Icons are Idolatry? A Discussion Between St. Nikephoros and the Emperor Leo V the Armenian

The following conversation took place after the enthronement of the Emperor Leo V the Armenian in Constantinople on the 22nd of July in the year 813. Emperor Leo kept his iconoclastic and heretical stance hidden prior to his enthronement, slyly implying that he would agree to sign a public affirmation of Orthodoxy at the request of the Patriarch Nikephoros, only to reveal his true impiety as soon as he was crowned. This culminated in the imperial order to remove the renowned image of Christ from the gate of the Chalke Palace.

“During the vigil of the Nativity of our Lord, Nikephoros gathered together a multitude of monks and bishops. All those present at that divine office gave their allegiance to the Orthodox belief of the veneration of the icons. Leo learned of this all-night vigil. At first he was embarrassed at the breach between the imperium and the patriarch. Then he called what the patriarch celebrated ‘an act of civil disobedience.' He accused Nikephoros of overturning the emperor's peaceful practices. He said that Nikephoros was a sower of discord and dissent. Leo had the patriarch, consequently, summoned to the palace. Nikephoros addressed his flock, warning them not to capitulate to the enemies of truth. He then dressed in a modest omophorion and proceeded to the imperial audience hall, with the congregation following behind. 

A Discussion Between Patriarch Nikephoros and Emperor Leo

Leo did not greet the hierarch with the customary hand clasp and kissing of right hands. He shot an ugly countenance at the patriarch and did not ask his blessing. Leo sat on his throne and designated a seat of secondary honor to Nikephoros. The intractable emperor ignored the patriarch's pious reproofs and fell headlong into impiety. Nikephoros, nevertheless, reminded the emperor that the patriarchal sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem revered the icon of Christ. He implored the emperor not to extend his hand to heresy and revolutionary doctrines against established tradition. Leo asked the patriarch why he doubted the words of Moses. Had not God spoken through him not to make an idol, nor likeness of anything, whatsoever things are in the heaven above, and whatever are in the earth beneath, and whatever are in the waters under the earth? Leo then asked ‘How dost thou make images and pay honor to that which the lawgiver has forbidden?' Nikephoros explained that when Moses the lawgiver led the children of Israel out of Egypt, he desired to expunge the deep stain that Egypt left on their souls. He did not wish his people to imitate the Egyptians, who imagined that the divine was in the shape of a man or an animal. He, therefore, forbade his people from making images in the case of God alone. He said that the Greeks poured out all their wisdom proclaiming that what appears to the senses is God. Though there is nothing wrong in making an image of a king or a general or man of excellence, the pagans honored such as God. This is what the law of Moses and the Christians found hateful. Nikephoros expounded on how images were used in the Old Testament. There were twelve young bulls fashioned for the brazen sea of the temple of Solomon. The throne of Solomon had ivory figures as lions. Moses, the lawgiver, Nikephoros continued, did not follow his own commandments. Had not the mercy seat over the golden ark of the covenant two cherubim stretching forth their wings in order to overshadow and protect it? What did Moses lift in the wilderness when the people were bitten by snakes, but a staff with a serpent of brass? This signified Jesus hanging on the Cross. Moses, therefore, did not forbid the making of creatures. But when he saw the people proclaiming a calf-—not only as their god but also as the one who delivered them out of Egypt—he had to prohibit them from making an image of God and not of simply making images. 

The saint the explained that the Orthodox do not paint God, the transcendent reality, in images. For how can one paint what is not perceived by the eyes? When iconographers depict the Christian martyrs, the latter are not considered gods; but rather, they are deemed the faithful servants of God. Thus, we honor the martyrs for their valor, since they are like the attendants of the King. In our behalf do they represent our requests before Him. Nikephoros then attempted to make this clear to Leo in a manner in which he could understand. As emperor of so great a realm, did not have officials so that he might be among his subjects when absent? Thus, his subjects revere him through his officials. Certainly, Leo does not reproach his subjects for bringing their petitions before his officials. But Leo surely would not tolerate his functionaries to be addressed as emperor. Now Leo agreed with this example. How could he not? Thus, the patriarch made the point that Christians make their supplications to God's saints in like manner. Though God is not pleased when we give the honor due to God to His servants, yet He is pleased when we honor His servants. Only slaves of the senses change ‘the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of quadrupeds, and of creeping things [Rom. 1:23.]'

Leo, predictably, asked, ‘Are you preaching that we need to accept Moses' word, that is, that we are forbidden to make images in the case of God only? Then why do you depict Christ, Whom you preach as true God, if Moses has forbidden such an image?' Nikephoros asked Leo if he believed that Christ is true God and true man. The emperor conceded that he did believe. The patriarch then asked, ‘Once Christ became man, His divine nature was not diminished; and His human nature was not transformed into divinity. That is right, is it not?' The emperor agreed. Nikephoros continued, ‘We, therefore, do not confess that Christ is first one and then another. We call the same person one. The attribute of His being dispassionate and incapable of suffering is ascribed to His divine nature, while His being liable to suffering and death is ascribed to His human nature. Is He not invisible, impalpable, and apprehended spiritually as he is God, but as man He is visible, touchable, and apprehended with the sight and the senses? Do we not know that the One Who is portrayed in an icon is truly God and Christ incarnate? We are not depicting Christ in His divine nature. We make use of images since Christ became man and appeared on earth. We know that the visible and invisible, the circumscribed and uncircumscribed, of the one Christ are present in the icon. These attributes can neither be separated nor commingled. The icons of Christ often show Him as He appeared on earth: I mean that He was seen in a manger of being nursed by His Mother the Theotokos, or with His disciples, or before Pilate, or on the Cross. Now if He had not become man, we could not depict these events. But the ‘Logos became flesh [Jn. 1:14].' He was a man seen by men, otherwise we could not reproduce in pictures what is unseen.' 

The wily emperor then asked the patriarch, ‘I do not think that thou wouldest claim that the painters portray the angels while studying their form?' The patriarch responded, ‘While I do claim that the painters neither have seen the form of angels nor have created a painting as if they had seen them, I do believe that they comply with what has been written in the Scripture—that the angels have appeared in the form of men.' Leo, interested in what he meant by this, asked for some examples to explain his reason for making this claim. Nikephoros calmly reminded the emperor that in the Scriptures it is written that Abraham, by the oak of Mambre, saw three men standing before him. The Lord also, he called to the emperor's mind, sent into Sodom two angels who had the form of man. Nikephoros says that this proves that sacred artists neither invent nor presume in their paintings. They portray the angels as they were seen among men. The emperor asked, ‘Well, why have they added wings to them?' The patriarch replied, ‘I think wings are depicted lest viewers should have the notion that the angels are like people in every respect. The wings, furthermore, allude to how they are airborne, coming and going from us and from heaven with God. Moses also prescribed the form of the cherubim with wings; for they, too, are angels. Dionysios the Areopagite also calls angels those powers and noetic beings of the heavens. Thus, the painter have the angels resemble this pattern. This, as a model to be imitated, I do not think is unreasonable.' Nikephoros then concluded by suggesting this to the emperor: ‘We ought to keep in mind that the icon whereon we paint images of angels is itself a created thing. I do not approach the icon as if the highest and primary essence were assigned to it as its sphere. I am not so mad to think that a created thing is God. The angels, as fellow slaves before our universal Master, possess much license before Him on account of their wealth of excellent and good service.' 

The Patriarch, Bishops, and Monks Speak with the Emperor Leo

Leo, before such a succinct discourse, was unable to form a response. With a faint and mortified voice, he gave this answer: ‘Those who hold contrary opinions have a flock of quotations from the fathers.' Nikephoros said respectfully, ‘If God grants, I shall expound on the meaning of both scriptural and patristic passages. But I shall not have talks with those who have put themselves outside of the Church and brought themselves under excommunication; for I do not wish to remove any synodal definitions. If thou shouldest like testimony that these are not new opinions but those held for a very long time, not only by me but also by bishops and monastics, thou needest only observe the gates of thine own court. If thou shouldest give thy consent for them to enter, thou wilt hear that they in no wise differ from me in mind, spirit, or will.' Leo instructed his armed officers to escort the notable members of that company into his presence. Those that came before Leo presented, clearly and distinctly, one irrefutable argument after another. Leo insisted that God had appointed him as mediator over the spiritual flock. The iconodules said plainly to Leo, ‘We know of no such appointment.' The emperor was then accused of being an impartial mediator, who tipped the scales as it pleased him. They complained that he was irresolute in his opinions. They declared that they were unwilling to be ensared in the mire of blasphemy and defiled with doctrines that vulgarly abuse the dispensation of Christ appearing in the flesh. They finished by saying that they would separate from the opponents of pious doctrine for their shameless falsehood. The emperor's mind was thunderstruck by these and other words. He knew his defeat was irretrievable. He, therefore, threatened them and drove them and Nikephoros away from the palace. He gave orders that some suffer banishment. The emperor hoped to sequester Nikephoros and bring him to his heretical belief without striking a blow." [1]

St. Nikephoros suffered exile and all manner of hardship and deprivation for his confession of faith, eventually reposing in exile at the age of seventy on the 2nd of June, 828. Nineteen years later his relics were solemnly returned to Constantinople by St. Theodora the Empress, as Orthodoxy once against triumphed over the pernicious heresy of iconoclasm. 

[1] Source: The Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church