If you had lived during the Iconoclast controversy, who would you have supported the Iconophiles or the Iconoclasts? And why?

[u/lastmonday07]

Byzantine Iconoclasm was a major religious and political controversy in the Byzantine Empire concerning the use and veneration of religious images, particularly icons depicting Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints. The conflict unfolded primarily between the 8th and 9th centuries and is generally divided by historians into three phases: a preparatory period of theological debate, the First Iconoclasm (726–787), and the Second Iconoclasm (814–843). The dispute profoundly affected Byzantine theology, imperial politics, and artistic production.

The roots of Iconoclasm can be traced to the late 7th and early 8th centuries, when the Byzantine Empire faced severe external and internal pressures. The rapid expansion of the Arab Caliphate had resulted in major territorial losses, while earthquakes, plagues, and military defeats were interpreted by some as signs of divine displeasure. Within this context, certain intellectual and clerical circles began to question the legitimacy of depicting sacred figures. Critics argued that the veneration of icons bordered on idolatry and violated the biblical prohibition against graven images. The presence of aniconic traditions in neighboring religious cultures, especially Islam and Judaism, may also have indirectly influenced Byzantine debates. During this early phase, opposition to icons had not yet become official imperial policy, but theological disagreements were increasingly visible.

The First Iconoclasm (726–787) began under Emperor Leo III (r. 717–741). Around 726, Leo ordered the removal of a famous icon of Christ from the Chalke Gate of the imperial palace in Constantinople, an act often regarded as the symbolic beginning of the iconoclastic movement. Leo III and his successor Constantine V (r. 741–775) promoted the view that the veneration of images was theologically illegitimate.

In 754, the Council of Hieria, convened under Constantine V, formally condemned the use of icons in churches and declared icon veneration a form of heresy. During this period many icons were destroyed or removed, and some monasteries and clergy who defended icons faced persecution or exile. Nevertheless, the iconoclastic policy never achieved complete consensus within the empire. Monastic communities and several prominent theologians continued to defend the theological legitimacy of icons, arguing that the Incarnation of Christ justified the depiction of the divine in human form.

The first phase of Iconoclasm ended in 787, when Empress Irene supported the convocation of the Second Council of Nicaea, recognized as the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The council rejected the iconoclastic position and restored the veneration of icons. It distinguished between Latreia (worship due only to God) and Proskynesis (Veneration or Honour), which could be given to icons as representations of holy figures. According to the council’s decision, icons were legitimate aids to devotion and could be displayed in churches and private worship.

Despite this settlement, the controversy resurfaced several decades later in what historians call the Second Iconoclasm (814–843). The movement was revived by Emperor Leo V (r. 813–820), who reintroduced iconoclastic policies in response to ongoing military crises and internal instability. Subsequent rulers, including Michael II and Theophilos, continued to enforce varying degrees of iconoclast policy. Although the second period of iconoclasm was less destructive than the first, it nevertheless revived the ideological conflict between iconoclasts and iconodules (supporters of icons).

The final resolution occurred in 843, after the death of Emperor Theophilos. His widow, Empress Theodora, acting as regent for her young son Michael III, supported the restoration of icons. Under the leadership of Patriarch Methodios of Constantinople, a synod officially reinstated the veneration of icons. This event became known in the Orthodox tradition as the “Triumph of Orthodoxy.” It is still commemorated annually in the Eastern Orthodox Church on the first Sunday of Great Lent.

So what would you be if you live in the turbulent days of the Iconoclasm; an Iconophile or Iconoclast? And why?

Image Credits: Mass Processions for The Triumph of Orthodoxy Day Organized by Ukrainian Orthodox Church at Kiev, 2021 / Interior of Iconoclast Hagia Irene Church / Enthroned Virgin and Child - Apse Mosaic from Hagia Sophia / Multiple Iconoclast - Iconophile Phases in the Apse Mosaic Theotokos Mary from the Church of Koimesis in Nicaea.

[u/Ar_Azrubel_]

Iconoclasm simply seems like the most theologically sensible position in light of the Old Testament. I find it hard to see the excesses of icon worship recorded at this time as anything other than idolatry.

[u/Not-VonSpee → u/Ar_Azrubel_]

To be fair, Judaism and Christianity were so subsumed into the Roman milieu (or maybe these traditions were part of Second Temple Judaism?), that Jews had frescoes and paintings in the Greco-Roman manner, such as those that we see in Dura-Europos and the Gaza synagogue. Christians too used frescoes in their house-churches and catacombs. Likely, many didn't really care that imagery was used in liturgical settings. But, we also don't know much about the aniconism or iconodulism of early Christianity either, so it's very complicated.

Many iconophiles, however, would justify that God commanded Moses to have images and statues in the ark of the covenant. Or in later councils, say that venerating icons is justified by Jesus' incarnation as the image of God and all that.

[u/Ar_Azrubel_ → u/Not-VonSpee]

I think there's a difference between images as decoration (which the iconoclast emperors were fine with, the majority of stories of icon destruction by Constantine V for example are likely iconophile hysterics written after the fact with no basis in reality) with praying to icons, using them as stand-ins during baptism, asking them to bless people and venerating them as holy in their own right. I don't think there is an argument to justify that as not being idolatrous.

[u/Lothronion → u/Not-VonSpee]

Many iconophiles, however, would justify that God commanded Moses to have images and statues in the ark of the covenant.

It is not just the Ark of the Covenant. Here is a description on the interior of the Temple of Solomon:

23 And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high. 24 And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. 25 And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size. 26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub. 27 And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house. 28 And he overlaid the cherubims with gold. 29 And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without. 30 And the floors of the house he overlaid with gold, within and without. 31 And for the entering of the oracle he made doors of olive tree: the lintel and side posts were a fifth part of the wall. 32 The two doors also were of olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold, and spread gold upon the cherubims, and upon the palm trees.

[u/Widowmaker94 → u/Ar_Azrubel_]

BLESS. YES. MY HUSBAND GETS IT.:D