The Bible forbids using icons in worship: Religious art vs. religious icon

In recent years, high-profile Evangelicals — including theologians, radio hosts, and social media influencers — have been converting to Eastern Orthodoxy: Hank Hanegraaff (“The Bible Answer Man”), Rod Dreher, “Pastor Ben,” James Bernstein (co-founder of “Jews for Jesus”), and many others. They all claim that Eastern Orthodoxy reflects the unchanged teachings of the early Church. There’s just one problem with that claim: it’s verifiably false.

Worshippers who use icons claim that they are not really worshipping them, only venerating them. Some even renumber the commandments so that the second is hidden behind the first. But they are, in fact, doing exactly what the second commandment describes and forbids. Changing the name of what they are doing and claiming that excuses them is no more convincing than calling adultery “love making” and thinking that makes it okay. The core prohibition of the second commandment is not about an attitude toward the image or what the image is of (e.g., Christ or a saint), but about what is done with it. “You shall not bow down to them or serve them.” To “serve them” suggests performing acts of worship.

This is why the intricate theological debate over the distinction between worship (latria) and mere veneration (dulia) is moot. The commandment forbids a particular use of the image: making it a focal point of prayer or adoration, bowing before it, or using it as a tool in religious devotion. When an image is used this way, it becomes an icon, and the second commandment explicitly forbids it.

Art is not iconography

It’s crucial to differentiate between religious art (decorations, stained glass) and a religious icon.

Orthodox theologians themselves define an icon by its liturgical function: “The icon’s purpose is liturgical.” It is not merely a decoration in a worship space but is actively used in worship. The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America defines an icon: “The primary purpose of the icon is to aid in worship.” By definition, an icon is an image used in religious devotion.

This distinction is key when iconodules (supporters of icons) point to images allowed in the Old Testament, such as the cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant or the bronze serpent Moses made (Numbers 21). These were symbolic images or decorations, but they were never used in worship. The cherubim were not bowed to, and the bronze serpent was destroyed by King Hezekiah the moment it was turned into an icon (2 Kings 18:4). The discovery of early Christian art in catacombs or churches, therefore, does not automatically imply the discovery of early Christian iconography. Art for viewing is not the same as an image used for veneration.

The unanimous early church testimony

The historical record from the first four centuries reveals a consistent and unanimous opposition to icons among Christian writers, a position known as aniconism. While Christians fell on a spectrum — from rigorist aniconism (against all images anywhere) to lax aniconism (against only using images in worship) — no one in the early church crossed the line to allow images in devotion.

• Clement of Alexandria insisted that “works of art cannot then be sacred and divine.” 
• Tertullian required artists to cease image-making to be accepted into the church, declaring all “similitude” interdicted.
• Lactantius famously wrote, “wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image.” 
• Arnobius of Sicca noted that pagans criticized Christians for their “very serious charge of impiety because ... [we] do not set up statues and images of any god.”
• Origen famously declared that Christians, “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues.”
• The Synod of Elvira (c. 300–314) stated: “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” This council documented the common practice of the time: keeping images out of places of worship to prevent their use as icons.
• Eusebius of Caesarea rebuked the emperor’s sister, Constantia, for requesting a picture of Christ, citing the second commandment: “Did the reading escape you where God commanded not to make any likeness of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath?” He admitted to confiscating purported images of Christ and Paul “lest we might seem to carry around our God in an image, as idolaters do.”
• Epiphanius of Salamis wrote a letter detailing how he entered a church in Palestine, saw a curtain bearing an image of Christ or a saint, and immediately tore it asunder and ordered it be used to bury a pauper, stating such images are “contrary to our religion.”

When did icons arrive?

For the first five centuries of Christianity, there is no evidence of any Christian — not even a minority faction — approving the use of images in worship. The veneration of icons was an absolute novelty that emerged later, triggering a violent and divisive controversy in the 8th century when superficially converted pagans brought their idolatry into the church.

The famous Second Council of Nicaea (787), which mandated the use of icons, did so centuries after the early church period. Empress Irene, who had been alienated from her late husband for her icons, rigged the council to deliver the result she wanted. In doing so, it effectively anathematized the universal practice of the Church Fathers who had come before it. The style and use of the icons it championed were, as noted by historian Henry Chadwick, heavily influenced by pagan traditions, borrowing from images of Zeus and venerated mother goddesses.

The conclusion is stark: the early church strictly prohibited icons. They are not a part of apostolic tradition; they are a later innovation.