Why no Crucifix?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spiritblows
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok Brian, good answer as pertains to your not being “certain” of your own interpretation. Let me see if I can refine that question just a bit more. How do you know when you have arrived at a correct intrepretation of any given passage/reading? Especially since you are limited in what materials you can use in order to help you understand the scriptures…at least, I will assume this point at the moment based on your unwillingness to accept Webster’s definition of a word/phrase on account of the fact that Christ himself did not have access to this source. If approached from this angle, then no other source/scholar could be used to help shed light on the Bible. Now granted, I don’t go to Webster’s for every definition from the Bible; its function was not specifically designed for that purpose. However, graven image is not that difficult to define.

I’m not an OT expert, either, as you say. And you are exactly right, graven images are a very hot topic in the Old Testament. It’s so “hot” that God chose to make it one of His commandments (Ex.20:4). If one were to look at just that one passage, it might seem that “carving” an image, “sculpting” an image, “painting” an image, etc. would violate God’s command…even more so if one were to put that image/replica into one’s place of worship. How then, I ask you, could God make this one of the top ten and at the same time, a couple of chapters away, turn around and say, “You shall make a propitiatory of pure gold, two cubits and a half long, and one and a half cubits wide. Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory, fastening them so that one cherub springs direct from each end. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall be turned toward each other, but with their faces looking toward the propitiatory. This propitiatory you shall then place on top of the ark.” (Ex. 25:17-22). God has now commanded Isreal to make two angels (images) out of beaten gold (graven).

And where did God command them to place this ark with the two angels of beaten gold on it…in the Holy of Holies inside the temple (Ex.40:1-6). Why would God forbid graven images in his commandments and then command the making of graven images for the very container, the ark, of the commandents? Is it possible that graven image does not mean all images created/made?

Furthermore, how then do we explain (in light of the 10 commandments and graven images being forbidden) the story of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:4 - 9? Just look upon it and you’ll be healed? Curious… Even more so, using that “graven image” from the Old Testament to teach and instruct in the New (John 3:14).

Perhaps Jesus (the Jewish man and our Savior) did define this point for us, so that there would be no need for us to try and discern from 2000 years away what he might think about our use of crucifixes/crosses, etc. He summed it up this way (something I know you are familiar with), “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Matt.22:34-40). Christ goes on to describe this, in conjunction with the Golden Rule, as being the summation of the “whole law and the prophets.”

If one loves someone/something to that extent (heart, soul, mind) that then is worship. God never commanded that kind of devotion for the cherubim on the cover for the ark, or for the bronze serpent. He did command the Isrealites (Jews) to make them and use them, and in the case of the ark - as a part of their worship, not as the object of their worship.

Interesting, huh?
Lisa
 
Lischou,
They cannot kill…he has. They cannot create graven images…he can. I suppose is an option. I am probably the wrong person to discuss a literal interpretation of the Torah however. I think it would offend him, you differ, 🙂
 
40.png
BrianH:
It is a little more than that:

“Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will, not mine." 43 Then an angel from heaven appeared and strengthened him. 44 He prayed more fervently, and he was in such agony of spirit that his sweat fell to the ground like great drops of blood”

Scripture clearly shows what Jesus went through to prepare himself for his crucifixion. He pleaded with father, had an angel come and help him at this horrible time, prayed even more, sweat like blood because of this.
Can you imagine one of the disciples asking him if he thought it would be a good idea for this to be the symbol that many chose to remember him?!? :confused: :confused:

Like I said suit yourself, but I don’t think he would have liked the idea personally.
BrianH
Click to expand...
Many Catholics contemplate this every Tuesday and Friday, along with other events of His passion, when we pray the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary.
 
Thank you for the information on the conflict 700 years after the Church was established.
Notice, like protestantism, it took hundreds of years for it to arise. And as a backwards-thinking Catholic, I must ask why the earlier Christians had no problem with using images (The fish, the cross, angels, cherubim etc.)
Surely one of the early Fathers would have either protested the use of images, or refuted someone else’s claims against it. Neither of these things happened. There was no question that symbols and images were a useful tool in evangelization, teaching and worshiping.
The eastern Church, after this conflict, embrased images beyond anything seen in the Western Church. I don’t think this hampers their worship of God, but enhances it. St. John Demascence is a Saint for a reason. He helped people get to heaven.
www.catholic-forum.com/ saints/saintj45.jpg
Here is an image of him. In fact, it is a sacred icon, made with prayer and specific imagry and symobolism. We educated westerners may think we are beyong imagery, but this picture tells a lot about the Saint.
 
40.png
BrianH:
They cannot create graven images…he can.
Click to expand...
They cannot create graven images to worship them as gods. Catholics do not. For there is one God we confess and that is the Holy Consubstantial Blessed Trinity made up of the three Persons, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
 
God did not create those images, men did. He directed them to do so.
Thank you for bringing up killing. In the 10 Commandments, we are told not to kill.
This proves that the commandments are to be taken in context with the rest of the Bible, because we are allowed to kill in a just war.
The Bible is full of killing, and Jesus did not condemn the killing of the thiefs at His right and left on the cross. So let us not use rhetoric to render God’s commandments confusing. If we are to believe the Protestant hard-line stance on images and statues, then we will be confused by contradictions already pointed out on other posts. Rather, let us know with confidence that God condemns the worship of idols as the Hindus do.
So let us use what God gave us in order to know what we may do. No, not our brains. The Catholic Church. She, the Church lets us use images for worshiping God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, three in one for all eternity. God lets us honor His Saints and Angels using images too. Thank you God.
 
Not to pick nits or anything, but it’s actually, St. John *Damascene * - that is, of Damascus.

Living all his life under Islamic rule in Syria, he was uniquely well-equipped to denounce the iconoclasm of the Byzantine Emperors, who themselves were then ironically unable to retaliate against him due to his location…

I like this quote from him: “We would certainly be in error if we were making an image of the invisible God, for what is incorporeal and invisible and uncircumscribable and without defined figure is not able to be depicted. And again, if we were making images of men and thought them gods, and adored them as gods, certainly we would be impious. But we do not do any of these things.” (Apologetic Sermon Against Those Who Reject Sacred Images, 2:5, ca. 726 A.D.)

Now, the Iconoclast conflict was the most important crisis in Church history regarding image veneration (culminating in the 7th Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787), but not the first. The Synod of Elvira, for example, prohibited figurative representations in its subject churches, ca. 306 - but simply because at that time statues and the like were inextricably associated with paganism, and many of the faithful were but recent converts therefrom…
 
40.png
spiritblows:
Why don’t Protestants display the crucifix? Are they against it? I get the feeling that it makes them nervous. Is there a theological reason behind this?
Click to expand...

It took the Church almost 600 years to do so - the earliest non-abstract depiction of the Crucified is from a Syrian Gospel-book of 586, though the unadorned Cross was used in Rome for processional purposes as early as 398 - so it’s not exactly surprising if Protestants do not.​

It’s not difficult to think of reasons against the use of crucifixes - the early churches had plenty; which is why they were so slow to use the crucifix proper. The naturalistic Crucifix took even longer to develop: the early kinds emphasised the victory of the Cross, or the Royal Priesthood of Christ - not His sufferings on it. Which is why the Old English poem “The Dream of the Rood” envisages Him as a warrior. IIRC, the Crucifix which shows the suffering of Christ (more or less) naturalistically is a 13th-century development.

One has to bear in mind the numerous, and thorny, theological & dogmatic problems inherent in depicting a crucified man Who is also God - for designing a “naturalistic” crucifix implies that specific solutions have been found for a great many theological questions such as:
  • whether Jesus of Nazareth is really God
  • whether the Incarnation is a fact in history or a tale of just the kind told among the “Gentiles”
  • whether His sufferings were real, or simply appearances
  • Whether Jesus could suffer in the first place
  • Whether Gentile Christians are bound to the observance of the Ten Commandments, specifically the first two; and if so, in what sense; and whether in perpetuity or not
  • and many more of the same kind. ##
 
BrianH said:
Deu 4:16 Lest ye corrupt [yourselves]
, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

The Bible is full of references to graven image.
BrianH
Click to expand...

So how do you explain the bronze serpent and the golden cherubim that I referenced above, according to your interpretation?
 
40.png
BrianH:
Lischou,
They cannot kill…he has. They cannot create graven images…he can. I suppose is an option. I am probably the wrong person to discuss a literal interpretation of the Torah however. I think it would offend him, you differ, 🙂
Click to expand...
You’re still avoiding the question. God didn’t materialize these things out of thin air… he specifically commands MEN to build these statues by their own ability. It’s right there in scripture.
 
40.png
exoflare:
You’re still avoiding the question. God didn’t materialize these things out of thin air… he specifically commands MEN to build these statues by their own ability. It’s right there in scripture.
Click to expand...
Not intending to at all. Let me try again.
If God wants people to build something he can order that.
If God whats to order men to build something that contradicts any of his laws…he can.
I see a difference
God did not order anyone to make graven images of Jesus.

Im not sure how much more I need to cover, I will proceed.
I do not, have not, will not, literalize stories from the Torah that are mythology or midrashic accounts, if you buy a literal Adam, Even, etc more power to you, I do think that is one of the reasons Christ came when he did, to free Judaism of its increasing literalism due to…well that is a long story. , as a Gentile, I think the NT clearly teaches how much of the OT we need to follow. It is useful for sure…when I … back to the question.
I think a good Jew like Jesus would be opposed to a graven image.
I think the NT contains what the church should be…and that does not directions to hang a cross or a crucifix.
Im trying here…hey it is just my opinion, you guys can do whatever you want…you have your reasons. I dont think he would like it. Ask him someday…
Brian
 
40.png
BrianH:
Not intending to at all. Let me try again.
If God wants people to build something he can order that.
If God whats to order men to build something that contradicts any of his laws…he can.
I see a difference
God did not order anyone to make graven images of Jesus.

Im not sure how much more I need to cover, I will proceed.
I do not, have not, will not, literalize stories from the Torah that are mythology or midrashic accounts, if you buy a literal Adam, Even, etc more power to you, I do think that is one of the reasons Christ came when he did, to free Judaism of its increasing literalism due to…well that is a long story. , as a Gentile, I think the NT clearly teaches how much of the OT we need to follow. It is useful for sure…when I … back to the question.
I think a good Jew like Jesus would be opposed to a graven image.
I think the NT contains what the church should be…and that does not directions to hang a cross or a crucifix.
Im trying here…hey it is just my opinion, you guys can do whatever you want…you have your reasons. I dont think he would like it. Ask him someday…
Brian
Click to expand...
the only problem with ‘graven images’ is when they are worshiped as god, the trinity, the creator of the universe. images in catholicism are not, thus they are not prohibited. they would be prohibited if you were going to worship the image as a god as early pagans did.
 
40.png
BrianH:
the use of the crucifix is a much later tradition…
🙂
BH
Click to expand...
Are you quite sure about that?
1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. (Gal 3:1)
Click to expand...
 
One argument that I have heard is that while both the empty cross and the crucifix point to Christ’s redemption of the human race, the crucifix places too much emphasis upon Christ AS DEAD. The empty cross at least hints at an empty tomb, suggests that it was not only by Christ’s death by by His rising that He has given hope to mankind.

At one point there was also concern that displaying a human form upon the cross encouraged pious devotion towards that image. The empty cross, by virtue of being more abstract, gives less place to this. Remember that the veneration of images and of saints was a major issue during the Reformation. Protestants wanted to reform this practice, but not all Protestants wanted to wholly eschew the use of all symbollogy altogether. As Thomas Howard pointed out, this probably isn’t even possible to do. Even worshipping in a plain, unadorned building suggests that the worshipper wishes to emphasize the transcendance of God. Even worshipping in a barn suggests the worshipper wishes to emphasize God’s immanence in everyday life, in even the common things of life. Protestant reformers, recognizing this, were simply selective in the images they chose to retain and how they chose to utilize those images.
More than anything else however I think it is just the way the Catholics and Protestants began distinguishing themselves from one another, with no particular rhyme nor reason.
 
As one who grew up worshipping Christ in “plain, unadorned buidlings” - and yes, even in barns - I can assure everyone that it did not ever signify to me the “transcendence” or the “immanence” of the Divinity.

It signified Nothing At All, and really amounted to nothing more or less than an abuse of Human Nature itself, which is both spiritual AND material, and which demands modalities of worship which nurture both the spiritual and material aspects of that nature. It was, too, a deformation of authentic Christianity, which is an inherently Incarnational religion.

The protestant “reformers” - better, “deformers”, “revolutionaries”, “insurrectionists” -
were not interested in signifying the transcendence or immanence of God - they were interested in violently destroying what they conceived to be idols and idolatry. (Cf., e.g., Zwingli)
 
During my Internship at a Catholic Hospital,my Clinical Instructor then, told us, his interns,that he has learned that the previous night,a father,who was obviously anti-RC,vehemently asked the Nurse to remove the crucifix that was hanging against the wall, behind his birthing wife’s bed.He stated, that he didnt want his baby to see it when he is welcome to this world.Anyway,the baby was born blind!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top