be wiser than God. God wants the Christian community instructed by the living preaching of his Word—not by idols that cannot even talk. (Heidelberg Catechism)