Iconoclastic Controversy in the Middle Ages | Church History Explained

In this video, we'll explain the Iconoclastic Controversy (also referred to as the Byzantine Iconoclasm). We'll discuss its origins within the Byzantine Empire, it's rise within the church and it's eventual decline.

Why did Christians in the Middle Ages fight over religious images? The Iconoclastic Controversy was a defining conflict in Church history, leading to the destruction of sacred images, political upheaval, and deep theological divisions.

In this video, we explore the origins, events, and resolutions of Byzantine Iconoclasm, particularly how it shaped Christian doctrine in the Eastern and Western Church. We examine the arguments for and against icons, the role of the Byzantine emperors, and the impact of the Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD) in settling the debate.

⏳ Key Topics Covered:
✔ What was the Iconoclastic Controversy?
✔ Why did the Byzantine Empire ban religious icons?
✔ The theological debate: Iconoclasts vs. Iconophiles
✔ The Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD) and its resolution
✔ The long-term impact of the controversy on the Church

Excerpt:
In the eighth and ninth centuries AD, a controversy arose, especially within the Eastern Orthodox Church, regarding the use of icons in religious worship and instruction. An icon is a representation of Jesus, Mary, the saints, or angels on a flat surface-either as a painting or a mosaic. Those who upheld the religious use of icons came to be known as iconodules, i.e., "lovers of images." Those who decried the religious use of icons came to be known as iconoclasts, or "smashers of images." The most heated debate and actions of the controversy took place between 726 and 843. Follow us to the end.

🔴 Subscribe to get more videos from Theology Academy

––––––––––––––––
Follow us:

#churchHistory #TheologyAcademy #icons #Gnostics #ChurchFathers #biblicalarchaeology #church #churchfathers #biblicalarchaeology #jesus #christian #gospel #theology #bible

[saenzperspectives]

“...the devil led the enemies of the church from one extreme to the other, from worshiping the images of men and animals in paganism to destroying the images of Christ and the saints in iconoclasm.”—Jaroslav Pelikan

[thisisgeorge]

Recommended edit to title “…and statues” - the Orthodox do not “sanctify” statues. The 7th Ecumenical Council makes clear what kinds of imagery are appropriate. This might also need a part 2 to go over those important nuances.

[baralar]

Thank you for making this presentation on icons from a mostly neutral stance. Just the facts Jack. Let each person come to their own conclusion.

[GirthofBirth]

Icons are a misnomer I think the issue is you’re worshiping a saint through a statue. Which you should venerate rather than worship. (Not that it makes a difference) Personally I think (outside of politics)it’s an unnecessary point. I personally think it was a Peter and Paul issue. It’s BS politics among our popes.

[andyontheinternet]

I've never seen a convincing argument that Jesus and the apostles taught or practiced image veneration.

[chrissimon]

Why is Christ’s church being controlled by emperors? Isn’t that a good case for sola scriptura?

[hmt]

It’s an absolute power and corruption among tug-of-war

[johnlloydc.semilla]

The first to introduce icons in the church was the Eastern Greek

[Caralaza]

I honestly do not understand how the explicit use of icons in worship is considered acceptable and (by some) required!
How can John of Damascus say that προσκύνεσις is appropriate for images, when the Septuagint *EXPLICITLY* denies this!
Οὐ *προσκυνήσεις* αὐτοῖς (εἰδώλοις) οὐδὲ μὴ λατρεύσεις αὐτοῖς
- Exodus 20:5
English: "Thou shalt not bow to them, nor serve them"

The word προσκύνεσις (as a verb) is right there!
I do not understand!

[aaronwolf]

Christ is the icon of the Father. Man is the icon of Christ. Saints are the icons of the men and women transfigured by Christ and His grace (His energies).

Christ said, “If you have seen Me you have seen the Father.” Therefore, Christ Who is fully God and fully man can be depicted because He walked among us and we beheld Him.

Understood in totality, this means an image (or “icon”) depicting Christ, His Most Pure Mother, and His sanctified ones (the saints) are not only able to be depicted and venerated but MUST be. Because the worship (to Christ) passes from the Image to the prototype (that very real Person the Image depicts).

To reject images and to be iconoclastic (to smash and disdain them) is a fundamentally satanic notion that seeks to, first and foremost, stomp out the Image of our Lord as He is and was always known and then to begin eradicating the image of God in humanity.

One cannot embrace Christ and reject His image, for in doing so, one spits upon the Incarnational reality of the Gospel.

[kori]

Looks like they needed women to make the final decisions.

[MSHOOD]

Aaand that's why I left Orthodoxy, along with Saint worshiping heresy.

[crossculturecommunity]

Prior to Constantine, the kingdom of God had nothing or very little to do with the kingdom of the world. Scripture and the early church believed and wrote that there was absolutely nothing in common between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. However, Emperor Constantine unwittingly initiated the UNION of church and state. For the first time in history, unordained Emperors (from the kingdom of darkness) were making decisions for the bishops (kingdom of light) and the BISHOPS SURPRISINGLY ALLOWED IT!!!! That is what corrupted the church and started new inventions which the Apostolic fathers NEVER SPOKE NOR TAUGHT including veneration of Mary, praying to dead saints and veneration of icons.

Note that in this video, Empress Theodora from the kingdom of darkness mandated all Christians to venerate icons! And instead of martyrdom, the "christians" chose to comply similar to what the lapsi did during Cyprians time!!!! which is the very opposite of what the early church and martyrs would do. If a Christian is to walk by FAITH and NOT by SIGHT, icons encourage the opposite and therefore blatantly disobey St. Paul and the First and Second of the Ten Commandments. If the Jews who traditionally defined idolatry condemn icons, most probably they are biblically correct.

Note that prior to Constantine, ALL true Christians DIED for their FAITH. After Constantine, even the Bishops KILLED for their faith, the very opposite of the Lord's Sermon on the Mount. This is what happens when humans force the union of church and state. In the same way, all the council inventions AFTER Constantine have some flavor of corruption, with the things of the world constantly polluting the things of God.

[saenzperspectives]

“In the 1920s, archaeologists began to uncover a significant find: a garrison city that had been built on the banks of the Euphrates, at the eastern edge of the Roman Empire (today it’s in Syria). When the Persians attacked, around AD 256, Roman soldiers strengthened their defenses by packing earth and sand into several of the buildings that stood along the inside of the city wall. But the Persians conquered that city nevertheless, then abandoned it. This beleaguered city, known as Dura-Europos, then enjoyed a little posthumous good fortune: nothing was ever built on top of its ruins. When scientists began removing the centuries of sand, they found it perfectly preserved.

One of the buildings that had been preserved was a Christian house church—the earliest yet found. Its walls were decorated with paintings, and show many biblical scenes: Christ and St. Peter walking on the water, the healing of the paralytic, and the women coming to Christ’s tomb to anoint his body (Orthodox call them the “myrrh-bearing women”). Archaeologists also found scrolls bearing Eucharistic prayers in Hebrew. (They resemble the Eucharistic prayers in the Didache, an important early Christian text, written about AD 80, when the Gospels were being written).

This was clearly a church building. An Orthodox church built today, or at any point in history, could look much the same, with walls covered in icons (as at St. Felicity).

But something else was found in the ruins of that city. Another of the preserved buildings was a [Jewish] synagogue—and it, too, was covered with paintings of biblical scenes. Abraham and Isaac, Pharaoh’s daughter finding baby Moses, Ezekiel’s visions, narrative scenes, portraits of Bible characters—about a hundred images when the building was complete, of which fifty-eight remain. These paintings resemble the ones in the house church nearby. They look like icons.

Both Christians and Jews of Dura-Europos filled their worship spaces with images drawn from the Scriptures, and did not think this was idolatry. Greco-Roman homes had long been decorated with wall paintings and mosaics, and the custom may have passed over to religious buildings without a lot of debate.

But in the seventh century something happened that provoked a great deal of debate. The Muslim faith arose and swept through the region, and three of the Pentarchy cities—Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria—as well as many other Christian communities fell to the sword. Islam forbade the use of images, and some Christians wondered if God were permitting this destruction as punishment for idolatry.

Backed by the command of the Roman emperor in Constantinople, the iconoclasts (it means “icon smashers”) began destroying every icon in reach. Images were burned, crushed, hacked, thrown in the sea, and covered with paint or plaster. This is why so few early icons remain; the ones with a chance to survive were in remote locations, like the Roman catacombs, the St. Catherine Monastery on Mt. Sinai, or the buried church of Dura-Europos.

No doubt there had been excesses among those who loved icons, and it was right for the church to spend some time thinking through the question. What is an icon, and what is an idol? Does an image of a person relate or connect to that person in any real way? Does how we treat an image pass through it, so to speak, to the person himself?

You might think, “Of course not. That’s superstition.” But remember some years ago when the singer Sinéad O’Connor tore up a photo of the pope on live television? There was immediate and widespread outrage, and not only among those who liked the pope. It struck people as appallingly rude, and seriously damaged the singer’s career. But someone could well say, “Why all the fuss? She only tore up paper and ink. It didn’t actually hurt him.”

Yet we sense somehow that a photo is more than paper and ink; it connects with the person in some way. Think about how people react when a flag is burned, or how crowds rejoiced when a statue of Stalin or Saddam Hussein was pulled down. The honor or dishonor shown to an image is passed on to its prototype; that’s something we grasp instinctively.

A monk called St. Stephen the New (he was “New” in the eighth century) showed the iconoclast emperor Constantine that he himself knew this. St. Stephen was challenged to trample on an icon of Christ, to prove he agreed that it was merely wood and paint, and that such an action gave no disrespect to the Lord. Instead, he placed on the ground a coin bearing the emperor’s image. He then set his foot upon it—and was immediately executed.“—Frederica Mathewes-Green, Welcome to the Orthodox Church