Graven Images in the Catholic Church

[jinc1019]

This of course was discussed a lot in the early church…it seems the early church came to the consensus that since God allowed us to view him in the flesh, we could make an image of that remembrance of what we saw with our own eyes…Basically he gave us the gift to do so by the incarnation.

As for other images…of other people.

I have no problem seeing a bust of Abraham Lincoln in a museum…so I see no problem with a statue of a saint.

I have no problem taking photographs and hanging them on my wall, or carving crosses out of wood to display and remind me of what this life is about.

I also see no reason in the old testament to say such things are wrong.

I don’t disagree with the creation of images of people outside of a context of worship, so I won’t even address your point there.

I think you are spot-on when it comes to the point that the church had a consensus and decided that it would be allowed. That’s a historical fact, but that doesn’t mean the consensus was right.

You say there’s nothing in the OT that rejects the use of images, but the Ten Commandments clearly do with a straightforward reading, but obviously you would disagree with that. I think we can both agree, however, that a reasonable person could read Exodus that way.

 

[jinc1019]

The Temple menorahs were lampstands designed to look like a stylized almond tree in flower. (The olive oil lamps and their flames being the almond flowers. This comes into the Book of Zechariah with the two trees and stuff like that.) The “bronze sea” was a picture of the ocean. The Temple was a sort of sacred diagram of the entire universe plus Heaven. God commanded these things be made.

Jewish history had a lot of different interpretations of “no graven images.” The idea of “no pictures at all” got popular whenever the rabbis wanted to “fence in” the Law by prohibiting much more than what was asked for. But when the Temple was around, full of statues and pictures of God’s Creation, there was not much shyness about creating mosaics and wall paintings of God’s Creation in synagogues. But even today, even in synagogues, there will often be designs and pictures somewhere around. Only in the really, really strict groups are there no pictures at all of any kind.

But if you’re using writing, you’re using images. The letters of the Hebrew (and Greek, and Latin) alphabet are pictorial in their origins, even if they are very stylized now. And writing with a pen is definitely graven (which is why it’s graphein in Greek).

Since the Lord did not forbid Israel to adopt the Phoenician pictorial alphabet, and did not scorn to have the Bible written in such graven images, He clearly doesn’t forbid all graven images.

I think your argument about writing be a graven image is a pretty big stretch…but your other arguments could be valid. I don’t know of any sources that support them, however. All the sources I have seen, except the pictures referenced by another poster, suggest the Jews rejected pictures, statues, etc.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t disagree with the creation of images of people outside of a context of worship, so I won’t even address your point there.

I think you are spot-on when it comes to the point that the church had a consensus and decided that it would be allowed. That’s a historical fact, but that doesn’t mean the consensus was right.

You say there’s nothing in the OT that rejects the use of images, but the Ten Commandments clearly do with a straightforward reading, but obviously you would disagree with that. I think we can both agree, however, that a reasonable person could read Exodus that way.

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.

 

[God_I_Love]

I have no doubt that you are not worshipping the statue itself! I would never make that really horrid claim. All I’m saying is…If God has forbidden it, we shouldn’t do it. I think we both would agree on that. You obviously think God has not forbidden it, but I think the evidence is against you. As I already said, the Jews at the time of Christ (at least according to the evidence I have seen) did not allow it. Neither did many early church fathers (although many did allow it; there was a big split on this issue).

So why does one know that it is okay to pull your *** (donkey) from a pit where it has fallen on a day of rest (sabbath)? Or help a sick person? Because the Spirit trumps the letter. The Spirit is what God intends by the law. The letter is how it is prescribed. This does not always mean that the prescription fits every case. So in this case the Spirit of the law, and the whole reason John and others warns against idols (’'children guard yourself from idols"), is to prevent anything getting in the way of one worshipping the True God. That is the whole reason God placed that restriction in the Law. So if something is not being worshipped in place of God, you are fine having an image. Do you disagree with this? Do you understand the distinction between the Spirit of the Law and the letter?

 

[adawgj]

I don’t dispute anything you said here. You’re exactly right.

The question is, are all of these actions in accordance with God’s law or not?

I would say yes.

 

[Duane1966]

First of all, we are talking about images, icons, and sculptures in the context of worship, not in all contexts. Second, you’re saying the passage only applies when people worship the images, etc. themselves, but that is not the plain reading of the text. You are reading that into the text (that doesn’t mean you’re wrong, by the way). Your assumption though about the Jews, based on all of the evidence I have seen, does appear to be wrong, however. As I already said…the Talmud, which is one of the oldest sources of Jewish tradition we have, specifically prohibits the use of any images, as My Jewish Learning explains:

** . The prohibition comes from a concern that even two dimensional images COULD be worshipped, or COULD represent idols. **

That is your quote which puts the Talmud in favor of the Catholic position. The prohibition is for idolatry.

These quotes are from further in 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.**

I thought it might be helpful to hear an artist’s interpretations of these rules, so I spoke withTobi Kahn, an artist who has thought a lot about this issue. Tobi said it seemed clear to him that the root of the law was idolatry, and because he doesn’t see people worshipping idols or images anymore, and because we don’t know what God looks like, he doesn’t worry much about the issue of graven images. He doesn’t see any problem creating an image of a full human body.

As long as you DON’T treat a statue as an idol you are fine based on the link that you provided.

 

[Gorgias]

you’re saying the passage only applies when people worship the images, etc. themselves, but that is not the plain reading of the text. You are reading that into the text (that doesn’t mean you’re wrong, by the way).

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!

 

[Jon_S_1]

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!

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.

 

[Mintaka]

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.)

 

[Tomdstone]

As Deuteronomy 5 states, “You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;…”

The phrase quoted says that it is forbidden to make a likeness of anything in heaven?

 

[Robyn_p]

Once again, God commanded those images. No one is arguing against God-commanded graven images. No one…not even John Calvin. No one! That’s a strawman argument. We’re talking about non-God commanded images here.

Second, the reason I cited the Talmud is because many are making the argument that the interpretation of the OT should be different that the one I am suggesting, but if that’s true, then the Jews obviously misinterpreted the OT as well! They did not allow graven images EXCEPT when God commanded them.

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.

 

[Robyn_p]

I don’t disagree with the creation of images of people outside of a context of worship, so I won’t even address your point there.

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.

 

[sudy]

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.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Now that is a good article and on-topic…

Although, you’ll notice nothing about statues, engravings, etc., which was my original point. Your article does seem to conflict with the source I mentioned in another post by a Jewish source that cites the Talmud (and I double-checked the section of the Talmud and it was verified).

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.

 

[Gorgias]

jinc1019:

What about the numerous early church fathers who disagreed? They were wrong too?

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… )

I think you are spot-on when it comes to the point that the church had a consensus and decided that it would be allowed. That’s a historical fact, but that doesn’t mean the consensus was right.

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?

 

[Gorgias]

The phrase quoted says that it is forbidden to make a likeness of anything in heaven?

I’m not certain what point you’re attempting to make. Yes, that’s what it says, so that people wouldn’t worship stars or the sun (which they did, anyway).

 

[schaeffer]

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

In the end it comes down to a matter of definition and interpretation. What one group considers a graven image, what one group considers bowing down to to mean.

The Catholic Church determines doctrine for it’s members. So they follow it’s interpretations.

Other faiths follow their interpretation of what it means.

I myself don’t grasp the subtleties of the Catholic apologetics on this subject.

I know this, the Church teaches that it is fine, indeed good. The followers experience the use of these sacramentals (if blessed) and imagery to benefit their faith and to draw them closer to God. It’s their call and their experience.

I trust they know what they are about.

I will say this, that I have heard many Catholics misrepresent the way people of other faiths use statues and images in the practice of their faith. So the misunderstanding occurs in both directions.

 

[porthos11]

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?

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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Once again, everything you’re saying conflicts with the entirety of early Judaism on these points. If all your interpretations are correct, then you are arguing the Jewish position was always wrong. The Talmud, for instance, clearly argues against it and understands the commandment to forbid the making of any images, flat, sculpted, or otherwise, that depict any humans.

So are you saying the Jews were always wrong about this?

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

 

[dmar198]

The problem I have with your argument, which I have found to be the standard Catholic argument from what I have read so far, is that the Jews themselves completely disagreed with everything you are saying about the graven image command. How is it that they could be wrong for more than 1000 years?

Second, you are right that God commanded certain images to be made within the context of worship, but isn’t the point here that God commanded it? It wasn’t left for men to come up with it on their own. Again, this is how the Jews always understood it prior to and during the time of Christ. They did not believe that because God gave them a command to make statues of angels, for instance, that this gave them permission to create graven images on their own.

Maybe I have that wrong, but that is what the Talmud says and it’s what I understand to be true about ancient Judaism. If I am wrong, please correct me!

I think you are wrong. Some examples of Jewish graven images not directly commanded by God are:

• The monument on the tomb of the Maccabees, described in 1 Maccabees 13:27-30
• The golden vines and grapes carved into one of the gates of Herod’s Temple, described by Josephus in Wars of the Jews Book 5 Chapter 5 Paragraph 4.

Were you aware of that Jewish usage of graven images other than ones commanded by God?

Also, I think there is more to the verses mentioned earlier by others, the ones where God commands graven images. Your response has been that those were commanded, therefore they are allowed. I agree with that, but I also think that proves that the command in the 10 Commandments doesn’t forbid sacred imagery. If God can command sacred images, then it follows that to make them is not inherently immoral. Because of that, it seems to follow that we can make graven images if they are used for purposes that honor God.

I don’t think God has to specifically command something in the Bible in order for it to be moral. As long as we can prove that it is not immoral, then I think we can do it for God’s glory. And I think the passages where God commands graven images to be made are proof that graven images are not inherently immoral.

You can plug that into a syllogism:

(1) Anything that is not inherently immoral, we can do for the glory of God.
(2) Making graven images is not inherently immoral because God commanded it at least sometimes.
(3) Therefore, we can make graven images for the glory of God.

What do you think of that argument?