FAITH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY A SEMINAR PAPER ON

ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY

Submitted to: - Dr K.A Ipe Submitted by :- Prince Thomas ( H.C – 1)

Introduction

The early church has witnessed several controversies pertaining to different subjects, most of which have found answers
in the ecumenical councils, one of which is the iconoclastic controversy. Iconoclasm states the annihilation of images or
hostility towards any form of visual representation. To be more specific it could be used to denote the iconoclastic
controversy that shook the Byzantine Empire for more than 300 years. Taken in its strict sense the term ‘iconoclasm’
means ‘hostility to religious images, a hostility that manifests itself in their destruction through a more or less
ostentatious public act. As far as the earlier eastern Christian authors are concerned, they perceived the veneration of
images to be idolatrous. But from the late fifth century the aspect of representations of Christ and the saints had
formidably intensified. The conflict was finally resolved on March 11, 843, by the gesture of a procession with icons.
The veneration of images was now accepted as standard Church practice. In this paper we are going to look at the
different facets of the controversy, the key figures associated with the controversy and their stance both in favour and
against the same.

1.2 Icon

The term for image in Greek is eikon, ‘‘icon’’ in English. The word could designate any sort of image, but as used by
art historians today it refers to a religious image, usually on a wood panel, intended for veneration. Those who opposed
the veneration of images were called iconoclasts, from the Greek term for breaking images; those who defended the
practice were called iconodules, ones who serve images, or iconophiles, lovers of images 1.2.1 Byzantium Byzantium
though occupies an uncertain place in historiography as to say no-one knows what to do with it. Was it part of Europe?
Or does it belong rather to the East?. This is despite the fact that, like its successor empire, that of the Ottomans, the
territory of Byzantium included large swathes of Europe, where its influence after 1453 has continued until today.
Moreover, as an integral factor in the political and cultural histories of the emerging post-Communist states of central
and eastern Europe, Byzantium has acquired a newly sensitive role, both as the predecessor of the Ottoman empire and
the bringer and guarantee of Orthodox Christianity, and as conveying an uneasily ‘Eastern’ inheritance.

1.3 Origin of the controversy

Some scholars held that the origins of the controversy lay in the secular programme of reform of the first two Isaurian
emperors, Leo III (717–41) and Constantine V (741–75), whose zeal in ordering the military and agricultural affairs of
the empire spilled over into ecclesiastical matters as they sought to relieve the Church of lands which could otherwise be
made more productive. Others held the causes to be primarily religious, the decision being taken to purify the empire of
idolatry in order to propitiate the divine anger made so clearly manifest in the defeats suffered by imperial forces at the
hands of the new religion of Islam. To a third group the mutual antagonism between the Eastern and the Graeco-Roman
spirits seemed to offer an explanation, the aniconic art of the East on the one hand and the Graeco-Roman tradition of
plastic art on the other being held to have come into conflict with each other in Asia Minor 4. The reason for such a
diversity of views is that the lack of satisfactory first-hand iconoclast sources and the fragmentary character. The
iconophiles accused the iconoclasts of being under the influence of Islam, which rejected every human representation as
an idol.

1.3.1 The background

In 741 Leo was succeeded by his son Constantine V, who took a firmer line against the veneration of images. He had
been victorious against Arab forces in Syria without parading icons before his troops. In the wake of his victories, he
decided to convene a council at Hieria, across from Constantinople on the Asian shore, in 754. More than three hundred
bishops were in attendance—a very large number. The mood at the council was hostile to icons, and the bishops ruled
that the veneration of icons was contrary to the Church’s ancient tradition. Those who venerated images had broken the
commandment of God and would be subject to the laws of the empire. The council, however, fearful of the violence that
might follow its actions, forbade the destruction of sacramental vessels, vestments, other sacred objects, and churches
that displayed images.

1.3.1.1 The Iconoclastic Controversy

The Iconoclastic (“image breaking,” that is, picture destroying) controversy was sparked, in part, by response to Islam’s
opposition to images. The debate concerned the pictoriability of Jesus Christ (among other persons), especially the
divine in Christ, so the Christological arguments that were employed made the whole question an epilogue to the
Christological controversies. The first phase of iconoclasm lasted from 726 to 787; the effort was revived from 815 to
843. The controversy touched the nerve of popular piety, for the most significant form of Eastern devotion had become
the cult of holy images or icons (the Greek word means “pictures,” not “statues”) depicting Jesus Christ, Mary, saints,
and angels.

1.3.1.2 Outbreak and intensification of the controversy

According to the Narration of John of Jerusalem, which was read at the second session of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council (787) a Jewish Magus called Tessara contapechys promised the Caliph Yazid II (720–4) a thirty-one year reign
if he ordered the destruction of the icons in his realm. Yazid complied and his edict was executed by the lawless hands
of Jews and Arabs”. But it is believed that he died prematurely without most people having heard of his decree. The
icons were restored and Yazid’s son, Walid, ordered the false prophets to be put to death. Theophanes insists that Leo
III “inherited his baneful doctrine” from Yazid, having adopted the “Arab way of thinking” The final stimulus to the
outbreak of the iconoclast movement in an official sense came from a severe earthquake which created a new island in
the Aegean Sea between the volcanic islands of Thera and Therasia. The emperor interpreted this phenomenon as a
manifestation of divine anger at the use of icons. The first iconoclastic act of Leo may be regarded as the removal by an
officer of the icon of Christ which was set over the Chalce gate of the palace. The people were outraged and killed the
emperor’s emissary on the spot, whereupon a riot ensued. After the decision of the “seventh ecumenical” council of
Hiereia, Constantine V seems to have intensified the persecution of those who opposed iconoclasm. He also took action
against the monastic state, forcing monks and nuns into marriage and the abandonment of their vows.

1.3.1.3 The Teaching Role of the Icon

Within the framework of training and formation, the icon is the supreme educational instrument of universal power, a
permanent substitute open book, unaffected by temporal changes and historical coincidences, which never needs
revision, which remains always open and immediately accessible to educated and uneducated alike, and which plays,
finally, the role of the compass in the “ship of the Church”, pointing it unerringly towards supreme truth and reality, an
indisputable and enduring guide to truth: “There are times when the reading of Scripture is lacking in churches, but the
presence of icons in them evening, morning and midday narrates and proclaims to us the truth of what has taken place”.
This is the fundamental role of Christian education: to guide one towards saving truth. In contrast with a scientific and
rationalistic education, which aims only at the increase of a person’s critical capacity and his application to research, the
fundamental data of which must always be changing and advancing, the saving truth of Christian faith remains
changeless, “yesterday and today the same for ever” (Heb. 13:8), and the conduit of this truth is the icon. It is for this
reason that its educational power is so effective, for the divine factor contributes the largest part, that is to say, the
uncreated energies which are present in every sacred icon create its effectiveness. In this way the “rapture of the mind”,
the “awakening” and stimulation of our soul, is brought about that we might imitate the holy personages depicted in the
painting. In accordance with these, the earliest form of Christian icons is constituted by the parables of the Gospels:
“The parables fulfil for us the function of icons, by putting forward the efficacy of what they mean, as if it were
accessible to sight and to touch, as well as even of those things that may be contemplated invisibly in subtle conception.

1.3.1.4 The Veneration of Images

The iconoclasts of course did not confine themselves to St John the Evangelist. They also turned to Pauline passages in
support of their theses. According to their interpretation, Romans 1:23 “and they exchanged the glory of the immortal
God for images resembling mortal man” refers to the iconophiles’ production of the image of Christ. So too did Romans
1:25 “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator”. Even more striking and apt is the use of 2 Corinthians 5:16
“even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer” against the
possibility of representing Christ after the resurrection, and also 2 Corinthians 5:7 “for we walk by faith, not by
appearance” in order to arrive at the assertion: “in serving the invisible Godhead, we all worship in a spiritual manner”.
Nevertheless, the testimony of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, that in spite of all this the iconoclasts did not totally
reject the legitimacy of the representation of sacred personages but were disposed to agree with the iconophiles on the
retention of icons in churches provided they were not venerated, remains important: “They contented themselves with
saying that iconic representation should exist only for the purpose of remembrance and not for veneration.

1.3.2 Man as the Priest of Creation

The iconophiles not only make fundamental distinctions enabling them to venerate icons, which the iconoclasts are
unable to make, but they also reject the dualistic distinctions the iconoclasts make of sensible reality, unable in their turn
to make distinctions where the iconoclasts regard distinctions as obligatory. Nothing proclaims faith in God’s “very
good material” creation more directly and practically than its use for the glory of God, its employment as a means of
ascent to its Creator. This also constitutes the most characteristic justification of matter, its true contribution to the
history of salvation, which in practice ostracises all dualistic, Manichaeistic and docetic conceptions. Basing themselves
on the very words of the Old Testament, the iconophiles deny any division of God’s creation into sacred and profane
“parts”. They maintain the primary unity of the works of the substance-forming divine energies by recognising in them
an important liturgical role. It is precisely the Scriptures of the Jews which call on “all the works of the Lord” to bless
their Lord and Creator - the heavens and the waters, the sun and the moon, the stars and fire and ice, nights and days,
light and darkness, lightings and clouds, mountains and all things that grow, the beasts and birds and whales, and of
course, men. Scripture also summons us to venerate “his footstool” (Ps. 98:5) and “his holy mountain” (Ps. 86:1). Icons
then, are not the only creatures which are venerated. Man alone, however, is the “true worshipper” ( Jn. 4:23) who
draws the whole of creation to worship the true God

1.3.2.2 The Iconoclast Position

For the sake of clarity, the arguments of either side may be set out in terms of the theological distinctions and
identifications which functioned as criteria for the solution of the questions which arose. Where one side made
distinctions, the other usually did not. The iconoclasts, for example, instead of making conceptual distinctions often
made either sharp divisions or else conflating identifications. The iconophiles, on the other hand, made real distinctions
between prototype and imitative icon and between adoration and veneration which the iconoclasts found difficult to
accept. Fundamental to the iconoclast position was a real distinction between the two natures of Christ, human and
divine in contrast with the merely conceptual distinction made by their opponents and the Eastern Fathers in general. As
a result, the iconic representation of Christ implied either a division between the two natures, which is Nestorian, or a
confusion of natures, which is Monophysite. (Both these points were stressed in opposition to the iconophiles and not
independently of the depiction of Christ. By further consequence, image and archetype or prototype are identified.
Consequently, Christ and an icon of Christ must be identified in their essence, that is to say, icon and person represented
(prototype) must always be consubstantial. Every icon not identical with the prototype in essence is an idol. Because the
above definition of consubstantiality between prototype and image is never fulfilled in the case of the imitative icon,
every non-natural icon must of necessity be an idol. The veneration of such an icon is therefore the veneration of an
idol. Every honour rendered to material icons of Christ and his saints signifies veneration of the pictorial representations
themselves, and not of the prototype. Since only natural icons exist and “icon” in general is identified with “archetype”,
every attempt at the iconic representation of Christ treats his two natures as identical. There is only one “natural” icon of
Christ: the sanctified Bread of the divine Eucharist (which is evidently acceptable because it avoids the human form,
and not simply because it renders his two natures). Here it is clearly apparent that the problem for the iconoclasts lies
not in the iconic representation of the matter itself but of the form and the misunderstanding which follows it
subsequently

1.3.2.3 Ardent propagator of icons

The rise of the icon to prominence as well as its vulnerability in the sixth and seventh centuries are connected intimately
with the rise of the holy man, or Geron as he is called in Greek. Ever since his appearance in Syria in the fourth century,
the lone Christian ascetic had been a figure endowed with power. People flocked to him for healing and counsel because
his ascetic feats were evidence that he had the ear of God. He was an intercessor, a healer of the sick and a protector of
the weak. He was also an arbiter of Church discipline whose ability to communicate God’s forgiveness of sins did much
to lighten the burden of the Church’s rigorous rules. He was a living icon of God’s power and love. When he died his
image was put up to perpetuate his presence. Indeed, sometimes he became the protecting saint of a city.

1.4 John of Damascus

John of Damascus was a stalwart defender of the veneration of icons. Although his monastery was located in the centre
of the Muslim empire, and Christians were coping with the alien society being formed around them, John was deeply
troubled by the attack on icons. John had written a series of essays, Against Those Who Denounce the Sacred Images, to
show that the veneration of icons was not a recent ‘‘invention’’ but the ‘‘ancient tradition of the Church.’’ In his
treatises on images John distilled the Church’s teaching about Christ and focused it brilliantly on the matter at hand. His
signal contribution was to show that the prohibition of icons challenged the Christian belief in the Incarnation, that God
who is before time and beyond space became man in the person of Jesus Christ and lived at a particular time and place
in history. Because the divine Word, the eternal Son of God, had taken on human flesh, writes John, it is possible,
indeed necessary, to ‘‘draw his image and show it to anyone willing to gaze at it.’’ For John without images truth about
Christ could not be grasped fully. At the same time, he recognized that the veneration of images was divergent from the
worship due only God. Drawing on the language of the Bible, ‘‘God only shall you worship’’ (Luke 4:8; Deuteronomy
6:13), he made a clean distinction between the adoration due to God and the honour and veneration appropriate for
images. His views provided a theological rationale for the veneration of images. Throughout history God had been
revealed in historical events, and in the last days he had ‘‘spoken to us through his Son’’ (Hebrews 1:2). John readily
granted that the Scriptures forbid the making of images of God, but the command against making graven images was
given in ancient times to the Jewish people before the coming of Christ. Because God clothed himself in human form
and became visible, says John, ‘‘you may draw his likeness.’’ In Christ all things are new; after his coming we are able
to see what is uncircumscribed and invisible. John’s arguments are not only theological; he has a keen appreciation of
the sensuous nature of experience. He wrote that he was a human being with a body, and as a human being ‘‘I desire to
communicate physically with the things that are holy and to see them.’’ A piece of cloth is a lifeless thing, no more
valuable than what it is made of, but if it is a shirt or a blouse of someone, I love it is something more than a piece of
cloth. ‘‘I have often seen lovers gazing at the garments of their beloved,’’ he wrote, ‘‘embracing the garments with their
eyes and their lips as if the garment were the beloved one.’’ In the same way the faithful kissed the wood of the cross
that held the precious body of Christ, knelt in adoration at the rock where he was crucified, and kissed an image of the
infant Christ in the arms of the Virgin Mary.

1.4.1 The Council in Trullo

The council in trullo addressed the topic of religious art in two canons. One in images and the Making of Byzantium
dealt with the cross, by which, in the words of the bishops, humans were ‘‘saved from the ancient fall.’’ The issue was
whether images of the cross were due veneration. The bishops said yes, but roundly condemned the practice of setting
crosses into the floor, lest they be desecrated when people trampled on them. In another canon they dealt with the image
of a lamb. In the Scriptures, Christ is called the ‘‘lamb of God,’’ and the lamb served as an image of Christ (John 1:29;
Isaiah 53:7; 1 Peter 1:19)). In some churches, such as Saint Vitale in Ravenna, Christ was depicted in the form of a
lamb. A lamb is, however, a symbol drawn from the Old Testament that points to Christ; it is not the thing itself. In the
view of the bishops, since the ancient types such as the lamb had given way to the full revelation, the proper way to
represent Christ is to portray him as a human person. Here is how they put it: ‘‘We decree that from now on the figure
of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World, Christ our God, should be set forth in images in human form,
instead of the ancient lamb; for in this way we apprehend the depth of the humility of the Word of God, and are led to
the remembrance of his life in the flesh, his passion and his saving death, and the redemption which thereby came to the
world.’’

1.4.2 Council of Hieria – 754 C.E

In the formulation of its decisions the council took as its model the emperor’s treatise, which had set the Christological
problem at the centre of the debate and maintained the impossibility of the iconic representation of Christ. Veneration. It
condemns the honouring of icons as a practice leading to idolatry, as not in agreement with with the supremely spiritual
worship of Christianity, as diminishing and insulting the glory of the saints through representing them in “common and
dishonourable matter” done for sordid gain. The council condemned the honouring of the icons as idolatry on the
grounds that it was opposed to Scripture and holy tradition and not authorised by the first ecumenical councils. It
condemned the iconic depiction of Christ as leading to the heresy of Nestorianism or of Monophysitism. Since the
divinity and the humanity have been united in Christ in one person without confusion or division, anyone who confesses
Christ as a person depicted pictorially either takes him to be a mere man or confuses the two natures and presents the
divine nature and the divine hypostasis as circumscribed. Anyone who confesses Christ as depicted pictorially in his
humanity divides the two natures and presents the human nature as subsisting in its own right. The only true icon of
Christ given by God is the bread of the Eucharist. The council did not follow Constantine in his theses concerning the
Theotokos, the saints and holy relics. On the contrary, it declared with reverence: ‘The making of icons or their setting
up in churches or private dwellings, or their secret retention is forbidden. Transgressions will be liable to penalties under
the imperial laws. The emperor demanded an oath from all present that there would be no more “iconolatry”.

1.5 Post Iconoclasm:

Effect on the church Church The ban on veneration of images soon turned into an attack on monks, who became the
main target of Constantine V’s regime. In some areas, monasteries were completely dissolved, their properties
escheating to the state, while the ex-monks and nuns were forced into matrimony. Monks represented a powerful, but
insubordinate, element in society. They had become a law unto themselves, beyond the control of the bishops, who
uniformly supported the policies of the emperor Constantine V. Monks were competitors for popular support. Their
repression may well have been a way of strengthening the imperial hold over popular opinion.

Despite this within 12 years of Constantine V’s death the Second Council of Nicaea (787) restored the veneration of
images as an essential of Orthodoxy. There does not seem to have been a massive swing in public opinion against
iconoclasm, judging by the many bishops, who were reluctant to abandon their views on images. The latter were
persuaded to drop their opposition by the argument that iconoclasm had cut off the Church of Constantinople from the
other patriarchates, which had not followed the iconoclast line. Society The Second Council of Nicaea gave monks the
opportunity to re-educate society and to claim for themselves a position as the spiritual elite, whose actions had
preserved the purity of Orthodoxy. Pre-eminent among them was Theodore of Stoudios, who turned his monastery of
Stoudios into the exemplar of Byzantine monasticism. Though remembered as a defender of images his major
contribution was to articulate the ideal of monks forming a spiritual élite within society. During second iconoclasm
Theodore of Stoudios was sent into exile in Anatolia, from where he wrote incessantly orchestrating opposition to
iconoclasm. He effectively created an underground church dedicated to resistance to an iconoclast regime, but it was not
one where popular opinion had much weight, for monastic opposition to second iconoclasm, including that of the Holy
Mountains of Asia Minor, appears to have relied heavily on support from within the Byzantine elite.

1.6 Conclusion

The correct evaluation of icons may be made only within the context of the place of words and concepts about God in
the patristic tradition. The classic expression of this is that of St Gregory the Theologian, who says that “to express God
is impossible and to conceive of him is even more impossible”. This position is founded on the experience of
glorification, during which the prophets, apostles and saints have realised that there is no similarity whatsoever between
the uncreated and the created and that the human intellect cannot bridge this epistemological gap. It is God who
communicates his glory to man so that he may be known in his manifold uncreated energies in creation and redemption,
namely, in purification, illumination and glorification. The icon therefore takes its place alongside words and concepts,
which are superseded in glorification as far as the uncreated is concerned, but nevertheless are used by the glorified to
communicate saving truth to the people God has entrusted to them.

Bibliography

Angold, Michael. Church and Society: Iconoclasm and After. In A Social History of Byzantium. Edited by John
Haldom. UK: Blackwell Publishing: 2009. Averil Cameron, The Byzantines. USA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Bast,
Robert J. Images of the Divine. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. The Netherlands: Brill Academic
Publishers, 2005. F.X Noble, Thomas and Julia M.H Smith,eds. The Cambridge History of Christianity - Early medieval
Christianities. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Giakalis, Ambrosios. Images of the Divine. Netherland: Brill
Publishing company, 2005 Shepherd, Jonathan, eds. the Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire. Uk: Cambridge
University Press, 2008 Staal, Casper. Iconoclasm and Iconoclasm. Struggle for Religious Identity. Edited by William
van asselt et.al. Boston: Brill Publication, 2007

Wilken, Robert Louis. The First Thousand Years. A Global History of Christianity. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 2012

Webliography

Commentary on the Second Council of Nicaea (arcaneknowledge.org)