Graven Images in the Catholic Church

[jinc1019]

Hmm… I’m not seeing how you can say that; I’m simply taking the sentence in Deuteronomy as a whole, and not cutting it off mid-thought, as you seem to be doing in reaching your conclusion:

“Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

If you stop at the first colon, you get an absolute prohibition – no graven images or likenesses. (As I and others have pointed out, that would mean that God breaks His own commandment with the way He demands the Ark to be built, or the serpent on the pole to be constructed.) And yet, that’s not what the sentence says, if we take a “plain reading” of it – in fact, the sentence continues by describing what the problem is: “you shall not bow down to them or worship them.” The plain reading requires us to understand that the issue is idol worship! That isn’t reading into the text, that’s reading what the text plainly says on its surface!

I’m not even talking about Deut. In fact, I referenced Exodus earlier. But even if we use DEUT., I don’t think you can make your case since it’s pretty easy to imagine that the colon wasn’t always there. I’m not even sure they had that in ancient Greek. Perhaps someone who knows more about that could answer.

 

[jinc1019]

Hi Jinc. I think this is a good point about the Jewish people. There’s a couple things that I’d just like to say in response:

First, I’m not seeing how pointing out that God commanded the Israelites to make graven images is a straw man. You’re original question was how we can justify using statues in light of the Bible’s clear condemnations of them. But doesn’t the fact that God commanded graven images show that the prohibition he gave was not meant to be against images in general, but against worshipping them as gods? Otherwise we have a case of God contradicting his own commands, which to me doesn’t make sense.

Second, it’s actually not true that the Jews only made images when God explicitly commanded them to. If you read the accounts of the building of the temple, you’ll see that it was filled with images. There were two cherubim that were each about six feet tall in the Holy of Holies. There were also statues of lions and bulls in the other sections of the temple. Neither of these were explicitly commanded by God. It was all Solomon’s own design. Yet, God was apparently not bothered by having all those graven images in the temple (a place of worship, I might add) since the cloud that had led the Israelites all through the desert and signified his presence with the people came in and filled the entire temple. (1 Kings 8:11) So again, it doesn’t seem like what God was condemning was images per se, but their abuse as idols.

However, you are correct that the Jews did avoid making images that were meant to represent God or the saints. The reason for the change in practice was actually addressed almost 1200 years ago by St. John of Damascene. He was a Greek father of the Church. He wrote a lot about defending the Christian use of images. I highly recommend you check it out, as I think it would help explain some things. Anyways in that work, he said this in regards to the Jewish practice:

‘’'Of old, Israel neither set up temples in the name of men, nor celebrated their memorial—for human nature was still under the curse, and death was condemnation, therefore they were enjoined that one who even touched the body of a dead man was to be reckoned unclean—but now, since the divinity has been united without confusion to our nature, as a kind of life-giving and saving medicine, our nature has been truly glorified and its very elements changed into incorruption. Therefore, temples are raised for [the Saints] and images engraved.”

Basically, the Incarnation changed things. Having images is literally just a celebration of the fact that God became visible. With Christ’s coming, death has been conquered, it no longer has dominion over us. God became man. He took on real flesh and joined it to his divine nature. All of creation has been transformed since that moment. It’s been ‘‘glorified’’ as Damascene put it. That’s why the Church uses images of Christ and the saints, to glorify God. It’s really all about him.

The reason the argument was a strawman is simple: because the entire point I was making was that the Jews were commanded and believed that they ought not to create any images EXCEPT if God commanded it. So using images God commanded as evidence has nothing to do with my assertion.

HOWEVER, if what you are saying is correct about Solomon’s design, then that does give credence to your argument. I’m not an ideologue…If good evidence can be presented, I’ll listen. But up until you made that suggestion, I hadn’t heard anything compelling. I’ll have to look into it more.

 

[jinc1019]

I don’t know, Exodus’ command is pretty plain. It says we are not to make any images for any purpose. So I’m just curious why you are drawing the line here if the Bible doesn’t make that distinction?

Also, as I pointed out in my previous post, there were images all over the Temple in the Old Testament. And these weren’t explicitly commanded by God either, yet they were still permissible apparently.

Having read the scripture you’re referencing, I’m not sure your claims are correct. You said that God did not explicitly command the Temple to be built with images, but this passage of scripture seems to suggest that the Temple was built completely with a design God had in mind:

The word of the Lord came to Solomon: 12 “As for this temple you are building, if you follow my decrees, observe my laws and keep all my commands and obey them, I will fulfill through you the promise I gave to David your father. 13 And I will live among the Israelites and will not abandon my people Israel.”

This seems to say to me that God did instruct Solomon on how he wanted the Temple to be built? No? It’s hard to tell because of the way the sentence is laid out, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable to read this passage that way.

 

[jinc1019]

Immediately following that phrase is the description of what the Temple looked like, as if to say that this is what God “decreed”

 

[jinc1019]

Why does God say, “do not bow down to them or worship them”

The “them” clearly refers to the graven images in the sentence earlier…but if they were never made at all for any reason…then how could one bow down to them…

This sentence clearly displays that God understood they would make sculptures of things and grow in artistic ability…but don’t worship your artwork don’t bow down to it.

I don’t disagree that the “them” refers to the idols. But you are insisting that these commands are ONE rather than two separate things. The grammar seems to suggest that these are two things that are obviously related, but still separate none-the-less.

 

[jinc1019]

Hey jinc

I have a few questions for you, if I may ask. Which Church do you believe has the correct interpretation of the Bible? Which Church do you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding… as Christ told us that He would not leave us orphans? Do you accept any of the apparitions or visionaries either present or past? An example of this might be Blessed Faustina who herself was asked to paint a picture.

I guess I’m really just trying to understand exactly where you’re coming from and whether you’re part of the Church or not.

I don’t belong to a Church right now…I’m still trying to figure out which one has the truth…I’ve been working on this for about four years. I would say that theologically, I am closest to Lutheran or conservative Anglican.

 

[jinc1019]

First I want to clarify according to the article you posted the prohibition against 3 d images was done in the 16th century and as such was not part of the original Jewish tradition.

Second, I have read your reference and there is very little discussion about ancient Jewish customs but rather a focus on the traditions post diaspora.

Regarding actual ancient traditions, from my reference it is clear the Jews had icons. However, the Bible, as I noted, had other references to images as well, such as a cherubim, a snake, lions and oxen. Therefore, if a current Jewish scholar would pretend to claim the prohibition against 3d images, etc was relevant in antiquity this would clearly disagree with the Tanakh. Furthermore, keep in mind the Talmud was not even properly transcribed until centuries after Jesus resurrection, so using this as a source of ancient Jewish tradition would have to be viewed with reservation, especially when it clearly disagrees with the Tanakh, such as in this case.

Once again, the argument I made was that 3d images are only allowed when commanded, so obviously the serpent, for instance, would be allowed.

Second, the source I cited was cited only to show that it made reference to the fact that the Talmud, the earliest Jewish source we have, clearly established a rejection of imagery in the manner you are promoting.

 

[jinc1019]

TO me a reasonable person can read Exodus two ways.

Either that 1) No images of ANY kind are allowed for ANY purpose. It says any image of anything on heaven and on earth.

or 2)

That it is connected to the sentence before regarding idolatry and worshiping other gods…

In the context of the ancient world, where people worshiped statues, and the Jews had just come out of Egypt and spent 500 plus years there around idolatry…I lean to option 2 on this one.

Many people do read the first way, but I don’t think that’s absolutely necessary. The context of the passage is clearly within a worship setting. Therefore, I think it’s reasonable to say that images not in a worship setting are permissible.

 

[jinc1019]

Updated my last post, saw that there was a reply to the older version, putting the new stuff here. (Heh, we are moving!)

Alef is a bull’s head, because Alef means bull. The letter A still is a bull’s head, albeit the horns are upside down now and the nose is pointing up in the air. You can go through the whole alphabet and see the pictures, if you like; it’s not any secret. (Good graphic design by those Phoenician merchants.)

Also, it’s not my “stretch.” The Greek theologians loved to compare the Word made flesh and Image of the Father to the images of words. St. John Damascene’s famous treatise on images talks very beautifully about writing as image, and it’s good linguistics too. St. Augustine also has good bits about speaking as image, even. Most of the Fathers liked to throw in some rhetoric and linguistics. Greeks and Romans liked that stuff a lot.

But let’s try another point…

Notice that you don’t read anything in the Bible about “And God looked upon His Son Jesus drawing, scratching, graving in the dirt while the whole woman caught in adultery thing was decided, and God did smite Jesus for graving pictures in the dirt, just like He had smote every little child in Israel who had a doll or a toy donkey.”

We do hear about God smiting people who steadied the Ark of the Covenant, etc; He didn’t fool around. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, so He wouldn’t have broken the graven image rule; and yet He scribbled in the dirt. So the OT is talking about idols, not just any old picture or word or sheep ownership mark, or doll, or toy donkey.

(And yes, the Teth or crossmark used on sheep, which is copied by the angels in Ezekiel and Revelation to mark the foreheads of the faithful, would also be a graven image, if you’re going to get ultra-technical about it. Which God didn’t, or there wouldn’t have been a Teth’d sheep in Israel for the angels to be copying off.)

That’s an interesting point about Jesus drawing on the ground, although I would say that’s not in a worship setting, per se…Although I think that’s a decent point. I still don’t find your alphabet argument to be very persuasive at all, but I understand what you are getting at.

 

[jinc1019]

Let’s look at it in context. There was a disagreement. That implies that some said ‘yes’ and others said ‘no.’ There was a conclusion. That means that those who took the contrary position were, as a simple matter of fact, wrong. I’m not certain I understand your concern here. The magisterium either works through the pope or through the pope in conjunction with all the bishops. The magisterium doesn’t make declarations through one bishop or even a portion of the bishops. If the bishops came to the conclusion that icons were okay – even if the process by which they did so was contentious – then there’s no problem here: the magisterium, protected from error by the Holy Spirit, reached the conclusion that icons were not in contradiction to God’s law.

(And, btw, if you think that the process of deciding upon doctrinal matters in the Church throughout the ages wasn’t a highly contentious process, then you need to read up on the history of the Church a bit… )

Let’s look at the implication of what you’re saying: if the consensus was not right, then this means that the magisterium has led the Church to sin grievously against God’s commandments. Is that what you’re suggesting? Are you saying that Jesus was lying or mistaken when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church?

I can understand where you are coming from here. You’re Catholic. I don’t, however, believe the Magisterium is infallible, so the truth for me is not dictated by their decisions. Thus, your reasoning on that point is not authoritative.

 

[jinc1019]

Correct. Yes, there were Fathers who disagreed with images, and they were wrong too. The authority of the Church Fathers by themselves end where the authority of an Ecumenical Council begins. Images were defined as legitimate at the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea. It is there that we find the Church’s prime theological thought on images.

Well from your perspective, I can understand that position, but I don’t believe in the infallibility of the Church councils, so that’s not something that will persuade me. Catholics pick and choose when they want to use certain church fathers. Whenever a father agrees with them, he’s authoritative, but whenever he disagrees, he’s automatically wrong. It’s circular logic.

 

[jinc1019]

Did you miss post #13? Or did you decide to ignore it?

I ignored it because it was simply a copy and pasting of the CA article I already said I read and disagreed with. I think you missed that.

 

[Gorgias]

I can understand where you are coming from here. You’re Catholic. I don’t, however, believe the Magisterium is infallible, so the truth for me is not dictated by their decisions. Thus, your reasoning on that point is not authoritative.

Fair enough. Nevertheless, you can see how my response answers your questions, can’t you? You seem concerned that some of the bishops “were wrong” when they argued against icons. That’s immaterial, given that, as a body, they came to a decision together.

You also question whether the consensus was ‘correct’. As you might have observed, that question is equivalent to the question “is the magisterium capable of error in matters of faith and morals?” If you hope to prevail in asserting that the consensus was incorrect – and therefore, the Catholic belief that the magisterium is infallible in matters of faith and morals – you’re going to need a stronger case than simply asking the question “isn’t this different than Jewish belief?”…

 

[adf417]

Hello Everyone,

It’s been awhile since I posted, but I am hopeful many of you will help me out with this issue.

I cannot for the life of me understand why it is considered acceptable to have graven images of God, saints, angels, etc. in church when the Bible clearly seems to indicate otherwise. I have read some Catholic apologetics on this, but not a lot. I didn’t find any of their arguments very persuasive, so I was wondering if you all could point me in the right direction on this important issue.

Thanks and God Bless!

-Justin

Greetings Justin,
After getting caught up with all the posts on this thread I decided to go back and re-read your op. It now seems to me you were looking for more than just the right direction to be pointed out. My suggestion now is prayer…if in fact you are truly searching as your op suggests.

Peace!!!

 

[Robyn_p]

Having read the scripture you’re referencing, I’m not sure your claims are correct. You said that God did not explicitly command the Temple to be built with images, but this passage of scripture seems to suggest that the Temple was built completely with a design God had in mind:

This seems to say to me that God did instruct Solomon on how he wanted the Temple to be built? No? It’s hard to tell because of the way the sentence is laid out, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable to read this passage that way.

Perhaps, but given the fact that the Bible, in every other instance God designs something, goes to great pains to make sure that we know for sure it was God who designed it, I’m not convinced that’s what is going on here. Especially considering how central the temple was in Jewish thought and belief. It makes sense that if God did in fact have a say in the details, the writer would have wanted to record that and make sure future generations knew that the temple was God’s own work. The fact that it nowhere mentions that is telling, to me at least.

To me, saying, “if you will walk in my statutes and obey my ordinances and keep all my commandments and walk in them” doesn’t really signal that God is referring to the temple design. It sounds more like God is just telling Solomon to follow the commandments and remain faithful. I don’t recall God using that kind of language when instructing Moses on how to build the ark. That’s always the language he uses when commanding people to keep the covenant. In other words, he’s saying “stay faithful to me, and I’ll keep my end of the promise I made to David your father.”

At any rate, it is certainly too vague to prove that images were only permissible when God explicitly commanded them. Just reading the account, I can’t find anything that says God did command those images.

 

[BrassAnkles]

The issue is how did Jews understand it for the entire history up to the coming of Christ and then even after to the compilation of the Talmud? That was my point.

I think the historical record and the Bible are clear, there were icons and statues that were part of the ancient Jewish tradition.

 

[porthos11]

Well from your perspective, I can understand that position, but I don’t believe in the infallibility of the Church councils, so that’s not something that will persuade me. Catholics pick and choose when they want to use certain church fathers. Whenever a father agrees with them, he’s authoritative, but whenever he disagrees, he’s automatically wrong. It’s circular logic.

Then this discussion is pretty much over. Before reasoning out anything, anything at all that’s Catholic, the very first thing you need to address is the issue of authority. There is no point in any of us explaining the matter of images because you do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church.

So I will simply leave you with this: why then, do you accept the authority of the Bible?

 

[Duane1966]

I’m sorry, but you are totally misrepresenting what the portion of the text I pointed to said…to the point that it’s essentially lying. The text clearly says that the Talmud forbids ANY depictions IN ANY SETTINGS of the human form…unless God commanded it. That’s what the article plainly says.

I have misrepresented nothing. This is from the link you provided.

** Over time, this commandment has been interpreted in a VARIETY of ways. The most common prohibition, and the one that’s most obvious from the text, is against creating sculptures of people, animals, or planets FOR THE PURPOSE of worshipping them. One of the primary messages of the Torah is that worshipping idols is not allowed, so it’s not surprising that creating pieces of art that COULD be used as idols was prohibited.You asked specifically about drawing the human form, so I’ll give you a bit more history on how that issue is treated in rabbinic literature. The Talmud comments on the second commandment, and takes a very strict stance against producing images of faces, ruling it forbidden, but sanctioning owning images of faces that were created by non-Jews (Avodah Zara 43a). The prohibition comes FROM A CONCERN that even two dimensional images COULD be worshipped, or COULD represent idols. In some Jewish communities during the Middle Ages artists got around this prohibition by drawing human bodies topped with heads of other animals, including birds. The famousbird head Haggadahfrom 12th century Germany is an example of this phenomenon.

I’m sorry, I understand EXACTLY what this article is saying. I also understand that the word COULD does not mean the word DOES. Do you?

 

[Ignatius]

W The issue is how did Jews understand it .

Consider how it was God Himself that ordered image of Angels, etc. when your interpretation of the Bible seems to indicate that their understanding was different from yours.

Were you unaware of God’s commands to make these images and statues?

 

[Tomdstone]

Consider how it was God Himself that ordered image of Angels, etc. when your interpretation of the Bible seems to indicate that their understanding was different from yours.

Were you unaware of God’s commands to make these images and statues?

Can you give us the Biblical passages for this?