The Eastern Orthodox Icon Ruse

by John Carpenter

Most serious American Christians are accustomed to engaging groups like the Mormons, with their sexually immoral con-man who wrote bad fiction full of provable absurdities, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, repackaging ancient Arianism, or even Roman Catholicism, which claims to be the Church the Lord Jesus established while encouraging prayer to the dead and bowing before statues that Scripture forbids and the early church opposed. But Eastern Orthodoxy catches them by surprise. Its weapons are unfamiliar, its jargon sounds ancient, and its strategy is sneaky. As a result, many sincere believers are caught flat-footed. Our blindside to the Eastern Orthodox ruse is made worse by polemically adverse evangelicals who want us to believe that the wolves stalking our sheep mean well.

I have heard too many accounts of Bible-believing Christians drawn into Eastern Orthodoxy by the promise of “the early church.” The most obvious stumbling block for such converts is the icon. At first, icons appear to be a straightforward violation of the Second Commandment. Sometimes, like here, first impressions are right. But Eastern Orthodox apologists deploy a carefully rehearsed maneuver: they redefine “icon” in a way they do not themselves believe, to make icon-veneration appear biblically harmless. If you are being persuaded by these arguments, you are being worked.

What an Icon Actually Is

An icon is not merely an image. It is not generic religious art, decoration, or visual instruction. Eastern Orthodoxy explicitly teaches this—internally. Hilarion Alfeyev states plainly that “the icon’s purpose is liturgical,” which is why “a gallery is the wrong place for icons.” Patricia Miranda likewise explains that icons are not “art” in the usual sense. The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese defines an icon as “more than art,” insisting that its primary function is to assist in worship. The Orthodox Church of Estonia teaches that icons are intended for prayer and worship.

The defining feature of an icon is therefore its use. An image becomes an icon when it is deliberately employed within religious devotion—addressed, bowed before, kissed, incensed, or otherwise engaged as part of worship. An image that is not used this way is not an icon. It may be symbolic, didactic, or decorative, but it is not an icon. On this point, Orthodox sources are remarkably consistent when speaking to their own people.

The Switch

The problem arises when Eastern Orthodox apologists speak to outsiders. At that point, the definition quietly changes. Evangelicals object—rightly—that the Second Commandment forbids images used in worship. The response is predictable: the tabernacle had images; Moses made the bronze serpent; Joshua bowed before the Ark of the Covenant. Therefore, the argument goes, icon-veneration cannot be idolatrous.

This is the ruse.

When instructing insiders, Orthodoxy distinguishes sharply between art and icons. When defending itself to outsiders, it collapses that distinction and pretends that all images are icons. Eastern Orthodox speak out of both sides of their mouths to prey on evangelical sheep. Squishy evangelical leaders who want to appear warm to everyone can’t grasp the fact that Eastern Orthodox are not arguing in good faith.

The Biblical Examples Revisited

The truth is that images adorning the tabernacle and temple were decorative. They were never bowed to, addressed, or treated as mediators of divine presence. Since they were not used devotionally, they were not icons.

The bronze serpent provides an even clearer case. The Israelites were commanded only to look at it (Numbers 21:9). They were not told to bow, pray, or render it homage. Jesus later interprets this “looking” as faith itself (John 3:14–15). But when Israel later began to venerate the serpent—offering sacrifices to it and naming it “Nehushtan”—it became precisely what Orthodoxy now defends: an icon. Good King Hezekiah did what faithful believers always do to icons: he smashed it (2 Kings 18:4).

As for Joshua bowing “before” the Ark, the Hebrew indicates location, not devotion—he was prostrate in the presence of the Ark, not directing reverence to it (Joshua 7:6). Scripture never approves of bowing to an object. Even angels refuse such acts (Revelation 22:8–9). Notably, the angel does not permit “veneration” while forbidding “worship.” Scripture recognizes no moral distinction between the two when the act itself is the same.

Relabeling a forbidden act does not justify it. Calling idolatry “veneration” no more sanctifies it than calling adultery “love-making” purifies the deed.

The Burden on Evangelicals

There may be legitimate discussion about whether and how churches use art. But there should be no dispute that images have no place within the act of Christian worship. That is the concern of the Second Commandment.

The early church understood this with striking clarity. It prohibited icons altogether, as I showed in my lecture in Ethiopia, a majority “Orthodox” country. Its opposition was so severe that many modern evangelicals—with their stained glass, banners, and projected images—would appear permissive by comparison. I am not arguing for a return to strict aniconism. The temple decorations show that not all imagery is forbidden. But history should sober us. If the church could move from Elvira’s declaration—“Pictures are not to be placed in churches lest they become objects of worship”—to the formal authorization of image-veneration at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, it can happen again.

That is why the Eastern Orthodox tactic matters. By telling outsiders that everything from the bronze serpent to family photographs counts as an “icon,” Orthodox apologists obscure the real issue: the intentional use of images as objects of devotion. They define icons one way at home and another way abroad. That is not sloppiness. It is strategy.

You may dislike polemics. But the fight has already been brought to you. Your people are being targeted, and the arguments used to draw them in are not honest. Polemics is on you whether you recognize it or not.

John B. Carpenter, Ph.D., is pastor of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church in Danville, Virginia,and the author of Seven Pillars of a Biblical Church (Wipf and Stock, 2022) and the Covenant Caswell substack.