Depicting God forbidden in Deuteronomy?

[ethereality]

I was reading the Catholic.com article “Do Catholics Worship Statues?” and it mentioned a passage I thought was clearly literal, and proceeded to discredit it. I fear the article is wrong – and this is extremely troublesome, given the Nihil Obstat at the bottom. Please help me with this issue. The passage:

Deuteronomy 4.15-20:

"You saw no form at all on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Be strictly on your guard, therefore,
not to degrade yourselves by fashioning an idol to represent any figure, whether it be the form of a man or a woman,
of any animal on the earth or of any bird that flies in the sky,
of anything that crawls on the ground or of any fish in the waters under the earth.
And when you look up to the heavens and behold the sun or the moon or any star among the heavenly hosts, do not be led astray into adoring them and serving them. These the LORD, your God, has let fall to the lot of all other nations under the heavens;
but you he has taken and led out of that iron foundry, Egypt, that you might be his very own people, as you are today.

The reason for this prohibition is clear: God the Father’s might and wonder is beyond depiction, and to depict God in terms of his creations is to equate him in some sense with his creations; it is demeaning, incomplete, and thus insulting. (We may depict God the Father only by depicting Jesus, God the Son, because Jesus was begotten, true god from true god, not made. It seems that we cannot depict God the Father with something he created.)
the article:

Early in its history, Israel was forbidden to make any depictions of God because he had not revealed himself in a visible form. Given the pagan culture surrounding them, the Israelites might have been tempted to worship God in the form of an animal or some natural object (e.g., a bull or the sun).

But later God did reveal himself under visible forms, such as in Daniel 7:9: “As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was Ancient of Days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire.” Protestants make depictions of the Father under this form when they do illustrations of Old Testament prophecies.

The Holy Spirit revealed himself under at least two visible forms—that of a dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32), and as tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Protestants use these images when drawing or painting these biblical episodes and when they wear Holy Spirit lapel pins or place dove emblems on their cars.

But, more important, in the Incarnation of Christ his Son, God showed mankind an icon of himself. Paul said, “He is the image (Greek: ikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Christ is the tangible, divine “icon” of the unseen, infinite God.

We read that when the magi were “going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh” (Matt. 2:11). Though God did not reveal a form for himself on Mount Horeb, he did reveal one in the house in Bethlehem.

The bottom line is, when God made the New Covenant with us, he did reveal himself under a visible form in Jesus Christ.

Much of this article does not apply because the Son and the Holy Spirit, although part of the Trinity, are themselves distinct persons. In Deuteronomy there, God the Father is not disallowing the Son or the Holy Spirit to be depicted, only God the Father. And although I do not understand Daniel’s vision – I have not read that book yet – “the Ancient One” either cannot be God the Father else Daniel did not truly see him as we understand sight. I am inclined to think the latter; it is clear in the vast majority of the Old Testament that God the Father is who dealt with the Israelites. Note that the description of him in Daniel 7.9 is itself incomplete; you are given an idea of the throne, his hair, his clothes, his breathtaking majesty – and that’s about it. We still have not directly seen God the Father apart from the Son: What about the Gospel According to John?

(continued on the next post)

 

[ethereality]

(continued from the previous post)

The Gospel According to John 1.18:

No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.

The Gospel According to John 6.45-46:

It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.

Consider finally The Gospel According to John 14.5-14:

Thomas said to him, “Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?”
Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said to him, “Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”
Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.
Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves.
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father.
And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.

Jesus makes it clear that those who have seen him have seen the Father, and that those who come to the Father do so through him. Note that we still have not seen the Father apart from the Son: That is, the ONLY way we have seen God the Father is through Jesus. The ONLY way we can depict God the Father is by depicting God the Son – Jesus.

At the end of it all, we can depict the Holy Spirit, and we can depict Jesus, and we can depict God by depicting Jesus. We cannot see God the Father except through Jesus. We cannot depict God the Father except by depicting Jesus.

The article must be wrong – so why does it have a Nihil Obstat? That is, it must be wrong if it says we can depict God like in the Sistine Chapel, as some old man. The only way it is not wrong is if by depicting God it means depicting Jesus – but it’s clear it doesn’t mean that.

 

[Henning]

At the end of it all, we can depict the Holy Spirit, and we can depict Jesus, and we can depict God by depicting Jesus. We cannot see God the Father except through Jesus. We cannot depict God the Father except by depicting Jesus.

The article must be wrong – so why does it have a Nihil Obstat? That is, it must be wrong if it says we can depict God like in the Sistine Chapel, as some old man. The only way it is not wrong is if by depicting God it means depicting Jesus – but it’s clear it doesn’t mean that.

I can’t answer the Nihil Obstat question, but I know there is along with Dan7 another mysterious depiction of sorts of the Father in Revelation 4
“2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. 3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardius stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.”

then in Rev 5:7
“And he (the Lamb) came and took the book out of the right hand of him (the Father) that sat upon the throne.”
so we know from 5:7 that the one on the throne in 4:2-3 that looks like a ‘jasper and sardius stone’ (not very anthropomorphic) is the Father…at least that’s what I’ve always thought

I hope someone can answer your question.