Polemics on Iconoclasm and the Predetermined Terms of Life in the Homiletical and Liturgical Works of Theodore the Studite

Although Theodore the Studite is primarily known as a monastic leader and champion of icon - veneration , he was also a prolific homilist and hymnographer. This aspect of his literary heritage is discussed from the perspective of the theological debates during the time of Theodore the Studite’s life – not only the Iconoclastic Controversy which repeatedly surfaced in his writings, but also the debate on the predetermination of the terms of human life. A focus will be made on the extent the turbulent events of his life and polemics he was engaged in made an impact on his homiletical and liturgi cal works.

A miracle from the Life of Theodore the Studite mentions wide circulation of the hymnographic heritage of St. Theodore in various monastic circles in the early period, initial ambiguity of its adoption, and finally its divinely inspired sanctioning. 5 The Life says that the Bishop of Sardinia procured the Triodia of Great Lent composed by Theodore the Studite and used to chant them during Lent. One day some monks who visited the Bishop learned about this habit, were scandalized, started to ridicule St. Theodore and his hymns, and dissuaded the Bishop from doing so for the reason that the Triodia were composed "not according to the rules." The next night St. Theodore and accompanying "carriers of staffs, glorious in appearance" (ραβδοῦχοί τινες ἔνδοξοι τὴν ἰδέαν)"6 appeared to the Bishop in a dream. The Saint rebuked the Bishop for receiving bad monks and leaving his good habit, and ordered his companions to give a harsh beating to the Bishop, leaving marks on his body which remained after he woke up.
This study will attempt to unite the images of St. Theodore as hymnographer, polemicist, and monastic leader, looking at the contents of some of his homiletical and liturgical writings from the viewpoint of the theological controversies in which Theodore was engaged in his lifetime. This task is complicated by several methodological problems. The first and common problem with Byzantine texts is associated with the understudied manuscript tradition and textology of Theodore's liturgical canons and homilies. The second problem is associated with the genres. Although, as A. Nikiforova aptly noted concerning the hymnographical heritage of Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople that his canons were "rhythmisized sermons,"7 and this observation is certainly applicable to the hymnographical works of Theodore the Studite, the latter's homilies were more instructive in nature and would more often address issues from current life, not only contextualizing the feast, giving its typological meaning and Scriptural exegesis, but also equipping the listeners with instructions on doctrinal problems of the time or even correct responses to pressing political issues. Since Canons are incorporated into the cycle of the yearly divine service, their vector is directed somewhat differently: they tend to address the ultimately transitory past and present only to juxtapose them with the ontologically more real and eternal heavenly liturgy. The Homilies of Theodore the Studite were primarily intended for theological and moral instruction, whereas the Canons were intended for prayerful enactment of sacred history. This difference can be illustrated by comparing the Canon and Homily of Theodore the Studite on the same subject: the Cross -and for the same feast day of the Sunday of the Adoration of the Holy Cross, marking the middle of Great Lent. Both are based on previously existing works, such as the Easter Canon of John of Damascus, from which Theodore borrowed the Irmoi as models of the corresponding Troparia of each Ode, giving his canon a recognizably Damascenian and distinctively Paschal tenor, and one of the pseudo-Chrysostomian homilies on the Cross (CPG 4672).8 In this Homily, the Cross reveals Christ who, in turn, manifests the invisible Father: Let us venerate and praise in hymns the revered and thrice-blessed wood of the Lord. "The light of Thy countenance has been marked as a sign upon us!" (Ps. 4:7). What then is the light if not the Cross of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ through whom [or through which, the Cross -V. B.] the world has been saved and the believers have been freed from the captivity of Belial and the list of our transgressions has been torn. The Face of the Father is Christ: "The one who has seen me," he says, "has seen the Father" (Jn. 14:9). The light of the Lord's Face, that is the Cross.9 The attribution of the Canon on the Sunday of the Cross to Theodore the Studite can be confirmed comparing the Canon with the Homily on the Holy Cross by the same author.10 The Second Troparion of the Eighth Ode of the Canon seems to allude both to Theodore's Homily and the Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homily:11 This tradition visually appears in the post-Iconoclastic marginal Psalters, where the illustration to the Psalmic verse "O Lord, the light of Thy countenance has been marked as a sign upon us!" (Ps. 4:7) cited in the pseudo-Chrysostomian Homily, is illustrated by David standing before the Cross which has a medallion representing the face of Christ in the middle (Fig. 3) a According to the structure of the Orthodox liturgical canon, it has nine odes, and the second ode is often omitted, as is the case with this canon. The Patrologia Graeca, however, gives a continuous numeration to the eight odes of the canon. The numeration here will be in the traditional manner with the omission of the second ode and will differ from that in PG.
Both Theodore's Canon and Homily on the Cross refer to the same standard Scriptural passages and events from sacred history, such as Moses raising his arms to defeat Amalek16 or Elisha placing wood into the water,17 and apply the same descriptions and epithets such as the three-partite Cross enlightening the four ends of the world;18 both address the feast as an announcement of the Resurrection.19 However, the canon marks the milestone of Great Lent, announcing the forthcoming Passion Week20 and Easter in terms of the calendar, and celebrating the Cross as a tool of Christ's sacrifice and Resurrection. Every feast is essentially a gathering of the heavenly and earthly churches for the same festal celebration here and now,21 as well as a reminder of the prefigurations of the event in sacred history, events from world history, and their fulfillment (the Cross of Golgotha as the new Tree of Paradise, and eschatological paradise of the saints). There is simply no place for Iconoclasts in the reality of the Canon, since the festal service is a calendric image of timeless heavenly service, whereas the Homily contains an important section, providing the listeners with counterarguments against the Iconoclasts and preserving a valuable testimony to the Iconoclastic doctrine of the Cross:

You see, my friend, what power is in the typos of the Cross! If it is so, then
it is also in the typos of the crucified Christ: for surely, inasmuch as the prototypes are more perfect, the copies are also more useful. And what if anybody asks: "I want to know: who prefigured the typos of Christ in the ancient times?" -Those, I say, who prefigured the Cross: for as the stretching of Moses' hands was the image of the Cross, thus also Moses himself prefigured Christ crucified, defeating the invisible Amalek, and the same can be understood with other examples when one is revealed by the typos of the other. "But that one," -you say, -"was an animated typos. Then why do you speak about the soulless one?"22 As with the typos of the Cross -when a visible yet soulless thing makes a miracle, [then] as with the Cross-like image, the Christ-like image makes miracles in the animated and soulless, as having in itself the shape and form of the archetype and by this appropriating the same honor and veneration, as well as the name -this is obvious.
[…] For whoever destroys the image, also destroys the very prototype, because these two have similarity between themselves and relation in the eyes of those who are of sound mind.23 Considering the crucial role of Christ' soul as the mediator between the divinity and material flesh in the Iconoclastic doctrine,24 this passage from Theodore's Homily may indicate that according to the Iconoclasts, the typos of the Cross was to be understood as a succinct image of the animated figure of Christ on the Cross with his hands stretched apart, which had a long iconographical tradition before and during Iconoclasm (Fig. 4),25 and also the Cross as the non-anthropomorphic representation of the Resurrected, glorified, and undepictable Christ.26 Theodore also includes brief sections on Iconoclasm concerning the spatial circumscription of the Lord according to the flesh27 in his Homily on the Eve of Theophany,28 mentions the icons of the Theotokos which were left for our veneration here on Earth after her Dormition and Ascension in the Homily on  However, there is one notable example of Theodore's canons which seems to be a clear response to the theological discussions of his time. It is the Canon of the Saturday of Meat-fare Week commemorating the dead, which is very unusual in its contents. The Canon is essentially a catalog of all kinds of "untimely" deaths which might put an end to human life: the canon mentions those who were frozen to death, drowned, murdered, have died in war or from wounds, were struck by lightning, fallen bricks, stones or soil, died from a blizzard, earthquake, fire, sword, horse or snake, or were strangled.
Theodore places this enumeration in a proper theological context in the first Odes: the time and manner of these terrible and seemingly "untimely" deaths were in fact fixed by God, Who "predetermined the end of each person's life, its term and manner,"34 "gave limits to our lives,"35 and "established the terms of life by righteous judgment"36 for those whom He "predetermined in the palm of His hand."37 However, this was not simply a theoretical theological construct embedded into liturgical poetry, but a poetical and liturgical way of expressing Theodore's own views on the predetermined terms of human life. Debate on predetermined or changeable terms of human lives as a basic problem of human religious consciousness accompanied the entire history of Byzantine Christianity. However, its scope shifted from refuting the errors of Greek philosophers regarding divine providence in the earlier periods, to inner Christian problems of theodicy, efficacy of the intercessory prayers of saints, and harmonization of Scriptural passages containing diverging views on the subject in the later periods. The discussion of providence and predetermination continued in the writings of Maximus the Confessor,38 Anastasius of Sinai,39 Patriarch Germanus,40 John of Damascus,41 and in a number of hagiographical writings.
In his recent article, Dirk Krausmüller gathered ample evidence on intensification of the debate on the fixed or changeable terms of life from the second half of the seventh century.42 The issue of fixable or flexible terms of life was not only a problem faced by any believing Christian, especially during times of turmoil and instability, but was also tacitly related to the problem of the efficacy of prayers of intercession as a means of averting an untimely death and granting a "Christian end to life, peaceful, without shame and suffering, and a good account before the fearful judgment throne of Christ."43 Discussing the And the pain will be soothed not by a speech, not by a consolation, not by a human being, not by an angel, but by God alone who has thus fixed the term of our life, for he it is, my lord, who took your thrice-beloved child, as he had already taken the ones before.61 Theodore's belief in the righteous and most-wise God, predetermining the time and way to take the soul of a person in the best moment for the eternal destiny of the person could have indeed emerged on the basis of previous thinkers -proponents of predetermination, such as Maximus the Confessor or Germanus of Constantinople. Nevertheless, this was in no way a universally established ecclesiastical doctrine at his time,62 but his deep and personal conviction. Thus, in a Letter to his mother, responding to the news about her grave illness Theodore writes with deep affection about his fear of her death: If it were possible to send tears in letters, I would fill this letter with them and send them to you in these days, my respectable, sweet and godly mother. Really, I cannot bear to hear about you -I am not talking about being close to the grave, but also about diseases threatening with death … How, mother, can I continue to write the letter without tears? Is it really my destiny in my wretched life to hear about your death, sing lamenting songs to you, see your coffin and write funeral elegies so that you could rest with your body underground, for I know that you will dwell in heaven with your spirit -while I will remain on earth continuing to lead my life full of pains and sins?