Byzantine Art: Iconoclasm, Incarnation, And Art

Iconoclasm, Incarnation, and Art During the time of the Byzantine period, the utilization of religious images was a controversial subject. This controversy consisted of three parties; the Carolingians, iconoclasts, and iconodules and each party had their own interpretation on how and where these religious images could be used. Although each party had a different view, there was something in common amongst the three of them, they all agreed that God is the only thing that someone may worship. The belief of the Carolingians was that through biblical writing and religious texts, figures should be venerated. The Carolingians were not anti-images, but preferred to adore through text. The second party was the iconoclasts, this group was completely
The second commandment states that, Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness [of anything] that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God… The iconoclasts use the second commandment as a premise for their argument and was respected until images started to be made. The most focused and important debate in the Christian church over images of Christ culminated in the Seventh Ecumenical Council, at Nicea, in 787. It is here where the debate between Iconodules and Iconoclasts is at its heaviest and where the Christological and Ontological issues that each side has pertaining to images is discussed. This was an ongoing conflict that led to the destruction of images until a fourth council where it was considered heresy to destroy
According to iconoclasts, Christ is circumscribed only up until His passion and no longer after his Resurrection. Theodore the Studite then refutes this by saying that after His resurrection, he is seen by his disciples as a spirit and is recognizable by his human attributes, and said to His apostles, “see my hands and my feet, it is myself? This would mean that even after Christ’s resurrection, His human attributes did not perish. The response of the Heretics includes stating that although Christ may display these human attributes to His apostles, but they are not like the attributes that we have and because of this He is not considered circumscribable. The issue with the iconoclasts stating this is by suggesting this, it denies the meaning of the incarnation and questions the two natures that are found within Christ. Their response doesn’t necessarily disprove Christ being circumscribable. It appears that the iconoclasts’ response to Theodore the Studite is weak and shifts the focus away from what Theodore the Studite has just suggested and onto a new topic. They respond not by focusing on Christ, but instead looking to His apostles and say that they beheld the lord with purified eyes, not eyes like ours. This demonstrates that Christ is circumscribable before His Passion, and after His