Exodus 20:25 and Art in Worship

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

(First, I’m not sure if this particular sub-forum is the appropriate place to post the following question, so please let this “newbie” know if it’s not.)

First of all, a brief background: I am currently of the (rather “liberal” and “non-denominational”) Protestant persuasion, but, the more I investigate it, have been seriously considering eventual “conversion” to Catholicism. I still, however, have a number of questions I’m trying to work out via my own research and dialogue.

Now to the “meat” of this post…

I have read a number of Protestant commentaries on the above cited verse that suggest the following:

1. Simplicity of worship is here commanded.
2. Worship of a “non-ritualistic” nature is here commanded.
3. Images of any kind are here prohibited due to the human tendency to worship cleverly-created images (as I recall even Wisdom seems to say). We do, however, see examples wherein even God commands the creation of representations of various kinds of things in heaven and on earth (though I do not recall off-hand whether these are “living” things) and other places in Scripture where men of Israel carve such things as lions in the kingly throne (though whether this was directly approved of by God is a question).

I fully understand that the Catholic Church permits images, both secular and sacred. Could someone please provide me with some cogent argumentation whether from Scripture or eslewhere to support the lawfulness of creation of images per se, whether sacred or secular?

Thanks.

 

[TimothyH]

Exodus 20:25 is about building an altar.

And if you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones; for if you wield your tool upon it you profane it. (Exodus 20:25)

This verse is about building an altar upon which animals were sacrificed in the Old Testament. This verse has nothing to do with forbidding rituals, forbidding art/images or commanding simplicity.

Jesus himself is an image.

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; (Colossians 1:15)

God himself became visible and so images are allowed.

-Tim-

 

[MysticMissMisty]

The more I think about it, I suppose the strongest argument which might be brought against images, particularly those which look quite realistic/well-crafted, is that found in the Wisdom passage I mentioned above (Wisdome 13-14) wherein the origins if idolatry are explained. There, one reason for its development is given as because of the skill of the craftsman leading to worshipful inclinations (if I understand the passage correctly).

I guess my question, then, is: Are images in and of themselves, whether of men or of beasts, whether well- or ill-crafted, permissible either under the Old or the New Law, given the Wisdom passage?

 

[Michael1978]

Many non-Catholic Christians use the passage you refer to, Exodus 20:4-5, to “prove” to Catholics that making “any graven images or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath” is detestable to God. But when this passage is read in context, it is not the making of images that is condemned but the worship of them.

In fact, five chapters later God commands the Israelites to make two golden statues of angels as part of the lid of the ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:17-19). That’s an image of something from heaven. Then, in 1 Kings 6, God commands that graven images of flowers and palm trees be made, as well as 15-foot tall statues of cherubim. And in Numbers 21, God commands that a bronze serpent be made and uses it to heal the Israelites. It was preserved for 800 years and then destroyed when some began to worship it (2 Kgs 18:4).

Catholics do not worship statues, because only God is deserving of adoration. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is adamant in affirming this (CCC 2112–2114). When a Catholic bows to a statue, he is not worshiping it any more than King Solomon worshiped Bathsheba when he bowed to her in 1 Kings 2:19. In other words, the honor given to images does not detract from the honor that is due to God. After all, if one member of the body is honored, the others should share in its joy (1 Cor 12:26).

If someone enters your house, he should expect to find a picture of your mother. So, when someone walks into a Catholic Church—the household of God—he should not be surprised to find a picture of the mother of God, along with the rest of the heavenly family!

In giving the Israelites a beautiful temple strewn with images (1 Kgs 6), God acknowledged the reason why he gave us our senses: to use them to worship him in spirit and truth.

catholic.com/quickquestions/how-do-crucifixes-fit-in-with-the-old-testament-prohibition-of-graven-images

 

[eightydeuce82]

The more I think about it, I suppose the strongest argument which might be brought against images, particularly those which look quite realistic/well-crafted, is that found in the Wisdom passage I mentioned above (Wisdome 13-14) wherein the origins if idolatry are explained. There, one reason for its development is given as because of the skill of the craftsman leading to worshipful inclinations (if I understand the passage correctly).

I guess my question, then, is: Are images in and of themselves, whether of men or of beasts, whether well- or ill-crafted, permissible either under the Old or the New Law, given the Wisdom passage?

Try reading the texts in context and don’t chop up the bible into various bits and you will be on track. As stated above the passage you presented is dealing with nothing even remotely tied to idolatry.

Context is everything and anyone can form a religion based on hacked up bible verses.

Idolatry could be a person literally worshiping a stone statue as a god or it could be something like being vein. Simply making an image of something as Catholics do to help aid in prayer is no different than a really spirit filled protestant minister injecting some serious charismatic verbiage into a sermon keeping the congregation hooked.

God himself required statues to be created so id say that the fundamentalist view of this is rooted in anti catholic sentiment in an effort to detach from and be different from the Church proper.

 

[hazcompat]

socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/04/biblical-evidence-for-physical-objects.html

Peace

 

[ByzCathCantor]

As mentioned in another post, you may have intended to cite a different part of Exodus on this topic.

That notwithstanding, the Church addressed this question at the Second Council of Nicea in 787, the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Study of that Council may give you some of the answers and understanding you seek.

 

[Billy_Buescher]

Read 1 Kings chapter 7, and you will see all that was graven in the Temple that Solomon built.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I have read a number of Protestant commentaries on the above cited verse that suggest the following:

1. Simplicity of worship is here commanded.
2. Worship of a “non-ritualistic” nature is here commanded.
3. Images of any kind are here prohibited due to the human tendency to worship cleverly-created images (as I recall even Wisdom seems to say). We do, however, see examples wherein even God commands the creation of representations of various kinds of things in heaven and on earth (though I do not recall off-hand whether these are “living” things) and other places in Scripture where men of Israel carve such things as lions in the kingly throne (though whether this was directly approved of by God is a question).

All three of those assertions are incorrect. Jewish worship was not simple, or non-ritualistic. Worship of idols is forbidden, not sacred art.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Thanks for all the responses!

First, I was, in fact, referring to the Exodus passage wherein God commands that, if altars be made of stone, it not be hewn, but I was also, in the process if looking into this particular verse, hearkening back to the “classic” Exodus 4 passage, which is its immediate context.

As fr as our current verse in question: I guess the real issue is why, precisely, did God not permit stone altars to be hewn with iron? Could this go back to His earlier prohibition against (arguably) making any images of any kind? Or, was this “hewing” rather referring specifically to the engraving or sculpting of specifically idolatrous images into the stone?

As for the numerous other examples of God Himself commanding the creation of both heavenly and earthly images, could it not be argued that these may be special instances, but that, in all other cases, the Israelites were not, on their own initiative, to make any images? I mean, I myself don’t think that argument is too terribly strong, but, to be honest, I’m trying to be 100% certain of where I stand on this, so I’m trying to “cover all my bases”.

Again, I must emphasize that this is coming from the perspective of one who has not (yet?) fully embraced Catholicism. I am still seeking answers to a number of questions, so I ask that you please bear with me for the moment. At any rate, the counsels, at least insofar as they are considered infallible(?) in Catholicism, do not (yet?) have that force for me. Still, I would be interested in reading the documentation from them on this subject if simply to look at the arguments presented. Is there anywhere where I might find this (Latin and/or English works!)?

Thanks again for all your kind consideration.

P.S. If I sound harsh in any of this, I totally don’t mean to. I’m just considering all of this very logically/step-by-step, though I know there can be a lot of emotion attached to topics such as these.

 

[Vico]

Salvete, omnes!

(First, I’m not sure if this particular sub-forum is the appropriate place to post the following question, so please let this “newbie” know if it’s not.)

First of all, a brief background: I am currently of the (rather “liberal” and “non-denominational”) Protestant persuasion, but, the more I investigate it, have been seriously considering eventual “conversion” to Catholicism. I still, however, have a number of questions I’m trying to work out via my own research and dialogue.

Now to the “meat” of this post…

I have read a number of Protestant commentaries on the above cited verse that suggest the following:

1. Simplicity of worship is here commanded.
2. Worship of a “non-ritualistic” nature is here commanded.
3. Images of any kind are here prohibited due to the human tendency to worship cleverly-created images (as I recall even Wisdom seems to say). We do, however, see examples wherein even God commands the creation of representations of various kinds of things in heaven and on earth (though I do not recall off-hand whether these are “living” things) and other places in Scripture where men of Israel carve such things as lions in the kingly throne (though whether this was directly approved of by God is a question).

I fully understand that the Catholic Church permits images, both secular and sacred. Could someone please provide me with some cogent argumentation whether from Scripture or eslewhere to support the lawfulness of creation of images per se, whether sacred or secular?

Thanks.

Catholic Encyclopedia:“That the first Christians had any sort of prejudice against images, pictures, or statues is a myth (defended amongst others by Erasmus) that has been abundantly dispelled by all students of Christian archaeology. The idea that they must have feared the danger of idolatry among their new converts is disproved in the simplest way by the pictures even statues, that remain from the first centuries. Even the Jewish Christians had no reason to be prejudiced against pictures, as we have seen; still less had the Gentile communities any such feeling. They accepted the art of their time and used it, as well as a poor and persecuted community could, to express their religious ideas. Roman pagan cemeteries and Jewish catacombs already showed the way; Christians followed these examples with natural modifications.”
Fortescue, A. (1910). Veneration of Images. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

 

[Chatter163]

Again, I must emphasize that this is coming from the perspective of one who has not (yet?) fully embraced Catholicism. I am still seeking answers to a number of questions, so I ask that you please bear with me for the moment. At any rate, the counsels, at least insofar as they are considered infallible(?) in Catholicism, do not (yet?) have that force for me. Still, I would be interested in reading the documentation from them on this subject if simply to look at the arguments presented. Is there anywhere where I might find this (Latin and/or English works!)?

Thanks again for all your kind consideration.

P.S. If I sound harsh in any of this, I totally don’t mean to. I’m just considering all of this very logically/step-by-step, though I know there can be a lot of emotion attached to topics such as these.

I would like to commend you on your respectful and reasonable approach to this. You are aware that Catholics have very strong beliefs and feelings about these things, and you wish to honor that, while still intellectually exploring the matters at hand. I wish you well in your continued quest for the Truth.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I would like to commend you on your respectful and reasonable approach to this. You are aware that Catholics have very strong beliefs and feelings about these things, and you wish to honor that, while still intellectually exploring the matters at hand. I wish you well in your continued quest for the Truth.

Oh my goodness, thank you so much! I do know all too well how issues that can generate strong emotions have the nasty tendency to spark strong emotions and thus verbally violent reactions. Of course, I would expect such to happen fr less frequently on a forum like this, but, sinners that we all are, this can happen. We can all slip up with this.

I just think we should all tread carefully on each others’ hearts, weak and frail as they are. We should treat them with gentleness and consideration as we realize certain long-held beliefs become dear to us. I think this is of particular importance on fora like these where you’re just dealing with text and don’t have the body language/tone of voice to figure into the equation.

(Sorry I went a bit OT there, but this is something about which I feel quite strongly.)

Thanks so much for your acknowledgment. I really appreciate it.