Statues vs. idolatry debate: need assistence

[vern_humphrey]

Literacy was not that common in the ancient world (and why learn to read, if you couldn’t afford books – which were very expensive?)

The early Christians adopted iconography (“Image writing”) – in the ancient world, history, stories, fables and even religion were transmitted through statues and images rather than through writing. If you saw a statue of a man with a lion skin and a club, you knew that was Hercules, and that recalled to your mind the story of Hercules.

Christians adopted this custom – a woman with a wheel, for example, is Saint Catherine (who was tied to a wheel, set afire and rolled down hill.) A man with an X-shaped cross was Saint Andrew (who was crucified on such a cross.) A man with keys was Saint Peter (who was given the Keys to the Kingdom by Christ.)

The story of Christianity was told orally and graphically, more than in writing, for a long time.

 

[FCEGM]

Thanks FCEGM. I will look forward to future insight and encouragement from you. I have no problem with animus and attack. I welcome it as I defend my faith (Matthew 5!). However my challenge is in competently responding to a very thorough and well studied intellectual. Hug your grandkids for me!

LT

LT - You’ve gotten such good help here; I think you’ll do well in your discussion with your Adventist friend.

The reality of the divine indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity in the souls of the those being transformed by the grace Christ is perhaps something that he hasn’t seriously considered; nor will he have considered the use of icons and statues as one aspect of the Church’s recognition of that reality.

St. John writes in his first epistle, “Behold what manner of charity the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called and should be the sons of God.” (See also Gal. 2:20-21.) We have been re-created through the Holy Spirit in Baptism, born from above (a more accurate phrase than “born again”) and now share in the life of God, becoming God-like by grace - His free gift of Himself, this gift won for us by the Life, Death and Resurrection of Our Savior. We have become, as St. Peter writes, “partakers of the divine nature.” The use of images of Christ and His Saints (those who have gone before us into the fullness of His Kingdom, having been transformed by that grace so as to be true icons of the Son) are one means by which remembrance of our brothers and sisters in Him are kept before us - images which trigger a loving desire to be joined with them in the Beatific Vision. Just as the words on a page of Scripture are icons of the greater reality behind the words, so, too, the icons and statues of Christ, His Blessed Mother, and our beloved brothers and sisters in Him point to a reality beyond our vision. Unfortunately, some have little vision to appreciate that.

God bless your efforts!

(Grandchildren well-hugged! )

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi all. I fell into a debate regarding catholic statue use with a very well studied adventist who quoted Exodus 20:4-5, which condemns use of any graven “things”. I countered with all the obvious: that some translations use the word “idol” instead of “thing” and that our statues are not idols to us. I also cited the passages of the cherubim on the ark and bronze serpent. I am awaiting his reply and anticipate needing to address some counterpoints. First, he has in previous discussions with others addressed the cherubim and serpent, stating that unlike catholics and their statues, the people were never allowed to bow before them. Also, regarding “thing” vs. “idol”, he is versed in entymology and various translations so I expect he will assert that the hebrew sources translate to “thing” while the later greek translates to “idol”, and thereby “thing” is truer to the original intent. To lend credibility to the Hebrew, I have read about evidence that the jewish practice was indeed interpreted to prohibit graven images of any kind, even if used a tool to worship the true God (in wikipedia’s “idolatry” topic).

How should I address these two counters, that bowing in front of things

was unheard of in the O.T., and that the original intent of scripture in Hebrew translates to “thing” rather then “idol”?

Please advise, I am faithful, but no scholar and this is getting deep!

Thx,
LTHi LT,
Heard it all before, and answered it HERE. So far as I have seen Adventists are not really scholarly so much as rhetorical and heavy on the propaganda. However, the posts in the thread that I linked may help some. This may also help as well.
Hope it helps.
Pax tecum,

 

[MarkA16]

Can someone give me an example of a graven thing, or the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or of those things that are in the waters under the earth?

Thanks

 

[Todd_Easton]

Can someone give me an example of a graven thing, or the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or of those things that are in the waters under the earth?

Thanks

There was the golden calf that the Israelites worshiped and sacrificed to. Exodus 32. Is that what you mean?

 

[MarkA16]

Like who in the heavens would one worship. Who in heaven would get us in “trouble” if we worshiped them. Same as in the earth beneath, and the waters.

 

[LilyM]

Can’t worship anyone except the three-in-one God himself :nope:. You can venerate, respect and have images and pictures of anyone and anything else though. Including people (saints and spirits) who are in heaven, or things (stars, sun, moon) that are in heaven.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Throughout the Old Testament we see the Jews bowing and falling to their knees before each other as a sign of respect. But, they’re not worshiping each other, so kneeling and bowing does not equal worship. Ask this person if he/she kneel while reading the Bible if he/she is worshiping it?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Merged two threads on same topic.

 

[ltravis]

All,

Thanks so much for all the support here. I will ponder all the responses that I have misses since my last post. They will be helpful to more then just myself, too.

My adventist friend has just emailed me that he is aware of this very thread so I invited him to join. I hope he does. I am humble enough to know I cannot voice what I know in my heart as effectively as so many of you.

LT

 

[ltravis]

Just to update you, the fellow I have been debating is a former member who has been banned. He had some critical words for the forum regarding its openness and fairness to opposing views, so take that for what its worth, I don’t want to get into it.

Anyway, he affirms Exodus 20:4 cannot be interpreted without Exodus 20:5 and so graven images are acceptable so long as they are now bowed to. That led me to the question about the ark and its cherubim, referred to in Psalm 99 as a footstool which should be bowed to. I assume he might say the footstool refers to something else, but I am using the context of Psalm 132 and 1 Chronicles 28 for context just as he believes Exodus 20:5 is the context for Exodus 20:4.

The Old Testament discussion has been rewarding, but I would like to also bring the new covenant into the discussion as well. I understand that the bonds of old law are superceded by those of the new covenant by virtue of God revealing himself to us in Christ. However, I don’t know the best way to convey that in a way that a sola-scripturalist can easily understand it. If anyone can package that into a quality argument, it would be most helpful. Heck, I am sure he will even be lurking here as well, so while you answer me you have the bonus of addressing him!

Thanks as always!
LT

 

[VociMike]

Just to update you, the fellow I have been debating is a former member who has been banned. He had some critical words for the forum regarding its openness and fairness to opposing views, so take that for what its worth, I don’t want to get into it.

Anyway, he affirms Exodus 20:4 cannot be interpreted without Exodus 20:5 and so graven images are acceptable so long as they are now bowed to.

By that same logic, one could bow down to or serve a graven image as long as one didn’t make it. He’s just reading what he wants to read into the clear and plain meaning of the text.

 

[amills]

I would suggest that the 10 commandments are many times read out of context. When we as Catholics read the bible we read it looking at what was historically, culturally and spiritually happening in the time. We look at it to discern what the author intended it to me. I think the 10 commandments must also be read this way. So let us consider what idols meant at that time.

See Daniel 14: 1-21
After King Astyages was laid with his fathers, Cyrus the Persian succeeded to his kingdom. Daniel was the king’s favorite and was held in higher esteem than any of the friends of the king. The Babylonians had an idol called Bel, and every day they provided for it six barrels of fine flour, forty sheep, and six measures of wine. The king worshiped it and went every day to adore it; but Daniel adored only his God. When the king asked him, “Why do you not adore Bel?” Daniel replied, “Because I worship not idols made with hands, but only the living God who made heaven and earth and has dominion over all mankind.” Then the king continued, “You do not think Bel is a living god? Do you not see how much he eats and drinks every day?” Daniel began to laugh. “Do not be deceived, O king,” he said; “it is only clay inside and bronze outside; it has never taken any food or drink.” Enraged, the king called his priests and said to them, “Unless you tell me who it is that consumes these provisions, you shall die. But if you can show that Bel consumes them, Daniel shall die for blaspheming Bel.” Daniel said to the king, “Let it be as you say!” There were seventy priests of Bel, besides their wives and children. When the king went with Daniel into the temple of Bel, the priests of Bel said, “See, we are going to leave. Do you, O king, set out the food and prepare the wine; then shut the door and seal it with your ring. If you do not find that Bel has eaten it all when you return in the morning, we are to die; otherwise Daniel shall die for his lies against us.” They were not perturbed, because under the table they had made a secret entrance through which they always came in to consume the food. After they departed the king set the food before Bel, while Daniel ordered his servants to bring some ashes, which they scattered through the whole temple; the king alone was present. Then they went outside, sealed the closed door with the king’s ring, and departed. The priests entered that night as usual, with their wives and children, and they ate and drank everything. Early the next morning, the king came with Daniel. “Are the seals unbroken, Daniel?” he asked. And Daniel answered, “They are unbroken, O king.” As soon as he had opened the door, the king looked at the table and cried aloud, “Great you are, O Bel; there is no trickery in you.” But Daniel laughed and kept the king from entering. “Look at the floor,” he said; “whose footprints are these?” “I see the footprints of men, women, and children!” said the king. The angry king arrested the priests, their wives, and their children. They showed him the secret door by which they used to enter to consume what was on the table. "

In this story it is clear that they actually thought the statue was a god and that it physically ate. I would suggest that this is what the 10 commandments were addressing.

 

[adventistnomore]

Here’s an article on DIES DOMINI that presents a concise survey of the Catholic perspective:

diesdomini.com/Papers/Q_Icons_primer.pdf

Page 3 is especially pertinent to the question of whether images should be venerated. I will reproduce an excerpt below for the sake of everyone on this thread:

…

Having established that the commandment against idolatry does not exclude the creation of lawful images—even of Christ—one wonders how such images should be handled. Veneration includes the holy reverence due sacred objects—for example, Bibles. As the written Word ofGod, Bibles are handled with reverential care: they are not rudely thrownagainst a wall, nor are their pages ripped in half. Likewise, reverence is due in a sacred setting, such as a Church sanctuary. Screaming, jumping, andrough play are improper in a room consecrated to the worship of God.Articles within the sacred setting (including hymnals and pews) alsoparticipate in the sacred atmosphere proper to the place of worship, andare due commensurate reverence (one should not jump on a pew); they themselves become sacred objects.

Similarly, the images within the Temple were, by virtue of their cultic setting, consecrated to God (as also the other temple furnishings). They too participated in the sacredness of the Temple, and thus received the shared reverence proper to that holy ground. In fact, the images were instrumental in creating that sacred space: concentrating the mind of the priest upon the mysterious, sacred realities of his ministry.

In Christian practice, images of Christ are special by virtue of the Personage represented in them; it would be disgraceful to deface an image of Jesus…

Practical manifestations of veneration differ from culture to culture and century to century, though some traditional forms persist from antiquity. One such form of reverence is the kiss, which Jews offer the Torah, Siddur (prayerbook), and Tallit (prayer shawl) during a synagogue service. Another is a bow, which Jews also offer the Torah and Ark (where the Torah scrolls are kept) in a synagogue. Christianity inherited similar instincts: Catholics and Orthodox Christians kiss or reverently bow towards altars, Bibles, and icons in their sacred spaces (Churches). Incense and candles are also used to reverence sacred space and the articles within it—especially altars, Bibles, and icons.

The Second Council of Nicaea (the seventh ecumenical council, 787 CE) limited the veneration of icons to those forms of reverence proper and common to all other sacred articles within the Church. All illegitimate forms of reverence—including that worship proper to God Himself—are excluded:

To [icons] should be given due salutation and honorable reverence, not indeed that true worship of faith which pertains alone to the Divine nature; but to these, as to… the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom.

(Definition of the Second Council of Nicaea, 787).

Thus, the legitimate reverence due lawful icons is not qualitatively distinct from that due other sacred articles or spaces: the Bible or Church Sanctuary. All are consecrated to the use of God; they therefore receive like reverence, in whatever form is culturally common. By contrast, those images forbidden by the third commandment (falsely representing Divinity by earthly forms) are unlawful either to make or reverence.

 

[ltravis]

**amils **- thanks for the insight there. That helps me, but unfortunately my friend will dismiss it as he insists that merely the posture of bowing, regardless of motive, is condemned.

**adventistnomore **- That is great material. I love the motive explanation in Deuteronomy as it puts a lot of this in perspective. I am intrigued at the statement in the manuscript that the jews bowed to the ark. My friend asserts this was never allowed. I use Psalm 99 as evidence, but historical or scriptural evidence to that statement would have been most welcome.
Well, he asserts that Exodus 20:4 needs the context of verse 5 and he leveraged the idea of context to assert that my example of bowing to the ark (footstool) needed additional context as well.

Well, in our last debate exchange…

He uses the fact that God won’t write a commandment with his own finger only to command their violation (i.e. bowing before the ark) as prima facie evidence that still more context is needed regarding the ark in Psalm 99. He also says that Psalm 99:5 *(“Exalt the LORD, our God; bow down before his footstool; holy is God!”) *is not to be taken literally because the ark, even in procession, was covered and inaccessible. Thus again, according to him, more context is needed.

My question to him was why a footstool (ark) is even mentioned as being bowed to in that psalm verse if it celebrates a divinely prohibited action. I don’t see any additional context that would allow that to be read another way. Psalm 99 is brief and clearly describes the ark.

I am learning quite a bit from all this, but I must admit it has taken a lot of effort. I am just a family man who wanted to stand up agains a misrepresentation of my relationship with my loving heavenly family. I didn’t want to get into a protracted apologetics debate which I am hardly trained for! I think I am experiencing some early purgatory through this…

Thanks all
LT

 

[adventistnomore]

The "ark"referrenced in the DIES DOMINI essay is that special box containing the Torah scrolls in a modern Jewish synagogue (not the ancient ark of the covenant).

As for your friend: notice how the essay contructs its defense of legitimate veneraton. It notes that all Christians have instincts of reverence. Ask your friend to throw a Bible across the room; he wouldn’t dare. Why? Because the Bible is a sacred object. He has a negative form of veneration (avoiding disrespecting the Bible).

Jews, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians also venerate the Bible, but in a positive sense. They bow respectfully towards it, or kiss it–both ancient symbols of respect.

Your friend makes the error of assuming that all bowing is an act of worship/adoration. Remind him that even today, the Japanese bow towards one another as a sign of respect. Are they worshipping one another? Never. A bow is not inherently an act of worship, but of respect. To claim that bows are inappropriate is to exalt a particular cultural standard over another.

His misconception stems from the fact that Westerners do not bow, except in religious contexts–it is a gesture rarely made in Europe and the Americas today. But in the ancient world, it was used frequently-which heritage is preserved in Judaism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy.

Continuing on, would your friend deface a picture of Jesus by drawing a mustache on him? Never (we hope), because images of Christ are also considered worthy of (at least, a negative form of) respect. Catholics, on the other hand, offer these images both negative and positive respect–but only in the same way we offer the Bible respect.

Your friend probably reveres family photos or trophies (placing them in positions of honor around his home). This is a form of positive respect. He may not use other forms of reverence (kissing, bowing), bt he understads what it means to positively revere an object.

The trick is, help him to realize that the commandment against idolatry is NOT focused on the legitamacy of a certain gesture (bowing), but the object at which that gesture is directed (false representations of God).

I’ll try to incoprorate this into a future draft of the essay on DIES DOMINI. In the meantime, keep up the good work!

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

“Kiddush” Statue
jewishsource.com/itemdy00.asp?T1=1124&Cat=Art%2ESculpture%2FStatues%2ECeramic

Whimsical Figurine - Bar Mitzvah And Rabbi
zionjudaica.com/Jewish_Figurines-169.asp

google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Jewish+statues

 

[Zahava]

“Kiddush” Statue
jewishsource.com/itemdy00.asp?T1=1124&Cat=Art%2ESculpture%2FStatues%2ECeramic

Whimsical Figurine - Bar Mitzvah And Rabbi
zionjudaica.com/Jewish_Figurines-169.asp

google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Jewish+statues

What you do not realize is that these “figurines/statues” are NOT complete and they certainly DO NOT represent the Almighty. Such as Catholics have with Mary and J as big as day outside their church and on the cross.

Jewish artwork is not complete. They are not in the complete image of man. For instance, an ear is missing, hands are not defined, etc. You may laugh. However, if you look at Jewish artwork you will not find a complete face or complete legs, hands, etc…

 

[vern_humphrey]

What you do not realize is that these “figurines/statues” are NOT complete and they certainly DO NOT represent the Almighty. Such as Catholics have with Mary and J as big as day outside their church and on the cross.

Jewish artwork is not complete. They are not in the complete image of man. For instance, an ear is missing, hands are not defined, etc. You may laugh. However, if you look at Jewish artwork you will not find a complete face or complete legs, hands, etc…

I don’t know of any “Catholic” statue that is a complete and perfect replica of the human body, either.

 

[Zahava]

I don’t know of any “Catholic” statue that is a complete and perfect replica of the human body, either.

Sure thing… private parts don’t show.

And again you are missing the point. Catholic statutes state this is my g-d. Catholics make this graven image, that is in the likeness of man and the Almighty states do not do this. So why Catholics make this graven image of J on the cross and have him standing ever so tall in the yard in front of their church is beyond me