David WoodvsJay Dyer

Dyer argued that his case needs only to show a normative reverence of created objects from the Old Testament through the early patristic period, extending beyond sacramentals to water in baptism, bread and wine in the Eucharist, and venerated images. He said icon veneration (iconodulia) has its origin in Old Testament worship and is not a pagan accretion, and that it is linked to a correct theology of the incarnation.

Dyer argued that Old Testament figures such as the oak of Mamra and Jacob's pillar became holy without being God, and that the ark of the covenant was a sacred manifestation of God's presence. He said veneration of objects is not the same as idolatry, since idolatry is essentially an inner disposition, and he cited Genesis examples of bowing as deference to people in authority.

Dyer argued that Old Testament words and names, such as the name of Yahweh, function as sanctified symbols, and that the Old Testament theophanies show visible manifestations of God that can be venerated. He said the Old Testament itself teaches that Adam was made in the image of God, which he read christologically as Christ.

Dyer argued that Old Testament worship was directed toward the temple and the ark, which he read as a type of Mary and Christ, and that Joshua 7 shows worship before the ark. He said the early church continued this pattern, citing the Dura-Europos synagogue, the Roman catacombs, and early Christian imagery as evidence of images in worship from the second century onward.

Dyer argued that the New Testament kiss of peace and the worship of saints in heaven described in Revelation 5 to 9 support kissing the image of the saints, in the way one would honor a national flag.

Wood argued that icon veneration is a late development in Christianity and that, once it became popular, it provoked a reaction in the form of the charge that it looked like idolatry. He defined veneration as bowing, kissing, lighting candles, burning incense and praying before an icon.

Wood argued that the Old Testament condemns bowing to lifeless objects made with hands, citing Habakkuk 2, Jeremiah 10, Psalm 115 and Isaiah 44. He said the tabernacle and temple images were for decoration rather than veneration and that God's commands on them do not permit the veneration of other images.

Wood argued that human beings are the living image of the living God, and that bowing to lifeless images degrades people and dishonors God because it bows to something lower than the worshipper. He said the term iconodule means a slave to images.

Wood argued that the Second Council of Nicaea made icon veneration required, anathematizing those who refused to kiss the images or who applied the scriptural prohibitions against idols to them. He said this made the practice a requirement for salvation.

Wood argued that the Bible uses the Greek word for icon (eikon) interchangeably with the word for idol, citing Deuteronomy 4:16 and Romans 1, and that the word used for venerating (proskuneo) is the same word the Old Testament uses for forbidden worship of images.

Wood argued that proskuneo can mean prostration to a king as well as worship, and that context distinguishes the two; he said the Council of Nicaea's claim that the honour is not worship does not avoid the prohibition, since the Bible forbids bowing to lifeless images.

Wood argued that the Orthodox claim that honour passes from an image to its prototype fails on the case of Acts 10 and Revelation 19 and 22, where Peter and an angel rebuked those who bowed to them. He said these examples show that the honour is not properly given to the person through a picture.

Wood argued that icon veneration does not go back to the apostles and developed much later, citing Richard Price, who translated the acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, and Laurent Cleenewerck's statement that Eastern Orthodox theology of icons is not clearly found in the pre-Nicene era. He said the practice spread after Justinian, between about 550 and 650.

Wood described the Iconoclast Council of Hieria in 754, which condemned icon veneration, and the later events surrounding Empress Irene, Tarasios, and the Second Council of Nicaea, which he said was assembled in a disputed way with support from the army and invented representatives. He concluded that the council's claim to infallibility was questionable.

Dyer replied that Wood's arguments had been addressed in his opening, and that Wood had been wrong to call icon veneration a late development. He cited examples including catacomb images, prayers to the dead at martyrs' tombs, the Clement of Alexandria signet rings, royal portraiture, and the Acts of John, and named scholars such as Michael Gaertner, Robin Jensen and Robert Bruton.

Dyer argued that the Letter to Constantia attributed to Eusebius is considered a forgery, and that Eusebius himself spoke about idols in a way that rejects them, while holy objects such as the Bible or a holy image are different from idols.

Dyer argued that the prostration before the ark and the footstool in the Septuagint uses the same vocabulary, proskuneo, that the Ten Commandments forbid, and that the Old Testament nonetheless presents this as permitted. He said the difference lies in the inner disposition regarding whether the object is created or uncreated, not in whether the image is three-dimensional or pictorial.

Dyer argued that the destruction of the bronze serpent was because of Nehushtan worship, and that this shows images are not in themselves idols, since one can distinguish an image of Mary from an image of Pachamama. He said Wood left out the name Nehushtan, which he presented as the decisive element.

Wood replied that burning incense to a bronze snake and naming it, as recorded in 2 Kings 18:4, was the problem, and that Numbers 21 says only to look at the serpent for healing. He said Dyer's point about Nehushtan does not change the account of incense burning.

Dyer argued that the oak of Mamra is honoured in Genesis without that being the same as worship of the Asherah trees, and that the argument against icon veneration rests on conflating the two.

Wood said the Septuagint text says that the Israelites burned incense to the bronze snake, and that Dyer's translation of the word for worship is a general term that could mean either latria or dulia. He said the reason Hezekiah destroyed it is recorded in the text.

Dyer argued that Wood moved from calling icon veneration a late development to saying it was widespread but should not be required for salvation, which he said is a contradiction. He argued that the Old Testament and New Testament show an incarnational principle that grounds the veneration of holy objects and the worship due to God alone.

Dyer argued that Wood relied on older scholarship from Leo Davis and on two Orthodox theologians with ecumenical tendencies, and that newer scholarship, including Michael Gaertner's book Early Icons, supports the early practice of icon veneration.

Dyer argued that the absence of explicit early written argument about a practice is not evidence that it did not exist, citing the lack of early treatises on prayer, and that Irenaeus's reference to four gospels shows how apostolic tradition establishes doctrine.