Byzantine piety was rooted in a geographical tradition where the idea of “image” had a cultic priority (173). Meyendorff locates the iconoclastic imperial motives against icons in looking for a non-Muslim alternative to Greek Christianity.
“It forced them to take the defence of material images, while their metaphysics considered matter as an essentially inferior state of existence. Hence came their relative conception of the image, as a means of access to the divine prototype” (173).
Meyendorff even admits “From the moment paganism ceased to represetnt a real danger for the Christian Church, numerous references to images appeared in Christian literature” (175).
Iconodules reasoned that it wasn’t idolatry as long as the image wasn’t identified with the prototype. Further, much of their argument rested on the claim that Christ assumed “all of human nature” and was “man in general” (185).
Neither side does a particularly good job of arguing. The iconoclasts were wrong to say that “God” (whatever you want to mean by that term) cannot be circumscribed, for that would call the incarnation into question. On the other hand, just because The Word took flesh, does not mean all images of the Word are warranted. The iconodules make a huge logical jump on that point.