Icons are a distinctively Orthodox expression of Faith. But icons are often misunderstood and sometimes critized. Aren't icons forbidden by the third commandement? Why do Orthodox Christians kiss icons and consider them worthy of honor and veneration?

The answer to this question is simpler than it seems.

(1) Icons are not idols and Orthodox Christians do not worship them.

(2) The Old Testament prohibition against idols must be taken in its overall context: God also inspired Moses to fashion carvings of Cherubim (on the ark) and to adorn the curtains of the Temple with angels (Exodus 36, I Kings 6).

(3) Christians have always understood the full meaning of the Incarnation of the Divine Word of God. The prohibition against idols and images of God was connected to the fact that "You have not seen a form" (Deut. 4). Indeed, God the Father is utterly transcendent and impossible to portray, "dwelling in unapprochable light" (I Tim. 6 :16). This is why the Church forbids any representation of God the Father. In contrast, the Gospels, especially John's Gospel, teach that "we have seen His glory" (John 1:14-18).

(4) Christians have always understood that certain objects are holy and worthy of veneration. The Old Testament mentions 'holy incense', 'holy vestments', 'holy temple', etc. Among these, the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple were considered worthy of tremendous awe and respect: "I bow down before your holy temple, filled with awe". (Psalm 5)

(5) In particular Christians have always shown proper respect, indeed veneration for the cross, for the gospel and indeed, for each other. One such mark of respect was the bow and holy kiss.

(6) Early Church Christians also understood the connection between a representation and the reality depicted. For instance, Christian refused to offer a sacrifice to the statue of the emperor because they knew what it meant. In the fourth century, when the people of Antioch protested against heavy taxes by smashing the imperial statues, the emperor's reaction was to march on the city to destroy its inhabitants. In modern times, we have not lost this sense of connection between the symbol (or type) and the reality: burning an American flag means more than burning a piece of cloth. Likewise, spitting on a portrait of Christ (even Protestant denominations have cards and paintings depicting the Lord) would be unthinkable. If an "evil" action has meaning, what about a sign of respect comparable to the one Christians always shown each other, the gospel and the cross?

(7) Whoever has visited the ancient catacombs of Rome knows that from the earliest times, Christians have used iconographic frescos to decorate their place and worship and to inspire themselves to sanctity.

(8) During the controversy over icons, all these arguments were hotly debated. Some advocated a strict adherence to the second commandment, very much in line with the view of Islam. The Church had to use its power to bind and loose in this difficult matter. Absolutely forbidding any kind of pictorial representation was out of the question since even the Jews never went that far. Moveover, it was necessary to affirm the reality of the Incarnation, that we had seen and touch the Son of God. Therefore, the Church decided to regulate the use of holy images in the Church, in harmony with Holy Scripture and common sense. A image of Christ has nothing to do with wood and colors - it is a sign, indeed a type of a great reality, worthy of veneration but not worship. We do not worship the Gospel, the Cross an icon or even a fellow Christian with a bow and kiss - we honor them and give ultimate glory and worship to God the Father Amen.