P
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The Bible does not tell us not to ‘bow before statues’. It tells us NOT TO WORSHIP A GRAVEN IMAGE BY BOWING DOWN TO IT.
Since statues are not graven images, and since Catholics are NOT BOWING DOWN TO STATUES, but rather bowing in respect to the persons (including CHRIST JESUS) whom those statues represent, then we are not 'bowing before graven images in worship" and therefore, we are NOT disobedient to Scripture.
I repeat, it is OFFENSIVE for non-Catholics to criticize and accuse Catholics of doing something wrong WHEN THE CATHOLICS ARE NOT DOING THE WRONG THEY ARE ACCUSED OF.
If I came and accused you of worshipping a Bible because you in your church were bowing down before the preacher holding a Bible, and I said that you were bowing to a graven image because that Bible IS a graven image because it is presented as a god even though it is NOT GOD, so your ‘bowing’ to it was worship. . .you’d be pretty annoyed if I kept on insisting that according to MY definition of Scripture, you were bowing before a graven image and sinning.
So, if you want to keep on accusing us of doing something WE DO NOT DO, just be aware that we will keep on, respectfully, correcting you, but there WILL come a time when the moderators, aware that your ‘question’ has been answered, will close this thread. . .or if you go too far (and you have not done so thus far, for which we are grateful and appreciative), meaning you keep on saying, “Yes you do so” when you have been continually told, 'NO we do not". . .they will close this thread**.**
It would be a pity because we are all on the same side here in that we all want to love and serve God.
If only you would accept that your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION was wrong, you could start focusing on things and people who REALLY needed saving and help. . .
Non Christians, for example.
Why are you trying to cast aspersions on your fellow Christians? Why do you refuse to accept our word?
K
kimberly87
Guest
brother Tantum,i have never, in here , accused anyone of worshiping statues. i quote the 2nd command which states …do not bow. How many times do i have to say it? I know you people dont worship the statue. I ask,"why do you bow befor them given the 2nd command. And you see me saying “why do you worship them”? hey, but the backward peoples of south america do worship the statues, lots , not all. No one taps them on the shoulder and tells them that they are only worship aids. the priests stand by and let it happen. Please tell me im mistaken on this.
P
pablope
Guest
K
kimberly87
Guest
brother Tantum, i believe you when you say you dont worship statues. Im here to talk to someon i met in the NC. he started this thread. Where is he. Im left here hangin out to dry.
P
Pheonix
Guest
What exactly did I stop short of, friend?
Excuse me? I’m cutting with a broad knife? I want to see if your arguments actually hold up, then.
Let’s look at each verse in question. I’ll list them separately, and then combine them because we have to look at the verses as a whole. If we cherry-pick verses, which is what you’re doing, then we can support any position, no matter how ludicrous it is.
Let’s begin, shall we? Please note that my biblical citations come from a Douay-Rheims translation.
A. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. (Exodus 20:4)
According to a literal interpretation of this verse. it is sinful to make a graven image of anything that is in Heaven, on the Earth, or below the Earth. That’s a pretty broad commandment God is giving, wouldn’t you say? Therefore, according to the logic of a literalist’s interpretation, we are breaking this commandment by having…
- Pictures of our parents, significant others, friends, children, pets, places, etc.
- Hand-drawn portraits of the same things.
- Sculptures that depict the same things.
B. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. (Exodus 20:5)
Here, God specifically states what exactly is wrong with having these “graven images.” He tells Moses that we are not to adore (i.e. worship) them.
And as you’ve been told over and over again, bowing =/= worship. At least, not all bowing equates to worship. We can bow to show honor and respect for someone, whether it be in person or something made in the memory of the person (i.e. a statue).
C. Therefore, putting the two verses together, these “graven images” are not bad so long as*** we are not worshiping them*** as if they were God.
So now I ask you: How am I cutting with broad knife? What is wrong with my arguments? What better, more logical, and stronger arguments do you have to refute mine?
Well, that’s what the commandment says, after all. Therefore, I fail to see where me or any other Catholic is missing the mark.
P
Pheonix
Guest
And where does Scripture say that ALL that is required is having a “personal relationship with Jesus”?
And no one would argue against the idea that one can have a “personal relationship with Jesus.”
A personal relationship with Christ, however, is not all that is required. Further, simply saying “I believe in Christ as my personal Lord and Savior” does not = having a personal relationship with Jesus.
Read more of the parable. WHY did Jesus never know the goats? Because they failed to help the lesser of their brethren.
In other words, because the goats had no charitable works of love, they had a dead faith. That implies they didn’t have grace, and therefore were not saved.
So this “personal relationship with Jesus” comes about from having grace, which works through faith and works, yes?
Therefore, I was not wrong. Accolades, please.
T
TEPO
Guest
I don’t believe that entirely. How can we seperate Jesus from the Trinity as a whole and say that we follow only Jesus from the new testament…? What about the Holy Spirit that He promised us would follow after Him…? Is it not necessary to honor the Holy Spirit just the same?? The same H.S. who compiled the HOLY bible itself, converted millions and is present in the HOLY sacraments of the HOLY Church…? That HOLY Spirit.
Yes, anything that is considered “Holy” involves the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church is one of the only Churches that actually acknowledge the real presence of the Holy Spirit as an active driving force of salvation. The Holy Spirit forgives sins in the confessional, the Holy Spirit transforms the body and blood, the Holy Spirit cures original sin through baptism, the holy Spirit offers special graces at confirmation and the Holy Spirit guides the Popes and the infallible doctrines of Jesus Christs one and only HOLY Catholic Church.
T
TEPO
Guest
How can one expect to be saved if they deny the Holy Spirit? The gravest of all sins according to our Lord Jesus Himself.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
It’s sister Tantum. . .
We are NOT told not to bow down before statues. We are told NOT TO BOW DOWN BEFORE graven images.
Statues are not graven images.
We are not bowing down to graven images. We are not worshipping graven images. We are not worshipping statues.
And who are YOU to accuse 'backward people of South America DO worship the statues? " Where is your proof? Your unsupported assertion?
And that the priests ‘stand by’ and let it happen.
How offensive.
As if any priest would, knowing that his people are making such a mistake, ‘let it happen’.
And again, simply your unsupported ‘assertion’.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Kimberly, why do you believe Catholics do not have a personal relationship with Jesus?
We most certainly do. We receive Him into our hearts, our souls, and even our bodies, every time we receive communion at Mass.
Plus many (if not most) of us, in addition to receiving the Eucharist, and to the scripture we pray at Mass, read our bibles, pray, preach the good news, try to live a godly life:
Isn’t that having a personal relationship with Jesus? Trying to do what He asks?
And once again, Jesus does **not tell us that we cannot ‘bow down’ **to a statue, or to the Bible (which we do, you know, at Mass when the priest ‘raises’ the Bible on high before proclaiming the Word of the Lord).
He very specifically states that we cannot ‘bow down’ as a sign of worship to something which has been created as an idol or false god.
Statues are not false gods. They are not created as an idol or a false god. Not here, not now, and no, not in South America.
And as I think other people have posted, we are not ‘bowing down to the statue’. We are bowing down as a remark of respect to those who have ‘done the will of God.’
If you were to meet with a very good and god-fearing person, such as Billy Graham, do you think you would ask for his autograph? Maybe ask him to pray with you? Would you ‘look up to’ him, wish that you could be a strong a voice for God as he?
Then guess what --that ‘outlook’ of yours regarding Mr. Graham is exactly the ‘outlook’ that Catholics have to saints.
We know they aren’t gods. We don’t worship them --we give them the honor and respect that you or any other Christian would give to a fellow Christian who was ‘talking the talk and walking the walk.’
This might be hard for you to understand if, for example, you come from a faith tradition which is very ‘austere’ and also come from a culture or family that is ‘undemonstrative’.
I know people from such ‘personal experience’ who become very uncomfortable when they see a large, outgoing, extroverted group of people. The extroverts are not doing anything wrong, but their **outward appearance and actions, while in no way wrong, are so very different to the ‘austere’ people, that the ‘austere’ people cannot understand that something so different can be ‘good.’ Therefore, they think it ‘wrong’, though it is not. **
It can work the other way --a very ‘extroverted’ people can look at an ‘austere’ and shy group and think they’re wrong–but they usually just feel SORRY that the austere people are so ‘closed’ to joy. Whereas the ‘austere’ people aren’t SORRY that the extroverts are so ‘closed’ to 'shyness. They think that the extroverts not only are deliberately being ‘too loud’, but that the extroverts KNOW that ‘shyness’ is ‘the right way’ and are deliberately rejecting it. It’s sad.
We most certainly do. We receive Him into our hearts, our souls, and even our bodies, every time we receive communion at Mass.
Plus many (if not most) of us, in addition to receiving the Eucharist, and to the scripture we pray at Mass, read our bibles, pray, preach the good news, try to live a godly life:
Isn’t that having a personal relationship with Jesus? Trying to do what He asks?
And once again, Jesus does **not tell us that we cannot ‘bow down’ **to a statue, or to the Bible (which we do, you know, at Mass when the priest ‘raises’ the Bible on high before proclaiming the Word of the Lord).
He very specifically states that we cannot ‘bow down’ as a sign of worship to something which has been created as an idol or false god.
Statues are not false gods. They are not created as an idol or a false god. Not here, not now, and no, not in South America.
And as I think other people have posted, we are not ‘bowing down to the statue’. We are bowing down as a remark of respect to those who have ‘done the will of God.’
If you were to meet with a very good and god-fearing person, such as Billy Graham, do you think you would ask for his autograph? Maybe ask him to pray with you? Would you ‘look up to’ him, wish that you could be a strong a voice for God as he?
Then guess what --that ‘outlook’ of yours regarding Mr. Graham is exactly the ‘outlook’ that Catholics have to saints.
We know they aren’t gods. We don’t worship them --we give them the honor and respect that you or any other Christian would give to a fellow Christian who was ‘talking the talk and walking the walk.’
This might be hard for you to understand if, for example, you come from a faith tradition which is very ‘austere’ and also come from a culture or family that is ‘undemonstrative’.
I know people from such ‘personal experience’ who become very uncomfortable when they see a large, outgoing, extroverted group of people. The extroverts are not doing anything wrong, but their **outward appearance and actions, while in no way wrong, are so very different to the ‘austere’ people, that the ‘austere’ people cannot understand that something so different can be ‘good.’ Therefore, they think it ‘wrong’, though it is not. **
It can work the other way --a very ‘extroverted’ people can look at an ‘austere’ and shy group and think they’re wrong–but they usually just feel SORRY that the austere people are so ‘closed’ to joy. Whereas the ‘austere’ people aren’t SORRY that the extroverts are so ‘closed’ to 'shyness. They think that the extroverts not only are deliberately being ‘too loud’, but that the extroverts KNOW that ‘shyness’ is ‘the right way’ and are deliberately rejecting it. It’s sad.
T
TEPO
Guest
I don’t get it. Christians around the world have crosses hanging in their homes, around their necks, etc… Yet you’re telling me that God doesn’t want people making images.
So I guess the cross with Jesus’ image on it should be considered an offense to God too then. No images at all not even Jesus, because that’s not really him on those crosses we posess, it’s just an image.
Sorry, the Holy Church has it right. I’m not falling for this.
P
patrick457
Guest
A word of advice: in order to make sense of why Catholics think like thus, you first have to understand what Catholics think. Frankly, many discussions of this sort end up (to give an analogy) being like an American who does not care to understand Japanese culture even if he lives in Japan, or a Japanese in America who insists on applying his mentality to Americans.
P
patrick457
Guest
To have a bit of fairness, another repost of what I wrote recently:
Orthodox Israelite Yahwism seems to have been an aniconic religion (i.e. they did not directly portray their God but used symbols to mark His presence, for example the cherubs on the Ark), which by itself is not unique (a few of their neighbors seem to have aniconic tendencies as well). What set the Israelites apart was the active ban against direct portrayal of the divine.
The Israelites did not develop a unique art-style of their own or contribute anything of great importance or originality in the realm of arts and crafts, being content to borrow and adapt from their Levantine neighbors. The proscription in Exodus against making “carved idols” (pesel, traditionally “graven images”; also cf. Deuteronomy 5:8), may have discouraged creativity in this area. Nonetheless, images did exist throughout the history of Israel until the postexilic period: for instance, Gideon fashions an ephod of gold (Judges 8:27) and Micah’s mother contributed silver for the making of an idol (pesel) in Judges 17:3. The Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon themselves were, on the face of it, a direct contravention of the literal understanding of the commandment, yet the Biblical authors did not denounce them.
The prohibition in Exodus was not so much against the act of making of images themselves but against idolatry (i.e. making an image in the purpose of worshipping it) to which the art could lead. The Israelites did, in fact, fashion images, which the prophets regarded, in a concept unique to Israel, as “idols” (cf. Isaiah 30:22; Hosea 13:2).
We now need to qualify this prohibition against images. Obviously, cherubim, serpents, lions, oxen, humans, and other images of ‘nature’ and ‘mythology’ were at times exempt from the ban - and it would seem that the prohibition of representations was less rigid in the preexilic period compared to later periods. What seems to be forbidden is more often than not the depiction of the Deity Himself. We have as possible extant examples of such both the winged sun-disc symbol above the bull-calf on the top tier of the Ta’anach cult stand and the winged disc/beetle symbol on the seal impressionslmlk on the handles of royal Judahite storage jars.
http://creationwiki.org/images/thumb/f/f5/Lmlk_seal.jpg/250px-Lmlk_seal.jpg
LMLK stamp
Here we come to one of the unique features of ancient Israelite worship of Yhwh - its aniconic character. For example, in one of the most important artifacts of Israelite religion, the Ark of the Covenant, a direct representation of Yhwh is absent: His invisible presence is only indicated by His heavenly mounts, the two cherubim.
The absence of images of the deity and the concomitant prohibition against the representation of the divine in any form is anomalous in the ANE. The creation and use of images in the cultus was at that time commonplace for the religions of that time and place. For the most part in Israel, they were not present and were officially inveighed against.
The close tie between the command against pesalim and the prior ban against worshipping other gods in the Decalogue suggests that the veto of images was directed toward any image that may be construed as an idol or cult artifact of another deity. The elaboration of this command in Deuteronomy 4:16-19 confirms that the commandment had in mind the ‘other gods’ of the previous one as at least the eventual understanding of this prohibition. Indeed the comprehensiveness of these formulations tended to make any kind of image, whether for purposes of worship or not, questionable.
We now need to distinguish between aniconism and iconoclasm, which might help clarify the issue of graven images. Aniconic cults are usually defined as those where there are no iconic representations of the deity (anthropomorphic or theriomorphic) serving as the dominant central or cultic symbol, while iconoclasm is the active, religiously motivated hatred of images, that is, the injunction against making or venerating images within a given religion, as well as the damaging and demolition of images of another religion. We can divide aniconism itself into two categories: (1) de facto aniconism, a more fairly tolerant form, and (2) programmatic aniconism, which moves toward a rigorous iconoclasm but which developed out of the aniconic tendency of an earlier time.
Orthodox Israelite Yahwism seems to have been an aniconic religion (i.e. they did not directly portray their God but used symbols to mark His presence, for example the cherubs on the Ark), which by itself is not unique (a few of their neighbors seem to have aniconic tendencies as well). What set the Israelites apart was the active ban against direct portrayal of the divine.
The Israelites did not develop a unique art-style of their own or contribute anything of great importance or originality in the realm of arts and crafts, being content to borrow and adapt from their Levantine neighbors. The proscription in Exodus against making “carved idols” (pesel, traditionally “graven images”; also cf. Deuteronomy 5:8), may have discouraged creativity in this area. Nonetheless, images did exist throughout the history of Israel until the postexilic period: for instance, Gideon fashions an ephod of gold (Judges 8:27) and Micah’s mother contributed silver for the making of an idol (pesel) in Judges 17:3. The Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon themselves were, on the face of it, a direct contravention of the literal understanding of the commandment, yet the Biblical authors did not denounce them.
The prohibition in Exodus was not so much against the act of making of images themselves but against idolatry (i.e. making an image in the purpose of worshipping it) to which the art could lead. The Israelites did, in fact, fashion images, which the prophets regarded, in a concept unique to Israel, as “idols” (cf. Isaiah 30:22; Hosea 13:2).
We now need to qualify this prohibition against images. Obviously, cherubim, serpents, lions, oxen, humans, and other images of ‘nature’ and ‘mythology’ were at times exempt from the ban - and it would seem that the prohibition of representations was less rigid in the preexilic period compared to later periods. What seems to be forbidden is more often than not the depiction of the Deity Himself. We have as possible extant examples of such both the winged sun-disc symbol above the bull-calf on the top tier of the Ta’anach cult stand and the winged disc/beetle symbol on the seal impressionslmlk on the handles of royal Judahite storage jars.
http://creationwiki.org/images/thumb/f/f5/Lmlk_seal.jpg/250px-Lmlk_seal.jpg
LMLK stamp
Here we come to one of the unique features of ancient Israelite worship of Yhwh - its aniconic character. For example, in one of the most important artifacts of Israelite religion, the Ark of the Covenant, a direct representation of Yhwh is absent: His invisible presence is only indicated by His heavenly mounts, the two cherubim.
The absence of images of the deity and the concomitant prohibition against the representation of the divine in any form is anomalous in the ANE. The creation and use of images in the cultus was at that time commonplace for the religions of that time and place. For the most part in Israel, they were not present and were officially inveighed against.
The close tie between the command against pesalim and the prior ban against worshipping other gods in the Decalogue suggests that the veto of images was directed toward any image that may be construed as an idol or cult artifact of another deity. The elaboration of this command in Deuteronomy 4:16-19 confirms that the commandment had in mind the ‘other gods’ of the previous one as at least the eventual understanding of this prohibition. Indeed the comprehensiveness of these formulations tended to make any kind of image, whether for purposes of worship or not, questionable.
We now need to distinguish between aniconism and iconoclasm, which might help clarify the issue of graven images. Aniconic cults are usually defined as those where there are no iconic representations of the deity (anthropomorphic or theriomorphic) serving as the dominant central or cultic symbol, while iconoclasm is the active, religiously motivated hatred of images, that is, the injunction against making or venerating images within a given religion, as well as the damaging and demolition of images of another religion. We can divide aniconism itself into two categories: (1) de facto aniconism, a more fairly tolerant form, and (2) programmatic aniconism, which moves toward a rigorous iconoclasm but which developed out of the aniconic tendency of an earlier time.
P
patrick457
Guest
It is with the post-exilic period that we begin to see a stricter interpretation of the ban amongst the returning Jews. Direct portrayals of living things were now frowned upon by the devout: abstract designs were often preferred. To this end, most locally-minted Jewish currency at the time did not feature images of gods, men or animals as was common, but images of plants or suchlike as a concession. Take for example these coins of Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, and Pilate, respectively:
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6153/herod3736.jpg
http://www.holylandnumismatics.com/...f78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/0/0/00448a.jpg
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/5279/fontanille2.jpg
Compare it with a Roman denarius or a Tyrian shekel:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
http://www.welcometohosanna.com/LIFE_OF_JESUS/JESUS_LIFE_PIX/tyrianSheck.gif
The Herods followed the Law when it suited them; they apparently were wise enough to not offend their Jewish subjects too much. Antipas did have his palace decorated with figures of animals, which would have been regarded as a transgression of the commandment, but he minted coins which bore only abstract symbols for his Jewish subjects and did not try to force Greco-Roman culture on them. (Contrast this with Philip, who ruled in gentile cities and thus was could be quite conventional in his choice of imagery.)
The exceptions to this ‘no-images’ rule were Roman coins and, rather curiously, the Tyrian shekel in use at the Temple. Now, why did the Temple priests use the Tyrian shekel?
They used the Tyrian shekel or tetradrachma in the Temple for religious duties because it alone had enough silver content which was deemed acceptable by priests: 94% and above compared to the mere 80% of regular Roman currency. Now these coins with ‘graven images’ were actually minted in Israel, as the Romans had since shut down the original mint in Tyre. According to one story, the coins were required to continue bearing the Tyrian images to prevent people from thinking that Jews had enough autonomy to mint their own currency. (This would have been an exception to the norm, since as mentioned, the prefects and tetrarchs were usually mostly keen in respecting Jewish sensibilities in matters of imagery on coinage.)
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6153/herod3736.jpg
http://www.holylandnumismatics.com/...f78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/0/0/00448a.jpg
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/5279/fontanille2.jpg
Compare it with a Roman denarius or a Tyrian shekel:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
http://www.welcometohosanna.com/LIFE_OF_JESUS/JESUS_LIFE_PIX/tyrianSheck.gif
The Herods followed the Law when it suited them; they apparently were wise enough to not offend their Jewish subjects too much. Antipas did have his palace decorated with figures of animals, which would have been regarded as a transgression of the commandment, but he minted coins which bore only abstract symbols for his Jewish subjects and did not try to force Greco-Roman culture on them. (Contrast this with Philip, who ruled in gentile cities and thus was could be quite conventional in his choice of imagery.)
The exceptions to this ‘no-images’ rule were Roman coins and, rather curiously, the Tyrian shekel in use at the Temple. Now, why did the Temple priests use the Tyrian shekel?
They used the Tyrian shekel or tetradrachma in the Temple for religious duties because it alone had enough silver content which was deemed acceptable by priests: 94% and above compared to the mere 80% of regular Roman currency. Now these coins with ‘graven images’ were actually minted in Israel, as the Romans had since shut down the original mint in Tyre. According to one story, the coins were required to continue bearing the Tyrian images to prevent people from thinking that Jews had enough autonomy to mint their own currency. (This would have been an exception to the norm, since as mentioned, the prefects and tetrarchs were usually mostly keen in respecting Jewish sensibilities in matters of imagery on coinage.)
P
patrick457
Guest
Even the houses of aristocratic families in Jerusalem, while built and decorated in the Greco-Roman style, restrained themselves from portraying human or animal figures. Instead, the walls of these houses were mainly decorated with geometric patterns, imitations of architectural elements, or floral motifs.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/lifej/Images/HerodianHouse.jpg
Martin Goodman (Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations) writes:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/lifej/Images/HerodianHouse.jpg
Martin Goodman (Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations) writes:
Jewish culture was more oral than visual: when Jews referred to themselves in Hebrew as understanding a truth or a command, they would say that they had heard it; by contrast, in Latin, as in Greek and in English, the metaphor for comprehension is to “see” the truth. The aural metaphor, however, cannot have been overwhelming in the Jewish mentality, for Philo, writing in Greek, refers repeatedly to a false etymology of the name “Israel” as derived from the Hebrew ish-ra’ah-el, taken to mean “he who sees God.” At any rate, Jews in Jerusalem certainly demonstrated an appreciation of visual aesthetics both in the Temple and in the interior decoration of their houses. Excavated houses from the time of the war against Rome in 66-70 are decorated with patterned mosaic floors and wall plaster painted in the Pompeian Second Style. These provincials imitated Italy as others did elsewhere in the empire, even if they were behind the times in the fashions they followed. The major difference, clearly deliberate, was that the paintings in Jerusalem were wholly devoid of images of humans and only rarely included images of animals. The architectural frames of the pictures painted direct onto the plaster, and the deep reds and blacks, are all in the Italian style, but the central interest in each picture in Roman as in Hellenistic art, the depiction of the interplay of living bodies, is wholly lacking. The taboo which precluded such depictions was by no means static or universal among Jews, since later in antiquity Jews in the land of Israel were to commission fine synagogue mosaics with detailed images of humans and animals, and in the mid-third century CE the Jews of Dura-Europus depicted in detail on the walls of their synagogue a series of biblical scenes. Even in the first century, when Herod completed his rebuilding of the Temple by erecting an image of an eagle over its entrance, he must have believed this to be permitted in Jewish law, since he had just spent years, and huge amounts of money, in ensuring that the building be seen by his subjects as both magnificent and kosher. However, the riots that greeted the eagle image suggest that other first-century Jews disagreed with Herod’s interpretation. The “two sophists,” as Josephus describes the ringleaders of the crowd who tried to tear the eagle down, evidently saw the image as an affront, presumably in light of the commandment in Exodus, “You shall not make for yourself 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 water under the earth:,” although the symbolism of the eagle as an image of Rome may also have aggravated their anger. Later Jews were to interpret the commandment in Exodus in the light of the following verse (“You shall not bow down yourself to them [the images], nor serve them”), thus permitting images of all kinds providing that they are not worshipped, but most first-century Jews seem to have taken a hard line: the iconography on Jewish coins minted during the revolt against Rome reveals a willingness to depict objects such as palm branches, pomegranates and a chalice, but neither people not animals. Jewish homes thus lacked the riot of statues, reliefs and other images that enlivened the houses of their Roman contemporaries, and the public spaces of Jerusalem had no commemorative statues to link the citizens to the historic figures of the past.
P
patrick457
Guest
The issue was such a hugely important one for Jews of the Second Temple period that it often led to potential (and at one point, actual) bloodshed.
There was one Judas, the son of Saripheus, and Matthias, the son of Margalothus, two of the most eloquent men among the Jews, and the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and men well beloved by the people, because of their education of their youth; for all those that were studious of virtue frequented their lectures every day. These men, when they found that the king’s distemper was incurable, excited the young men that they would pull down all those works which the king [Herod the Great] had erected contrary to the law of their fathers, and thereby obtain the rewards which the law will confer on them for such actions of piety; for that it was truly on account of Herod’s rashness in making such things as the law had forbidden, that his other misfortunes, and this distemper also, which was so unusual among mankind, and with which he was now afflicted, came upon him; for Herod had caused such things to be made which were contrary to the law, of which he was accused by Judas and Matthias; for the king had erected over the great gate of the temple a large golden eagle, of great value, and had dedicated it to the temple. Now the law forbids those that propose to live according to it, to erect images or representations of any living creature.
So these wise men persuaded [their scholars] to pull down the golden eagle …] and a report being come to them that the king was dead, this was an addition to the wise men’s persuasions; so, in the very middle of the day, they got upon the place, they pulled down the eagle, and cut it into pieces with axes, while a great number of the people were in the temple. And now the king’s captain, upon hearing what the undertaking was, and supposing it was a thing of a higher nature than it proved to be, came up thither, having a great band of soldiers with him, such as was sufficient to put a stop to the multitude of those who pulled down what was dedicated to God; so he fell upon them unexpectedly, and as they were upon this bold attempt, in a foolish presumption rather than a cautious circumspection, as is usual with the multitude, and while they were in disorder, and incautious of what was for their advantage; so he caught no fewer than forty of the young men, who had the courage to stay behind when the rest ran away, together with the authors of this bold attempt, Judas and Matthias, who thought it an ignominious thing to retire upon his approach, and led them to the king. …]
But the people, on account of Herod’s barbarous temper, and for fear he should be so cruel and to inflict punishment on them, said what was done was done without their approbation, and that it seemed to them that the actors might well be punished for what they had done. …] Herod …] burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.
===
But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar’s effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments.
Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home.
But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.
In fact, while Solomon’s Temple was replete with imagery derived from common Levantine religious iconography, Herod’s Temple was by contrast apparently mostly devoid of such representations, although Josephus does say that the Temple curtain portrayed “a panorama of the heavens except the signs of the Zodiac,” and that vines wrought of gold hung over the doors of the sanctuary (War 5.5.4 (210); Antiquities 15.9.2 (394); cf. m. Middoth 3.8; Tacitus, History 5.5).[/INDENT]
There was one Judas, the son of Saripheus, and Matthias, the son of Margalothus, two of the most eloquent men among the Jews, and the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and men well beloved by the people, because of their education of their youth; for all those that were studious of virtue frequented their lectures every day. These men, when they found that the king’s distemper was incurable, excited the young men that they would pull down all those works which the king [Herod the Great] had erected contrary to the law of their fathers, and thereby obtain the rewards which the law will confer on them for such actions of piety; for that it was truly on account of Herod’s rashness in making such things as the law had forbidden, that his other misfortunes, and this distemper also, which was so unusual among mankind, and with which he was now afflicted, came upon him; for Herod had caused such things to be made which were contrary to the law, of which he was accused by Judas and Matthias; for the king had erected over the great gate of the temple a large golden eagle, of great value, and had dedicated it to the temple. Now the law forbids those that propose to live according to it, to erect images or representations of any living creature.
So these wise men persuaded [their scholars] to pull down the golden eagle …] and a report being come to them that the king was dead, this was an addition to the wise men’s persuasions; so, in the very middle of the day, they got upon the place, they pulled down the eagle, and cut it into pieces with axes, while a great number of the people were in the temple. And now the king’s captain, upon hearing what the undertaking was, and supposing it was a thing of a higher nature than it proved to be, came up thither, having a great band of soldiers with him, such as was sufficient to put a stop to the multitude of those who pulled down what was dedicated to God; so he fell upon them unexpectedly, and as they were upon this bold attempt, in a foolish presumption rather than a cautious circumspection, as is usual with the multitude, and while they were in disorder, and incautious of what was for their advantage; so he caught no fewer than forty of the young men, who had the courage to stay behind when the rest ran away, together with the authors of this bold attempt, Judas and Matthias, who thought it an ignominious thing to retire upon his approach, and led them to the king. …]
But the people, on account of Herod’s barbarous temper, and for fear he should be so cruel and to inflict punishment on them, said what was done was done without their approbation, and that it seemed to them that the actors might well be punished for what they had done. …] Herod …] burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.
===
But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar’s effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments.
Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home.
But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.
In fact, while Solomon’s Temple was replete with imagery derived from common Levantine religious iconography, Herod’s Temple was by contrast apparently mostly devoid of such representations, although Josephus does say that the Temple curtain portrayed “a panorama of the heavens except the signs of the Zodiac,” and that vines wrought of gold hung over the doors of the sanctuary (War 5.5.4 (210); Antiquities 15.9.2 (394); cf. m. Middoth 3.8; Tacitus, History 5.5).[/INDENT]
B
babs57
Guest
I think the problem here might be that the Hebrew word for “bow down” is the same Hebrew word for “worship” The word is used in both contexts. ie:
Gen 19:1 where Lot bowed down before the strangers
Ex 18:7 where Moses bowed down to his father in law
Ex 20:5 and we know this one, yes?
Ex 24:1 Moses and Aaron, etc. were to worship from a distance
Ex 33:10 the people were to worship at the entrance to the tent
The point is, all these are the same Hebrew word, shachah
So, it really is OK to bow before someone or something, as long as what is in your heart is “loving the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.”
K
kimberly87
Guest
Thanks Patrick, for your good posts. Even i can learn something. Some are upset with me cause they think im in here “telling” them they cant bow to images. I havent told anyone to stop. I asked the question…Why bow in the face of the 2nd commandment.? Ive heard lots of convincing answers. Im supposed to meet a new friend in here. What happened to him?
- Status