THE SECOND COMMANDMENT AND “TRUE WORSHIP” IN THE ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY Vladimir Baranov Perhaps the most important period in Church history, when an Old Testament text became the focal point of a theological debate was the Iconoclastic Controversy in 8th–9th century Byzantium. his text is the Second Commandment, the “negative” counterpart of the First Commandment. For more than a hundred years people argued over how to worship the One God of the First Commandment in a “cor- rect way,” and in order to have correct worship it is necessary to know precisely whom and how to worship. Both parties answered the ques- tion of “whom” to worship in traditional terms of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), yet the question of “how” to worship was answered diferently. he ritual diference between the Iconodules and the Iconoclasts, that is, whether one accepted the veneration of images or not, corresponded to the diference of epistemological approaches which answered the question “how.” he analysis of the theological arguments of both parties allows us to expose the similarities and dif- ferences on the deeper level of epistemologies. his article will present a certain aspect of the Iconoclastic debate, namely, the interpretation of the “correct” approach to the divinity in the context of the Second Commandment, as a case study, revealing a fascinating interplay of arguments and texts from the New Testament, Patristic writers and classical philosophy that revolved around the Old Testament verse as around the hub of a wheel. For setting the case in a wider context, one important question relating to the methodological setting of the following argument needs to be raised. What exactly was Byzantine Iconoclasm? Many modern researchers consider it primarily a social and political movement initi- ated by the Emperors to solve their “practical” needs of comprehensive reform of the Byzantine State and society with theological argumenta- tion, developed at later stages (by the 750s), as the only “ideological” language the Byzantines could understand. 1 In this case the occasion 1 “Iconoclasm was always an anomalous doctrine, without strong theological roots or clear theological implications” (W. Treadgold, A Concise History of Byzantium LEMAIRE_F28_541-554.indd 541 LEMAIRE_F28_541-554.indd 541 9/11/2009 5:39:37 PM 9/11/2009 5:39:37 PM