Theology and Spirituality of Icons – RGH3755 Lane Scruggs – 997918909

Within the early 9th century work On the Holy Icons, the interlocutors who are unapologetically named

“heretics,” are systematically answered and condemned by the iconophile theologian Theodore the

Studite. Written in a time of iconoclastic revival within the Byzantine milieu, Theodore attempted a

twofold approach of clarifying the iconophile position, while also promoting it over and against the

theological proposals of the iconoclasts. This reflection will aim to succinctly summarize Theodore the

Studite’s iconophile position in light of the interlocutor’s harsh accusations, while also responding

personally to the theological realities proposed.

In defending the iconophile position, Theodore was primarily responding to the charge of idolatry

summoned by the “heretics.” Responding to the accusation that venerating icons was foreign to the

catholic church and universally rejected by “every theologian,” Theodore accepted that the fullness of the

Godhead is “incomprehensible and uncircumscribable,” disassociating the iconophile position from any

type of syncretistic pagan worship. Furthermore, Theodore continued by building a foundation for

circumscription from the doctrine of the incarnation, asserting that because of this act, Christ accepted the

realm of the circumscribable (20-21). This is the most foundational section, in my opinion, as the validity

of Theodore’s reasoning for imaging Christ relies solely upon the incarnation of Christ.

Theodore’s next task was to protect proper Christological language by claiming that the incarnate

Word, the second person of the Trinity, has both a human and divine nature. To claim that Christ was

uncircumscribable, as the “heretics” did, necessarily denied Christ’s historical fleshly reality. Conversely,

to propose that Christ was a “mere man” denied any indivisible union between Jesus’ divine and human

natures (22-23). Here I believe the iconophile position, as expressed by Theodore, to be appropriately

protecting the indivisibility of the Christology natures. While the iconoclasts claimed that Christ’s two

natures formed a disjunctive syllogism with regards to what the image represented, I agree with Theodore

that icons image not a nature, but a hypostasis.

Theodore continued on in the following section by underscoring the appropriateness of

circumscribing something that is materially manifest rather than reserving it for mental contemplation. He

again reviled the correlation between pagan idol making and Christian iconography. He accused the

1|Page
Theology and Spirituality of Icons – RGH3755 Lane Scruggs – 997918909

“heretics” of poor biblical hermeneutics and reasserted his foundational understanding that it is

appropriate to create material icons for contemplation because Christ came not only in a spiritual way, but

in a physical, material way (26-27). I believe Theodore correctly reiterates that because Christ came

materially, it is absurd to suggest that depicting him materially is a “humiliation.”

The “heretics” argued from a stance of scriptural silence; because the word of the cross is

mentioned by St. Paul as “power” and “glory,” there should be corresponding references to icons if they

are valid. Theodore pointed out that the “power” and “glory” attributed to the word of the cross by Paul

are appropriated toward the cross and not its representation; however, he asserted that the type and

prototype (or cause and effect) that carry the same name are different in nature, but share the honour and

glory given to each other. In this way, though there are many representations of Christ, this cannot be

called polytheism because they all apply to the singular person of Christ (28-29, 32-33).

Theodore reserved some of his harshest criticism for his response to the objection that the

Eucharist is the only valid image of Christ. Claiming real presence within the Eucharist and rejecting any

notion of symbolic representation, Theodore cited several other representative memorials celebrated and

accepted by the church. I was raised in a Christian tradition that speaks of the Eucharist in representative

(imaging) terms and therefore I am defensive against Theodore’s strong stance on this issue. Finally,

Theodore likened the representation of Christ within the written gospels to icons that depicted Christ

visually instead of auditorily (30-31). This example is also one of tension for me; while I do agree that

images can be beneficial, my tradition holds a unique place for the revelation found within the written

scripture. This section surrounding the Eucharist was the most controversial and challenging for me,

coming from a low-church Protestant background.

Theodore’s entire discussion is capped by his distinction between worship and veneration, and

with this I wholeheartedly concur. He juxtaposed the unique nature of worship given to God alone with

veneration, likened to a kind of respect given to authorities. This distinction, Theodore claimed, had been

the custom of the Church since its inception (38-39). Although I see the potential for misappropriated

worship, the correct response is not to reject the positives of the iconophile position out of paranoia.

2|Page