Historical Roots of Image Worship in the Church

Concerning the veneration of images, the claims made by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are bold. It is not merely that the veneration of saints and images is permissible—it is that it is apostolic. That is, it belongs to the very faith once delivered to the saints.

This claim does not withstand even a basic historical examination.

There is no evidence in the first three centuries of the Church that Christians worshiped saints, invoked the dead, or venerated images in anything resembling later practice. What we do find are early “germs” of development. As William Cunningham observed, the honoring of martyrs and the preservation of relics began as acts of remembrance. However, seeds, once planted, do not remain seeds.

By the late fourth and early fifth centuries, the line had been crossed. What was once honor had become religious devotion. Isaac Taylor did not hesitate to call it what it was: a descent into “demonolatry”—the religious veneration and invocation of the dead. This was no longer a harmless development. It was a perversion of worship.

When Corruption Became Creed

This corruption did not remain informal. It hardened into doctrine.

The crisis erupted in the eighth century during the iconoclastic controversy—a conflict so intense that it spilled over into violence and bloodshed. The issue was simple: does God permit the use of images in His worship?

The answer given at the Second Council of Nicaea was an unequivocal yes. And with that, what had been a developing practice was decreed as dogma.

This council did not merely tolerate images—it commanded their veneration. It gave theological justification to practices that had no grounding in apostolic teaching and no warrant in Scripture. What’s more, it pronounced a curse on anyone who refused (see 2nd Council of Nicaea, Session 1).

The Problem of Authority

The gravity of this council is magnified by what followed. The Council of Trent affirmed Nicaea II as ecumenical. Within Rome’s own framework, this makes its decrees infallible.

This is not a minor issue. It means that the veneration of images, relics, and saints is not a matter of private devotion—it is a binding article of faith.

Lest there be any ambiguity, Pope Pius IV makes the matter explicit: “saints are to be invoked, relics venerated, and images retained and honored.”

The question, then, is unavoidable: on what basis?

The historical record is not flattering. Critics have pointed out that the council leaned heavily on unreliable sources for their support. These include fabricated quotations from the church fathers, superstitious miracle claims, and emotional appeals. Reports of images performing signs (such as winking) were treated as evidence. This methodology in and of itself is not apostolic. Would the Bereans have fallen for such folly?

Yet, we are asked to believe that conclusions drawn from such foundations are both apostolic and infallible.

Worship vs. Veneration

The standard defense is familiar: Roman Catholics and the Orthodox do not worship images or saints, but merely venerate them. Worship, they argue, is reserved for God alone.

But this distinction collapses under scrutiny.

To bow, to pray, to seek aid, to offer devotion—these are not neutral acts. They are religious acts. To direct them toward any created being, regardless of the terminology employed, is to give to another what belongs to God alone. We see angels in scripture rejecting these acts toward them (Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9).

Scripture does not merely forbid the worship of false gods—it forbids all rivals. “You shall have no other gods before me” is not a statement about ranking; it is a declaration of exclusivity.

The issue is not whether God remains supreme in theory. The issue is whether He is alone in practice.

False Worship of the True God

Defenders of image veneration often argue that their worship is directed to the true God, and therefore cannot be idolatrous. But Scripture itself dismantles this argument.

The golden calf was not presented as a new god, but as a representation of the God who delivered Israel from Egypt (Ex. 32:4). Jeroboam’s calves were not intended to introduce paganism, but to provide an alternative means of worshiping Yahweh (1 Kings 12:28; 14:16).

Both were condemned.

Why? Because sincerity does not sanctify disobedience. Worshiping the true God in a false way is still idolatry. The first commandment forbids worshiping other God’s, while the second forbids worshipping the true God in a false way.

We must worship God alone, yes. But we must also worship Him only in the way He commands.

And here the silence of Scripture is deafening. There is no command to use images in worship. No example of the apostles employing them. No hint that the early Church relied on them.

What God has not commanded, He has not permitted.

The Commandment That Cannot Be Ignored

The second commandment speaks plainly: God forbids the making and veneration of images in worship (Ex. 20:4-5).

That this commandment has been historically merged, minimized, or effectively removed in certain traditions is not an accident—it is a necessity. The plain meaning of the text stands in direct opposition to the practice. But we are told that what is “apostolic” is at odds with the clear commands of Scripture.

Christ Himself is “the image of the invisible God.” He is the perfect, sufficient, and final revelation of God to man. To construct images as aids to worship is not an enhancement—it is a denial of that sufficiency, and a violation of the second commandment.

A Religion That Looks Familiar

There is something else that must be said, however uncomfortable it may be.

Image worship is not unique. It is universal.

Every pagan religion makes use of images. Every system of false worship finds comfort in the visible, the tangible, the external. This is not accidental—it is natural to fallen man.

What is unnatural to fallen man, and indeed truly supernatural, is worship governed strictly by the Word of God.

The early Church knew this. The fathers, who are so often appealed to in defense of images, frequently argued against the very practices later adopted in their name. They opposed paganism in part because of its reliance on images (See Chrysostom, Homily 14 “on the Statues”).

The fact that later generations would embrace similar methods under a Christian name is not continuity—it is contradiction.

Conclusion

The question is not one of beauty, culture, or nostalgia. It is theological.

Those who travel to Rome or the East seeking “apostolic” continuity should beware: the practices you admire were not passed down intact from the apostles. The veneration of images and the invocation of saints were not apostolic commands—they are later innovations, gradually adopted, poorly defended, and eventually enforced as dogma.

Will God be worshiped as He has ordained, or as man finds convenient?

Further Reading
The following resources will be helpful to you in learning about church history and true worship:

Historical Theology: 2 Volume Set – William Cunningham

2000 Years of Christ’s Power vol. 1 – Nick Needham

History of the Christian Church – Phillip Schaff

Does God Care How We Worship? – Ligon Duncan

Some links above may be affiliate links. If you purchase through them, this publication may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. Such proceeds help support the ongoing work of this site.