Statues vs. idolatry debate: need assistence

[ltravis]

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 thingswas 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,
LT

 

[VociMike]

I would focus on “any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth”. Does he not have any pictures in his life? Any films, movies or TV? Any likenesses of anything at all?

Once he starts explaining away how he’s not violating this part of the commandment, you’ll see your opening to explain how Catholic statues or icons does not violate it either.

 

[FCEGM]

LT -

This is an important issue. As I see it, the reason we Catholics truly have honor for things we can see and feel, etc., has to do with the Incarnation, in that Catholicism understands and appreciates the reality of the Incarnation, whereas many Protestants merely pay it lip service without truly appreciating what it means for God to have become Man; as St. Paul says of Christ: “He is the visible image of the invisible God; and so in seeing Him we are caught up in love for the God we cannot see.”

This situation (the Incarnation) changes everything. It shows that the New Covenant in Christ is different from God’s Covenant with Israel. In the Christian Covenant, we have Emmanuel (“God-with-us”), and, therefore, not only (though first!) Christ’s Incarnation reflects the glory of the Father, but also the Church – the extension of Christ’s Incarnation (i.e., the Body of Christ) – reflects God’s glory. Thus Mary and the other Saints who reflect Christ, thereby reflect the Father’s glory. And so, images of Christ and the Saints are at the service of this incarnational glory of God; and the law against “graven images” is turned against itself in Christ.

Under the Old Law the Israelites were not to make graven images because no earthly creation could reflect the glory of God. Yet, after the Incarnation, this is possible, but only in Christ and in His Saints – those who are part of His Body.

So, the key to understanding Catholic iconography is to appreciate the reality of Christ’s Incarnation. In rejecting the legitimacy of icons and other religious images, the Protestant world comes very close to rejecting the Incarnation Itself. Indeed, Christ became FLESH in order to save FLESH (us). If everything is merely spiritual, why did Jesus need to come in the flesh at all?? This must be addressed and recognized.

 

[ltravis]

I would focus on “any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth”. Does he not have any pictures in his life? Any films, movies or TV? Any likenesses of anything at all?

Once he starts explaining away how he’s not violating this part of the commandment, you’ll see your opening to explain how Catholic statues or icons does not violate it either.

Thanks, that is helpful. I will focus on that. He may say that this is in the context of “graven images” (statues) only and follow up with the assertion that in the O.T. they are never permitted to bow before them, even to worship the one true God. I agree, this is a very literal interpretation, but does it compromise your argument about pictures, or even an argument about political or artistic statues which aren’t “bowed” to? I am just afraid he will say "no, this is about statues, and the problem is that catholics bow to them in direct contradiction to original law. Do you understand what I mean here?

Thx,
LT

 

[ltravis]

LT -

This is an important issue. As I see it, the reason we Catholics truly have honor for things we can see and feel, etc., has to do with the Incarnation, in that Catholicism understands and appreciates the reality of the Incarnation, whereas many Protestants merely pay it lip service without truly appreciating what it means for God to have become Man; as St. Paul says of Christ: “He is the visible image of the invisible God; and so in seeing Him we are caught up in love for the God we cannot see.”

This situation (the Incarnation) changes everything. It shows that the New Covenant in Christ is different from God’s Covenant with Israel. In the Christian Covenant, we have Emmanuel (“God-with-us”), and, therefore, not only (though first!) Christ’s Incarnation reflects the glory of the Father, but also the Church – the extension of Christ’s Incarnation (i.e., the Body of Christ) – reflects God’s glory. Thus Mary and the other Saints who reflect Christ, thereby reflect the Father’s glory. And so, images of Christ and the Saints are at the service of this incarnational glory of God; and the law against “graven images” is turned against itself in Christ.

Under the Old Law the Israelites were not to make graven images because no earthly creation could reflect the glory of God. Yet, after the Incarnation, this is possible, but only in Christ and in His Saints – those who are part of His Body.

So, the key to understanding Catholic iconography is to appreciate the reality of Christ’s Incarnation. In rejecting the legitimacy of icons and other religious images, the Protestant world comes very close to rejecting the Incarnation Itself. Indeed, Christ became FLESH in order to save FLESH (us). If everything is merely spiritual, why did Jesus need to come in the flesh at all?? This must be addressed and recognized.

Wow, that’s truly beatiful. I must admit I am more enlightened myself now! It is a bit heady for my bible-only christian brother though, isn’t it? Wouldn’t he say that even if the O.T. God could have be graphically represented, they still wouldn’t have allowed it? Is there a place this is fairly clearly spelled out in scripture? Is there a way to specifically show how refraining from icons diminishes the truth of the incarnation, with a scripturally based premises? If I could arm myself with that, it would be a slam-dunk.

Thanks much
LT

 

[SPH1]

Thanks, that is helpful. I will focus on that. He may say that this is in the context of “graven images” (statues) only and follow up with the assertion that in the O.T. they are never permitted to bow before them, even to worship the one true God. I agree, this is a very literal interpretation, but does it compromise your argument about pictures, or even an argument about political or artistic statues which aren’t “bowed” to? I am just afraid he will say "no, this is about statues, and the problem is that catholics bow to them in direct contradiction to original law. Do you understand what I mean here?

Thx,
LT

It is all about interpretation.

One could argue that the commandment forbids the mere making of “graven” images. Where does it say that you can have images so long as you don’t bow before them? If this guy says that the figurines in his house (or the Lincoln Memorial, Mt. Rushmore, Statue of Liberty, etc.) are okay so long as one does not “bow” to them, he is making an interpretation. But as far as I can tell, some such as Muslims are far more strict than your SDA guy.

More to the point is the purpose of the Commandment. IMO, God gave this commandment against graven images not because we knew who He was, but because we DID NOT know who God was. “Just Father, the world has not known you, but I have know you; and these men have known that you sent me.” John 17:25 Only those who do not really know God need fear graven images and possibly confusing them with God.

 

[FCEGM]

Wow, that’s truly beatiful. I must admit I am more enlightened myself now! It is a bit heady for my bible-only christian brother though, isn’t it? Wouldn’t he say that even if the O.T. God could have be graphically represented, they still wouldn’t have allowed it? Is there a place this is fairly clearly spelled out in scripture? Is there a way to specifically show how refraining from icons diminishes the truth of the incarnation, with a scripturally based premises? If I could arm myself with that, it would be a slam-dunk.

Thanks much
LT

Thanks, LT. I’m off to babysit my grandchildren for a few hours, so if you will bear with me, I’ll get back to you with some thoughts that may aid you in your discussion. I will say, briefly, that while it may be “heady” for him, it will be, I think, a new approach that he hasn’t considered.

I’m sure others will chime in with helpful ideas, but since you are dealing with an Adventist who usually have a very strong animus towards Catholicism, you are in for a rough row to hoe, I’m afraid.

 

[ltravis]

It is all about interpretation.

One could argue that the commandment forbids the mere making of “graven” images. If this guy says that the figurines in his house (or the Lincoln Memorial, Mt. Rushmore, Statue of Liberty, etc.) are okay so long as one does not “bow” to them, he is making an interpretation. But as far as I can tell, some such as Muslims are far more strict that your SDA guy.

More to the point is the purpose of the Commandment. IMO, God gave this commandment against graven images not because we knew who He was, but because we DID NOT know who God was. “Just Father, the world has not known you, but I have know you; and these men have known that you sent me.” John 17:25 Only those who do not really know God need fear graven images and possibly confusing them with God.

Thanks for the additional insight. I did allude to this in my last reply to him. He might cite the following verse prohibiting bowing, saying they are meant to be taken together, and of course he probably doesn’t bow to Mt. Rushmore. That is how he argues against the point about the Serpent and cherubim - by saying they weren’t bowed to. Apparently with him it is ok to bow to people (i.e. royalty), and images are alright, but you cannot connect the bowing and images together. Literally, he is probably correct; such isn’t in the bible. But yes, the key is in understanding the deeper meaning, which cannot be easily asserted to someone who looks strictly at what’s between the verse numbers.

LT

 

[SPH1]

One could easily read the Commandment to forbid the mere making of images…apart from bowing before them. I know that Muslims are not heavily into images even not bowed to, and I don’t think that Jews historically were either. Why neither group produces much art/sculpture.

The main error of your SDA…with that of Protestantism in general…is the belief that Christ really wasn’t guiding and Shepherding his Church all this time. Your guy really doesn’t believe in Christ!

 

[ltravis]

Thanks, LT. I’m off to babysit my grandchildren for a few hours, so if you will bear with me, I’ll get back to you with some thoughts that may aid you in your discussion. I will say, briefly, that while it may be “heady” for him, it will be, I think, a new approach that he hasn’t considered.

I’m sure others will chime in with helpful ideas, but since you are dealing with an Adventist who usually have a very strong animus towards Catholicism, you are in for a rough row to hoe, I’m afraid.

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

 

[HailMary]

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 thingswas 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,
LT

you will like this:
scborromeo.org/papers/statues.PDF

it answer it very nicely. God Bless!

 

[ricko]

They did bow down to the ark. The difference here is that the statues were not worshipped. We, as Catholics do not bow down to our statues either. We bow to the Lord. The images that we use are to remind us of Jesus and the saints. It may appear that we bow down before them but that is not the case. We could put them in the back of the church and we would still bow down facing the altar. However, since they are a visual representation we could no longer see them as they would be in the back of the church and everyone is facing forward. Following is some notes from Catholic Answers:

People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: “And you shall make two cherubim of gold *; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be” (Ex. 25:18–20).

David gave Solomon the plan “for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan” (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was “by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all,” included statues of angels.

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, “On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim.”

If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these “graven” images, they would be practicing the “idolatry” of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.*

 

[VociMike]

Thanks, that is helpful. I will focus on that. He may say that this is in the context of “graven images” (statues) only and follow up with the assertion that in the O.T. they are never permitted to bow before them, even to worship the one true God. I agree, this is a very literal interpretation, but does it compromise your argument about pictures, or even an argument about political or artistic statues which aren’t “bowed” to? I am just afraid he will say "no, this is about statues, and the problem is that catholics bow to them in direct contradiction to original law. Do you understand what I mean here?

He can claim that, but the text doesn’t say “dont make them if you bow down to them”, it simply says “don’t make them.”

It also says don’t serve them. That alone should explain what “bow down” pertains to. If he’s going to claim “context” in saying it’s OK for him to have likenesses, you can claim “context” in explaining that this useage of “bow down” is related to serving, and no Catholic bows down to a statue with the intention of serving it.

You can win this argument, which is not to say that he’ll accept what you tell him, but he will end up without a scriptural leg to stand on.

You might also ask him if he ever imagines Jesus when he prays or meditates (I can’t imagine any Christian who never has). That is a likeness, a mental one. And he serves that likeness (or rather, the Person that likeness represents). So having a mental image of Jesus is a violation of the commandment according to his view. Note how this works in with the idea that Jesus in the Incarnation has created a new paradigm regarding images in the faith.

One last thing – the Orthodox also use images, and they’re not Catholic. That means that every Christian group before the Reformation used images of one form or another. Were they all wrong, all 100% wrong?

 

[Rolltide]

As an historian, I’d add that you might want to bring up some of the historical issues too. From the fall of Rome until the later Middle Ages, the literacy rate was literally about 1%. If you were not a king or a member of the clergy, you probably couldn’t read. So, how did one learn about the faith? It most certainly wasn’t through Bible study! The Catholic Church used imagery, such as that found in stained glass, paintings, icons, and statues to pictorally tell the stories out of the Bible (for example, the Stations of the Cross). The priest could then point to the appropriate images as he told the various stories to the parishoners, and that way they could use the church building itself to follow along.

 

[ltravis]

you will like this:
scborromeo.org/papers/statues.PDF

it answer it very nicely. God Bless!

That is superb. Thank you!

One last question for now to you and all the other folks who are being so helpful. Can and do Catholics actually bow in front of statues when venerating? The pdf’ speaks about kneeling, so I just wanted to be sure for when I reply to someone who interprets words **very **literally.

Thanks, all. I will reflect on all this as I head out now on my way to mass

LT

 

[Jaypeeto4]

You have to remember, too, that IDOLS in the Old Testament were always graven images of FALSE Gods.
The Saints and Mary are not our Gods, they are our elder brothers and sisters in Christ, and Mary is our Queen Mother being the Mother of Jesus our Eldest Brother and Lord.

We do not worship Mary or the other Saints as Gods.
We honor them because they were faithful to God unto death and we love them as family. THAT’s why we may tip our hat to a statue, or make a little bow, or put flowers in front of a statue.
We don’t “worship” the statue nor the person represented by the statue, not at all.

Having Icons and statues in our homes and churches is simply having pictures of our Christian relatives in our homes and churches, nothing more. Anybody ever kissed a photo of their mom?

God bless,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[ricko]

“Catholics worship statues!” People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex. 20:4–5); “Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold” (Ex. 32:31).

By your friends own belief, if he has any pictures, watches TV or goes to the movies or has anything which has a image of anything on earth, above or below then in his own words he is in violation. I bet he has some pictures in his wallet. That’s enough right there to send him to hell. By his own teaching, there is no excuse to having an image of anything.

 

[HailMary]

That is superb. Thank you!

One last question for now to you and all the other folks who are being so helpful. Can and do Catholics actually bow in front of statues when venerating? The pdf’ speaks about kneeling, so I just wanted to be sure for when I reply to someone who interprets words **very **literally.

Thanks, all. I will reflect on all this as I head out now on my way to mass

LT

usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis33.htm#v3

ask them if Jacob worshiped Esau.

Veneration = honoring
dictionary.reference.com/browse/venerations
and
webster.com/dictionary/venerate
we do not bow down to a statue or whatever, bowing is a sign of respect OR it can be taken as a sign of adoration. You need the context (refer to Gen 33:3) versus biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=25&verse=2&version=31&context=verse

Also consider:
usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans12.htm#v10

 

[kleary]

Well, if this nation were a monarchy and that Adventist were to meet face to face with the king of this nation he had better get on his knees and bow before him out of respect. That is the customary thing to do when you would meet a king. It is not considered adoration of the king as God now is it.

The human is created and so is an image- so if it is not sinful to bow before a king then it most certainly is not sinful to bow before a statue out of respect for what is shown - as long as the intent is not adoring the image as if itself is God.

The whole concept of the idolatry is condemning things like astrology or using a rabbits foot or a lucky piece. I work in a casino and I see all those idol worshippers who put statues of leprechauns or little crystals on their slot machine or table they are playing on- because they believe in them to bring them good luck.

The idolatry of the days of the Old Testament is not the same as idolatry today.

Ken

 

[SPH1]

You might also ask him if he ever imagines Jesus when he prays or meditates (I can’t imagine any Christian who never has). That is a likeness, a mental one. And he serves that likeness (or rather, the Person that likeness represents). So having a mental image of Jesus is a violation of the commandment according to his view. Note how this works in with the idea that Jesus in the Incarnation has created a new paradigm regarding images in the faith.

Very nice! I thought the same years ago and have used it from time to time.

One last thing – the Orthodox also use images, and they’re not Catholic. That means that every Christian group before the Reformation used images of one form or another. Were they all wrong, all 100% wrong?

Some Anglicans and Lutherans also have statues, especially the Crucifix. Here are a couple of Lutheran proof links:

Lutheran Monastery:

staugustineshouse.org/index.html

Lost my LCMS link but here’s an article from a Lutheran Church:

messiahkenosha.org/beliefs/crucifix.htm