Look at this for a while.
Was reading Matthew 5 on Bible Hub. They have topical illustrations representing historical / modern Christian theology.
This picture showed up.
I'm interested in which if any of these interpretations match your interpretations. What is the picture saying? How do we read the picture?
Two different readings of the picture (theological and political) suggested themselves to me.
The theological reading says that (from Christianity's perspective) The Law is a bad thing, a yoke, and that the destruction / nullification of The Law is a desirable thing, much as expressed in Bunyan's famous and influential Protestant text Pilgrim's Progress (incidentally this is one of the most vicious anti-Torah texts ever written; Moses is literally the villain of the story.) Matthew 5 doesn't seem to be the typical chapter to go to, if one wanted to prove the Torah was nullified, especially since it occurs prior to the crucifixion, but then again anti-nomianism doesn't really make sense, and antinomians are able to extrapolate their doctrines from verses that have nothing to do with the law being abrogated.
The political reading also seems possible, however. It could be that the double tablet marked "The Law" is not a symbol of the Torah at large. Rather, it could be making a point about how some people in the USA set up signs or other markers listing the ten commandments, (particularly in front of courthouses where few if any of the commandments are actually enforced,) and that the iconoclastic or secular society is trying to tear down / remove these symbolic markers.
The first interpretation to suggest itself to me was the theological one, now I lean more toward the political one. But it is still inconclusive.
Here's why I am unsure about the political reading:
If the man smashing the double tablet was portrayed in a clearly villainous way I think there would be no doubt that the second reading is the correct one. But the style of the image reminds me of art from the 40's and 50's, and the man in blue jeans wielding a hammer honestly seems like it was excised from some kind of "working man" motif used in a political poster.
He looks like he is supposed to be a masculine ideal or working man hero. He is muscular, his hair is neat, his clothes are clean, basically he doesn't appear to be a symbolic representation of the "evil secular society." But maybe he is?
I can easily imagine the double tablet replaced with say the Berlin Wall and a slogan like "Freedom smashes tyranny" superimposed on the image. My point is that the viewer naturally thinks he is supposed to root for, be on the side of, the guy with the hammer. The very pose of the figure causes the viewer to naturally 'partake' in the movement of the character, to visualize the hammer hitting its target.
Honestly, this is a tour de force of ambiguity. The construction of the figures and the symbol-language naturally tells us that either The Law is bad and deserves smashing, or the guy smashing it is bad. Theologically, from a Christian perspective, the smashing (voiding) of The Law is desirable and a pre-requisite for salvation, so that reading of the picture makes sense, but amazingly, the picture can also be read in almost the opposite way as well, due to the symbolic ambiguity of the hammerer.
Was reading Matthew 5 on Bible Hub. They have topical illustrations representing historical / modern Christian theology.
This picture showed up.
I'm interested in which if any of these interpretations match your interpretations. What is the picture saying? How do we read the picture?
Two different readings of the picture (theological and political) suggested themselves to me.
The theological reading says that (from Christianity's perspective) The Law is a bad thing, a yoke, and that the destruction / nullification of The Law is a desirable thing, much as expressed in Bunyan's famous and influential Protestant text Pilgrim's Progress (incidentally this is one of the most vicious anti-Torah texts ever written; Moses is literally the villain of the story.) Matthew 5 doesn't seem to be the typical chapter to go to, if one wanted to prove the Torah was nullified, especially since it occurs prior to the crucifixion, but then again anti-nomianism doesn't really make sense, and antinomians are able to extrapolate their doctrines from verses that have nothing to do with the law being abrogated.
The political reading also seems possible, however. It could be that the double tablet marked "The Law" is not a symbol of the Torah at large. Rather, it could be making a point about how some people in the USA set up signs or other markers listing the ten commandments, (particularly in front of courthouses where few if any of the commandments are actually enforced,) and that the iconoclastic or secular society is trying to tear down / remove these symbolic markers.
The first interpretation to suggest itself to me was the theological one, now I lean more toward the political one. But it is still inconclusive.
Here's why I am unsure about the political reading:
If the man smashing the double tablet was portrayed in a clearly villainous way I think there would be no doubt that the second reading is the correct one. But the style of the image reminds me of art from the 40's and 50's, and the man in blue jeans wielding a hammer honestly seems like it was excised from some kind of "working man" motif used in a political poster.
He looks like he is supposed to be a masculine ideal or working man hero. He is muscular, his hair is neat, his clothes are clean, basically he doesn't appear to be a symbolic representation of the "evil secular society." But maybe he is?
I can easily imagine the double tablet replaced with say the Berlin Wall and a slogan like "Freedom smashes tyranny" superimposed on the image. My point is that the viewer naturally thinks he is supposed to root for, be on the side of, the guy with the hammer. The very pose of the figure causes the viewer to naturally 'partake' in the movement of the character, to visualize the hammer hitting its target.
Honestly, this is a tour de force of ambiguity. The construction of the figures and the symbol-language naturally tells us that either The Law is bad and deserves smashing, or the guy smashing it is bad. Theologically, from a Christian perspective, the smashing (voiding) of The Law is desirable and a pre-requisite for salvation, so that reading of the picture makes sense, but amazingly, the picture can also be read in almost the opposite way as well, due to the symbolic ambiguity of the hammerer.
