Theology & Praxis of Art in Christianity

August 13, 2025

Christian Art in Ancient Christianity: Theological and Practical Significance (1st–10th Centuries)

------------------------------------------------------

Abridged: (Short Version)

From its Jewish roots, early Christianity inherited both a deep caution toward images and an openness to symbolic art. The Second Commandment’s ban on “graven images” shaped the first Christians’ reluctance to depict God directly, especially in ways that might echo pagan idol worship. Nonetheless, modest and symbolic forms of visual expression emerged in the 2nd and 3rd centuries—catacomb frescoes, carved sarcophagi, and house-church wall paintings—often using typological imagery like Jonah’s deliverance or the Good Shepherd to allude to Christ without direct portraiture. These early artworks served to strengthen community identity and convey theology in visual shorthand, especially in a persecuted and largely illiterate Church.

With Constantine’s legalization of Christianity in the 4th century, sacred art moved from private devotion into the public sphere. Basilicas were adorned with biblical mosaics, frescoes, and reliefs that acted as a “Bible of the illiterate,” teaching salvation history at a glance. Portrayals of Christ shifted from humble shepherd to enthroned King, reflecting the Church’s new imperial stature. While the Eastern Church favored icons, mosaics, and bas-reliefs over free-standing statuary, the West gradually incorporated more naturalistic styles alongside its didactic imagery. In both spheres, sacred art was not mere decoration but part of the architecture of worship, shaping the liturgical environment and drawing the faithful into a vision of the heavenly realm.

The theological foundation for Christian art rested on the Incarnation: in Jesus Christ, the invisible God became visible, making His human form a legitimate and even necessary subject for depiction. Church Fathers like St. John of Damascus argued that to portray Christ affirms the reality of His humanity, and to honor an icon is to honor the prototype it represents. The distinction between veneration (due to images) and worship (due to God alone) was affirmed at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, ensuring that sacred images could be revered without idolatry. Across Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox traditions, this incarnational logic united Christian art, even as styles and emphases varied.

At Prostatia, we embrace this ancient vision, crafting our jewelry in the spirit of the first millennium’s sacred art. Each bas-relief pendant and medallion is not just a piece of fine jewelry, but a continuation of the Church’s legacy of “theology in material form.” Just as early mosaics, icons, and carvings invited the faithful into contemplation, our designs aim to place the stories of Christ and the saints into the hands of believers today—intimate, wearable icons of devotion. In miniature, precious form, our work carries forward the same mission that inspired the artisans of old: to make beauty a bearer of truth, and to let the visible speak of the Invisible.

------------------------------------------------------

Unabridged Study (Longer Version)

Jewish Roots and Early Christian Attitudes Toward Images

Early Christianity inherited from Judaism a profound caution about images. The Old Testament’s Second Commandment forbade making “a graven image” for worship (Exodus 20:4–5), a prohibition aimed at preventing idolatry[1]. Many Jews of late antiquity maintained aniconic traditions, yet archaeological finds show that not all Jewish communities rejected figurative art outright. Notably, the 3rd-century Dura-Europos synagogue in Syria was adorned with extensive biblical frescoes[2], indicating that visual narrative art could serve didactic purposes in a Jewish religious setting. This context helps explain the early Christian tension regarding images: the first Christians, mostly Jews or God-fearing Gentiles, were determined to avoid pagan idol-worship, even as they gradually embraced art as a means of expressing and teaching their faith. A local Church council at Elvira (Spain, c. 306) went so far as to forbid images in churches altogether, “lest what is worshipped and adored be depicted on walls”[3], reflecting anxiety that new converts might confuse Christian veneration with idolatry. In these first centuries, Christian art developed slowly and cautiously, mindful of the biblical warnings against idols while recognizing that images could convey sacred truths symbolically.

The Emergence of Christian Art in the Early Church (1st–3rd Centuries)

Despite early hesitations, an identifiable Christian art began to emerge by the late 2nd and 3rd centuries[4]. The earliest Christian images appear in the catacombs of Rome and on modest house-church walls (such as the Dura-Europos church), and they were largely symbolic. Common motifs like the fish (ichthys) signified Christ, and depictions of bread and wine alluded to the Eucharist[5][6]. Instead of portraying Jesus directly as a deity (which might be misconstrued as pagan idol-making), early Christians often depicted him in symbolic or typological guises – for example, as the Good Shepherd carrying a sheep, modeled on familiar Greco-Roman figures like Hermes or Orpheus[7]. Biblical scenes chosen for art usually carried a hidden Christological meaning: Jonah emerging from the great fish symbolized Christ’s resurrection, Daniel saved from the lions prefigured salvation in Christ, and so on[8][9]. Such images constituted a visual typology, linking Old Testament events to New Testament fulfillment[10]. They allowed believers to catechize the mysteries of the faith indirectly, at a time when persecution often forced Christian worship and art to remain discreet. In these frescoes and marble sarcophagus reliefs, we notably do not find scenes like the Crucifixion or Resurrection in the earliest period[11]. The most sacred events of Christ’s life were initially omitted, likely because they were central to Christian worship and catechesis (the “mysteries” of the faith) reserved for the initiated[8]. Thus, early Christian art served to reinforce doctrine and hope (for example, the theme of victory over death) without violating the ban on idol worship. It also helped build a distinct community identity: the use of cryptic symbols (fish, anchor, chi-rho, etc.) was a way for Christians to signal their faith to each other in a hostile pagan environment.

Post-Constantinian Acceptance and the Flourishing of Sacred Art (4th–6th Centuries)

A major turning point came in the 4th century when Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity (Edict of Milan, 313 AD) and later emperors (like Theodosius in 380) made it the empire’s official religion. This new acceptance triggered an explosion of Christian art and architecture, as the Church could now worship publicly and even enjoy imperial patronage[12][13]. Suddenly, the formerly hidden or symbolic art forms gave way to grand, public displays of Christian imagery. Basilicas and baptisteries were built across the empire, their interiors covered with biblical mosaics and frescoes “to instruct the faithful” in salvation history[14]. A famous example is the 5th-century mosaics of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, illustrating scenes from the Old and New Testaments to teach worshippers salvation history visually[14]. With growing numbers of converts (many from pagan backgrounds accustomed to rich visual culture), the Church deliberately used art for catechesis: images became the “Bible of the illiterate,” a phrase later echoed by Pope Gregory the Great[15][16]. In this era, portrayals of Christ also evolved. No longer merely the humble Good Shepherd, Christ began to be depicted as Christus Rex – a regal lawgiver or enthroned ruler – reflecting the Church’s new status and the theological affirmation of Christ’s cosmic kingship[17][18]. The art remained stylistically influenced by late Roman models, yet it grew more abstract and spiritual in tone. Figures were depicted with standardized, otherworldly features (frontal poses, halos, wide eyes) to indicate holiness rather than ordinary humanity[19]. Large free-standing sculpture was still avoided (perhaps to distance Christian art from pagan statuary), but relief carvings (on sarcophagi, ivory book covers) and panel icons appeared. By the 6th century, churches like Constantinople’s Hagia Sophia and Ravenna’s basilicas were adorned with splendid icons, mosaics of Christ, the Virgin, angels, and saints – a “great cloud of witnesses” in art surrounding the worshipping community. The practical use of this profusion of art was manifold. It created a sacred ambiance for liturgy, taught biblical narratives at a glance, and reinforced a sense of triumphant Christian identity in a formerly pagan world[18][14]. As one contemporary observer noted, by the end of late antiquity the Church needed art “on a more ambitious scale in order to accommodate and educate its new members and to reflect its new dignity”[18].

Theological Meaning of Christian Art: Incarnation and Iconography

From the earliest centuries, Christian thinkers grappled with the theological meaning of representing the divine in art. A core question was: How can one depict the invisible God without falling into idolatry? The eventual Christian answer centered on the Incarnation of Christ. Church Fathers taught that when the Son of God took on flesh as Jesus Christ, the previously invisible and uncircumscribed God made Himself visible and tangible – “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). This truth provided the fundamental justification for holy images, especially icons of Christ. As St. John of Damascus explained in his famous defense of icons: “Of old, God the incorporeal and formless was never depicted, but now that God has been seen in the flesh and has lived among men, I depict what I have seen of God”[20]. In other words, because Christ is the visible image (eikon) of the invisible God, to draw Christ’s human form is to confess the reality of God’s Incarnation rather than to deny it[20]. The icon of Christ thus affirms that God truly became man, with a material body that can be shown in art. This incarnational principle was extended to images of saints as well: portraying the saints in glory is a way to honor God’s work in real human lives and to affirm the ultimate redemption of matter in the Resurrection[21][22]. Indeed, defenders of icons argued that to forbid all images would implicitly deny the Incarnation’s significance, as if God had not actually sanctified the material world by assuming a human nature[20][23].

Another theological aspect was the distinction between veneration and worship. Christians developed a nuanced vocabulary to defend the honor given to sacred images. The Greek term proskynesis (and Latin veneratio) was used for the relative honor or veneration shown to icons, while latreia (Latin adoratio) was reserved for the worship of God alone[24][25]. This distinction, clearly articulated by St. John of Damascus and affirmed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II (787), allowed Christians to honor the person depicted in an icon without violating the exclusive worship due to the Holy Trinity. St. Basil the Great had formulated the principle succinctly in the 4th century: “The honor given to the icon is conveyed to its prototype”[26][25]. Thus, if a Christian kisses an icon of Christ or of a saint, the true respect is directed not to wood and paint, but to Christ Himself or His saint – much as honoring a king’s image honors the king. By this logic, icons became visible conduits of devotion, leading the believer’s mind to the heavenly reality. Far from being obstacles to true worship, they were seen as aids that lift the heart and senses toward God. As Nicaea II declared, one may offer to icons “the salutation and honor” accorded to other sacred things like the Cross or the Bible – bowing, lighting lamps and incense – “for the honor to the icon passes to its prototype”[27]. Importantly, the council emphasized that this outward reverence is categorically different from the latreia of God, thus upholding monotheistic worship even while embracing images[28][29].

The theology of Christian art also stressed the goodness of matter. In battling heresies, the Church often had to defend that creation and material things are fundamentally good (against, for example, Gnostic or Manichean tendencies to despise matter). Holy images became part of this apologetic: if God can sanctify matter – as in the humanity of Christ, or in the water of baptism and bread of Eucharist – then painted wood or mosaic tiles can likewise become vehicles of divine grace[23]. John of Damascus wrote, “I reverence matter through which my salvation came”[23], referring to the flesh of Christ, the wood of the Cross, and even the paint and wood of icons which depict the Word made flesh. Icons were compared to the sacraments in that they are tangible channels of God’s action, though with a difference: an icon is an image of Christ; the Eucharist, by contrast, is Christ’s Body and Blood in reality[30][31]. Nevertheless, both are ways that physical things convey God’s presence. This sacramental worldview — seeing the material as capable of bearing the spiritual — undergirded the use of art in all ancient Churches.

Art in Liturgy, Catechesis, and Community Life: Practical Functions

Beyond abstract theology, Christian art in the ancient Church served concrete practical roles in worship, teaching, and community identity. From the fourth century onward, church interiors were deliberately designed as visual liturgical books. Mosaics and frescoes were arranged according to a hierarchy of space: for example, in an Eastern domed church, Christ Pantocrator (All-ruling) appears in the highest point of the dome, saints and biblical scenes decorate the walls in tiers, and the Virgin Mary with the Christ Child often occupies the apse (Apse being the name we use as one of our signature Icon platforms here at Prostatia)( (symbolizing the Incarnation entering our world))[32][33]. This iconographic program was theological architecture – it turned the very building into a portrayal of the Christian cosmos, with heaven (dome) above and the earthly Church below, all united in praise. In Western basilicas, similarly, the focal apse mosaic or painting usually showed Christ in glory flanked by angels, the Virgin, or patron saints of the church[34]. Often the imagery evoked the heavenly Jerusalem and liturgy of the angels, as described in Scripture, giving worshippers the sense of participating in the cosmic worship of God[34]. Thus, Christian art elevated the liturgical experience – worshippers praying amidst images of Christ and the saints could feel themselves surrounded by the “great cloud of witnesses,” joining their praise to that of the heavenly Church.

Liturgically, icons and other sacred images were integrated into worship in tangible ways. In the Eastern Orthodox liturgy, it became customary for the faithful to venerate icons upon entering the church: crossing themselves, bowing and kissing the icon of Christ or the feast day set out on an analogion (stand)[35]. Candles are lit before icons, and incense is offered – practices that Nicaea II noted were already the “pious custom of the early Christians”[36]. Certain icons are carried in processions on feast days (for example, an embroidered icon of Christ’s body, the Epitaphios, is carried in solemn procession on Good Friday)[37]. The Gospel Book itself, used in both East and West, often bore icons on its cover (commonly the Crucifixion and Resurrection) and was reverenced as a visual and textual icon of Christ[38]. In the Eucharistic liturgy, the movement of clergy through the icon-adorned sanctuary and the incensation of the altar, icons, and people all reflect how deeply art was woven into ritual action. The images were not passive decor; they participated in the rite as focal points for honor and prayer.

In catechesis and instruction, Christian art was invaluable in a largely illiterate society. As Pope Gregory the Great wrote in 600 AD, images function as books especially “for the unlearned who behold in them what they ought to follow; in them the ignorant read” the truths of the faith[15][16]. He famously admonished that while one must not worship images, it is good to have them in churches so that “those who cannot read the Scriptures may read on the walls what they cannot read in books”[16]. Biblical scenes in art taught the faithful stories and doctrines at a glance. For instance, carved sarcophagi or church mosaics often presented cycles of biblical events; a 4th-century sarcophagus of Junius Bassus shows scenes from Adam to Christ, visually linking the Old and New Testament as a continuous story of salvation[39][9]. In the iconography of feasts, the images reinforced what the liturgical hymns taught, creating a multisensory pedagogy for feast days[40]. An illuminating example of image as theological commentary is the 9th-century Byzantine Chludov Psalter, which depicts on one page the soldiers giving Christ vinegar on the cross and, just below, an iconoclast bishop whitewashing an icon of Christ – equating the rejection of Christ’s icon with maltreatment of Christ Himself[41]. Such imagery drove home the doctrinal point that to destroy an icon of Christ is to attack Christ. In these ways, art was a didactic tool that complemented preaching and Scripture reading.

Art also helped solidify community identity and devotion. Different Christian cultures developed distinctive artistic styles that expressed their local faith experience while adhering to common core themes. The Coptic Christians of Egypt, for example, painted icons with large-eyed, serene figures in a frontal pose, a style that became a marker of Coptic heritage and spirituality. Coptic monasteries and churches (e.g. the Monastery of St. Anthony) are filled with vivid murals of biblical and monastic saints, reinforcing the continuity of faith across generations. In Armenia, church historians record that by the 4th century King Pap ordered churches to be “decorated with sacred paintings,” indicating how art was embraced as part of Armenian Christian identity from early on[42][43]. The presence of icons and crosses in homes and public places likewise nurtured a sense of constant faith. Devout families in the Christian East maintained an icon corner at home – a small shrine with icons and a lamp – to sanctify domestic life with visual reminders of God’s presence[44]. Icons were set up at city gates, in marketplaces, and even worn on one’s person, “supporting mindfulness of God in all walks of life”[45]. An iconic example of communal devotion is the story that the Byzantine Emperor’s removal of a public icon over the palace gate in 726 sparked riots[46] – a testament to how strongly ordinary Christians felt about their sacred images. Clearly, art was not merely an accessory; it was intertwined with the piety, education, and unity of Christian communities throughout the ancient world.

The Iconoclastic Controversies (726–843) and the Defense of Images

The robust Christian embrace of images was not without challenges. The Iconoclastic Controversy of the 8th–9th centuries was a defining trial for the theological and practical status of Christian art, especially in the Eastern Byzantine Church. In 726, the Byzantine Emperor Leo III, influenced by a complex mix of factors (possible misfortunes blamed on divine wrath against icons, the rise of Islam’s aniconism, and certain bishops’ puritanical zeal), ordered the removal or destruction of venerable icons of Christ. This inaugurated a period of state-sponsored iconoclasm (“image-breaking”). For over a century (with a brief interlude), waves of iconoclast emperors banned the use of icons, seeing them as idols and an impediment to pure worship[47][48]. The controversy quickly took on an intense theological character: iconoclast bishops argued from Scripture and philosophy that God’s nature cannot be circumscribed in matter, that making an image of Christ either divides His two natures or confuses them, and that venerating images violates the Second Commandment[49][50]. At a council called by the iconoclasts (Hieria, 754), they pronounced that the only permissible “image” of Christ was the Eucharist, and that all other images of Christ or saints should be removed from churches as a temptation to idolatry[51][31].

Opposing them were the iconodules (“image-venerators”), who included many monks, laity, and bishops (and, notably, the popes in Rome). The iconodule theologians, such as St. John of Damascus (in the 720s, writing under Muslim rule and thus beyond the emperor’s reach) and later St. Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nicephorus (in the early 800s), mounted a vigorous defense of the traditional use of icons. They drew on the Christological teaching of the Church to refute the iconoclasts. For example, against the claim that an image of Christ splits or confuses His natures, icon defenders replied that an icon depicts the person (hypostasis) of Christ, not a nature[50][52]. Since the person of Christ is one – the divine Word – an icon of Christ portrays the one Jesus Christ who became man, without implying a division of natures. As Theodore the Studite explained, the icon portrays Christ “as one and the same in His hypostasis, with His two natures unconfused,” visible in his humanity[53]. Thus, venerating an icon of Christ actually safeguards correct doctrine: it attests that the Son of God truly became visible and had all the material aspects of humanity. Iconophiles also pointed out inconsistencies in the iconoclast position. The iconoclasts allowed the veneration of the Cross and the Bible as holy objects – yet these too are material symbols (wood and ink) that point to Christ[54][55]. If one could honor the written name of Jesus or the Cross without committing idolatry, why not a painted likeness of His human form? By analogy, the iconodules argued, honoring a picture of Christ is similar to honoring Scripture or the Cross: all are representations that lead us to Christ, and in all cases the reverence passes to Christ Himself[54][27].

The dispute was not merely theoretical – it involved persecutions, exile of iconodule monks, and even martyrs who died defending holy icons. The turning point came with the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 (the seventh Ecumenical Council of the Church), convened under Empress Irene, which condemned iconoclasm and definitively upheld the veneration of icons. Nicaea II’s decrees echoed the theological arguments noted above. It professed that “honorable reverence” (timētikē proskynesis) could be given to images of Jesus, Mary, angels, and saints, “not that we offer to them the worship of latreia, which belongs to God alone, but as to images which lead us to God incarnate”[28][29]. The Council fathers quoted St. Basil and other Fathers to reinforce that venerating an icon was an acceptable and even necessary practice, “for the more frequently they are seen in artistic representation, the more those who behold them are uplifted to the memory of their prototypes” (a line from the council’s definition). Empress Irene’s support enabled the restoration of icons in the East, and the Roman papacy also accepted Nicaea II, thereby aligning East and West on this point of doctrine. However, a wrinkle appeared in the Frankish Kingdom: Charlemagne’s court theologians (unfamiliar with Greek nuances and using a faulty Latin translation of Nicaea II) misunderstood the council, wrongly believing it sanctioned adoration of icons. In reaction, the Frankish bishops at the Council of Frankfurt (794) rejected what they thought Nicaea taught[56][57]. They wrote the Libri Carolini (790), asserting that images are useful didactically but should not be worshipped. Ironically, the Carolingians agreed with the substance of orthodox icon theology (that only God is worshipped), but their mistranslation led them to downplay the more enthusiastic language of veneration used in the East[58][59]. The Pope in Rome, however, stood by the ecumenical council, and over time the Western Church came to fully accept the distinction that images may be venerated, not adored.

By 843, after a second brief iconoclast period (814–843) mainly under Emperor Theophilus, the Eastern Empress Theodora definitively restored icon veneration, an event celebrated as the “Triumph of Orthodoxy.” From that point on, the use of icons became absolutely standard in the Eastern Orthodox Church and was never again officially challenged within the ancient Churches until the much later Protestant Reformation. The Iconoclastic Controversy had, in effect, clarified the theology of sacred images for both East and West. It forced the Church to articulate why icons matter and how they are to be used properly. The councils and Church Fathers of this period (especially Nicaea II, St. John Damascene, St. Theodore the Studite, and Patriarch Nicephorus) secured a legacy in which Christian art was understood as “theology in color” – a vital expression of the true faith in the Incarnation, and a practice rooted in apostolic Tradition (the council fathers even recounted ancient legends of icons “not made by human hands,” like the image of Christ given to King Abgar, to argue that Christ Himself inaugurated Christian iconography[60][61]). After these controversies, the veneration of icons was solidified as a defining feature of Orthodox worship, and was also affirmed in Catholic doctrine (centuries later, the Western Church at the Second Council of Nicaea (787) and the Council of Trent (1563) would reiterate its approval of images, citing Gregory the Great among others).

East, West, and Oriental Traditions: Differences and Commonalities

In the first thousand years of Christianity, all the ancient church traditions – whether Eastern Orthodox, Western (Latin) Catholic, or Oriental (such as Coptic, Syriac, Armenian) – valued sacred art as an integral part of church life. They shared a fundamental agreement on the theological legitimacy of icons and images, especially after the resolution of the iconoclast crisis. However, there were nuanced differences of emphasis and style among them, shaped by culture and historical circumstances.

Eastern Orthodox Church: The Eastern Orthodox tradition became most renowned for its extensive use of icons. Following the Triumph of Orthodoxy in 843, Byzantine churches developed the fully realized iconostasis (a screen covered in icons separating the altar area), and a highly codified iconographic program for church decoration[62][63]. The Orthodox strongly emphasized that icons are not mere illustrations but a manifestation of the faith equal in value to preaching and ritual. They maintained a conservative, hieratic style of iconography (deliberately non-naturalistic) as a means of preserving the spiritual integrity of the images. This approach was rooted in the theology that icons should reflect the transfigured, holy state – hence the abstracted, otherworldly aesthetic. An Orthodox icon is intentionally not a realistic portrait; rather it is a window to heaven that invites prayer and encounter with the prototype. In Orthodox liturgy, icons are actively venerated as described, and there is even an annual feast (the First Sunday of Lent, “Sunday of Orthodoxy”) celebrating the restoration of the icons. The Orthodox Church thus carried forward the patristic teachings from Nicaea II with great reverence. An important note is that Orthodox iconography influenced the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic iconography as well, given their common roots in the early centuries.

Roman Catholic (Western) Church: The Latin West also upheld the use of images, but with a slightly different emphasis by the early medieval period. The Church of Rome had supported Nicaea II wholeheartedly, yet Western leaders tended to stress the educational and inspirational role of images over any necessity of having them. As noted, Pope Gregory the Great approved of images for instruction, calling them useful tools for the illiterate, but he was cautious to curb any excesses of devotion that might resemble idol worship[64][65]. This cautious tone persisted: Western theology did acknowledge the distinction between veneration and worship, but in practice medieval Latin Christians were sometimes less theologically explicit about it than the Greeks. The Carolingian reaction in the 790s exemplified the Western preference for moderation – images were “reminders” of holy things, not objects imbued with intrinsic power[66][67]. Over time, this led the Western Church to allow more stylistic freedom in art. While Byzantine art remained relatively conservative, Western art began to evolve new styles (Romanesque and later Gothic) that were still religious but increasingly naturalistic. In the West, three-dimensional statues eventually became common (e.g. crucifixes, statues of Mary and saints), something the East avoided. Yet in the first millennium, these stylistic divergences were not yet vast – Western churches like those in Rome, Ravenna, or Gaul were adorned with mosaics and paintings in a manner quite similar to Eastern churches[68][69]. Both East and West treated church art as a primarily liturgical and didactic medium, using comparable iconography of Christ, the Theotokos (Mother of God), apostles, and biblical scenes. It was only after 1000 AD (and especially after the East-West Schism of 1054 and the Western Renaissance) that Western sacred art departed more dramatically in style and approach[70][71]. In the first millennium, we can say there was broad unity: Latin and Greek Christians alike prayed with icons, decorated their sanctuaries with biblical mosaics, and honored images as fellow participants in worship.

Oriental Orthodox and Other Eastern Churches: The Oriental Orthodox Churches (the Coptic Church of Egypt, the Armenians, the Syriac Orthodox, the Ethiopians, etc.), which had separated from the Chalcedonian Orthodox/Catholic communion in the 5th century, nonetheless cultivated their own rich traditions of Christian art. These ancient churches did not experience the Byzantine imperial iconoclasm firsthand (since they were outside the Byzantine Empire), but they had to articulate their stance on images in their own context. In general, they arrived at positions very much in line with the broader Christian consensus. The Coptic Church has always cherished icons; Coptic iconographers like St. Luke (whom tradition considers the first icon painter of the Egyptian Madonna) are honored, and Coptic liturgy involves processions with the cross and icons. Coptic theology, much like Byzantine, sees icons as affirmations of the Incarnation and uses them to engage the senses of the faithful (one medieval Coptic sermon notes that in church the faithful “see the sacred images and through them understand God’s word,” engaging sight as well as hearing)[72][73]. In Syriac Christianity, particularly the Church of the East (often called “Nestorian”), there may have been at times a more reserved attitude towards images under the influence of Persian and later Islamic iconoclasm. Yet even there, the veneration of the Cross and holy images was known – the famous “Image of Edessa” (the holy mandylion with Christ’s face) originated in Syriac lands and was treasured as a miraculous prototype of icons[60][61].

The Armenian Apostolic Church provides an illuminating example of an ancient tradition’s engagement with iconography. Armenians embraced sacred art from an early date – for instance, a 7th-century Armenian Gospel manuscript is lavishly illuminated with miniatures of biblical scenes[74], and a relief of Mary with Christ from the 6th century is found on the church of Odzun[75]. However, in the 8th–9th centuries, when Byzantine iconoclasm was raging, a similar anti-image sentiment arose in some Armenian circles. Some Armenian clergy, noting Christological differences with the Byzantine Church, advised against venerating “Greek icons,” insisting that only the Cross should be adored[76]. The Armenian Catholicos Hovhan Otsnetsi (8th century) and the bishop Vrtanes Kertogh wrote defenses of icons to counter this trend[77][78]. They taught clearly that Christians do “not worship the picture,” but through it honor God – echoing the universal principle that material images can lift our hearts to the immaterial Creator[79][80]. Otsnetsi beautifully stated that when Christians see an icon of Christ, they do not put hope in the stone or wood, “but in the incarnate God depicted, who blesses all creation”[81][82]. These writings show that the Armenians, independent of the Chalcedonian councils, came to the same incarnational rationale for icons. The slight difference in Armenian practice is that their churches traditionally did not use a solid iconostasis screen; instead, the Armenians retained a sanctuary veil, symbolizing the temple veil, which is drawn open or closed during the liturgy. Icons are still present (on walls or altars), but the use of a veil in place of an icon screen is a distinctive liturgical feature (possibly reflecting ancient Syriac influence). Overall, the Oriental Orthodox have much in common with the Byzantine Orthodox in iconography – for example, Ethiopian and Coptic icons also show frontal, haloed saints with big eyes and deep spiritual symbolism. All these traditions share the understanding that art in church is not mere decoration but part of the sacred tradition, witnessing to the same truths of faith.

In summary, the commonality across ancient Christian traditions is the belief that sacred art manifests theology. Whether in a Roman basilica, a Greek cathedral, an Egyptian desert monastery, or an Armenian church, images of Christ and the saints conveyed the mystery of the Incarnation and the hope of salvation. They educated the faithful, adorned the liturgy, and provided a point of unity between believers’ senses and the divine prototype. Differences lay mostly in artistic style or emphasis: the East emphasized the icon as a liturgical, quasi-sacramental object with strict stylistic canon, whereas the medieval West gradually allowed more naturalistic expression and kept a primarily catechetical tone in discussing images[83][84]. Yet even in the West, the practice of kneeling before a crucifix or statue of Mary to pray, or carrying saints’ images in procession on feast days, demonstrated an underlying veneration parallel to Eastern customs (the terminology of “veneration” vs “adoration” would later be carefully reaffirmed by Western councils as well). The Oriental churches likewise venerated icons, with occasional local debates but no large-scale repudiation of images. Thus, through the first millennium, Christian art was a unifying inheritance of the ancient churches, Eastern and Western, Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian alike.

Conclusion

Christian art in the first thousand years of the Church was far more than just visual embellishment – it was a profound bearer of theological meaning and a practical instrument of worship and teaching. From the Church’s Jewish roots, Christians inherited a horror of idolatry, yet also the seeds of a tradition in which images could serve God’s purposes (as seen in the symbolic art of synagogue and temple). Gradually, guided by the reality of God become visible in Christ, the Church discerned how images of Christ and the saints could be embraced without violating the commandment against idols. In the catacombs and house churches, art quietly nurtured faith; in the basilicas of the Christian Empire, it blossomed into a public proclamation of the Gospel in color and stone. The theology of icons reached a high refinement in response to the iconoclast heresy – clarifying that because Jesus is truly God incarnate, He may be truly depicted, and that honor shown to holy images passes to the holy ones they represent[25]. Church councils like Nicaea II, and illustrious Fathers like John of Damascus, defended this insight with eloquence and balanced devotion. Practically, sacred art proved its worth by engaging the whole person in worship: eyes of flesh and eyes of faith worked together as believers beheld the image of Christ and so adored Christ Himself in the heart. It taught the scriptures to those who could not read, and even to those who could, it presented Christian truths in a vivid, immediate mode that sermons alone could not match[15][65]. In all the ancient communions – whether the icon-panel tradition of the Greeks, the mural paintings of the Latins, or the illuminations and processional crosses of the Orientals – art became a cornerstone of Christian identity. It differentiated the Christian temple from the pagan and the mosque, by boldly depicting the communion of God with humanity: the face of Jesus, the Mother who bore Him, the saints transformed by grace. Despite periodic misunderstandings and regional variations, the united testimony of the first millennium is that sacred images are “theology in material form, doors between heaven and earth”[85][86]. They embody the core Christian conviction that the Word truly became flesh and that the material world can be a carrier of divine light. Through frescoes, mosaics, icons, and carvings, the Ancient Churches proclaimed their faith in the Incarnate God, taught generations of believers, and sanctified their spaces – leaving a legacy of art and faith inseparably interwoven.

We hope you have enjoyed this reflection as it stands as the foundation upon which we here at Prostatia value in out craft, offered to you!

------------------------------------------------------

Sources: Historical and theological information has been drawn from church council decrees and patristic writings, as well as analyses by modern scholars. Key references include the Second Council of Nicaea’s canons on holy images[87][27], Pope Gregory the Great’s letters on images as the Bible of the unlearned[15][16], St. John Damascene’s and Theodore the Studite’s treatises defending icons[20][24], and modern summaries of icon theology[85][20]. The development of art from the catacombs to the basilicas is documented in art historical surveys[88][14]. Insights into Oriental Orthodox perspectives are drawn from Armenian theological defenses[89][81] and Coptic tradition. All these demonstrate the intertwined theological and practical importance of Christian art in antiquity, across the diverse yet united family of ancient Churches.