Does My Avatar Violate the Second Commandment?

[~Anastasia~]

The Byzantine Emperor Leo III forbade icons because of Muslim influence?

Leo III, byname Leo The Isaurian (born c.675, –680, Germanicia, Commagene, Syria—died June 18, 741, Constantinople), Byzantine emperor (717–741), who founded the Isaurian, or Syrian, dynasty, successfully resisted Arab invasions, and engendered a century of conflict within the empire by banning the use of religious images (icons).

From his biography in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Leo III | Byzantine emperor

 

[Tom 1]

I think Jesus’ words in John 7:24 are applicable here, taken as a general principle. In Ancient Near Eastern religions the ‘gods’ were believed to actually be present in their idols, in the same way they were believed to live in their temples. I don’t think any Christians believe that God ‘lives’ in a church, although he is present there, and in the same way it’s not a Christian belief, or not one that I’ve come across anyway, that Jesus ‘lives’ in an image that represents him. An image is an image, an idol is an idol, they’re not the same thing, and God isn’t a legalist.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If it's worth knowing, we believe St. Luke the physician created the first image of Christ, along with a number of other images.

"We" do not believe Luke would make nor use nor approve any graven images nor idols nor any such images.

Also, the "rules" in iconography are incredibly precise of how Christ is supposed to be drawn

The "rules" of Scripture from Yahweh forbid it completely.

But icons are actually not supposed to be realistic depictions. They are supposed to convey spiritual truths

Most people are very heart-stricken and repentant if they ever find out the truth about icons, and have nothing more to do with them. Or , they deny the truth , their consciences get more seared and hardened, and they just go on as if everything is okay.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think Jesus’ words in John 7:24 are applicable here, taken as a general principle. In Ancient Near Eastern religions the ‘gods’ were believed to actually be present in their idols, in the same way they were believed to live in their temples. I don’t think any Christians believe that God ‘lives’ in a church, although he is present there, and in the same way it’s not a Christian belief, or not one that I’ve come across anyway, that Jesus ‘lives’ in an image that represents him. An image is an image, an idol is an idol, they’re not the same thing, and God isn’t a legalist.

Well said.

And welcome to CF!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

An image is an image, an idol is an idol, they’re not the same thing, and God isn’t a legalist.

Oh, not a legalist? K, but God does forbid images and idols. Period.

 

[Tom 1]

Well said.

And welcome to CF!

Thanks!

 

[DamianWarS]

There are Presbyterians and Presbyterians.

Ok, then why does this group you identify as different make no issue with depictions of Christ in art forms within the church such as in stain glass windows but do make issue with this avatar. What values are they identifying here that are OK or not OK

 

[~Anastasia~]

"We" do not believe Luke would make nor use nor approve any graven images nor idols nor any such images.

Your charges notwithstanding, please accept my apologies for using "we". I was speaking to another member about the history of iconography, since it seemed relevant. And by "we" I meant Orthodox (I usually do mean that, and often qualify it - please forgive me if it caused you any concern that I failed to do so this time).

The "rules" of Scripture from Yahweh forbid it completely.

The rules of Scripture quoted -

4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them or serve them;

ANY LIKENESS of anything in heaven or on earth or in the water. That has been "completely forbidden" to make such things?

And yet God commands ...

You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat.

Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twisted linen and blue and purple and scarlet material; you shall make them with cherubim

You shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet material and fine twisted linen; it shall be made with cherubim, the work of a skillful workman.

You shall make on its hem pomegranates of blue and purple and scarlet material, all around on its hem, and bells of gold between them all around: 34 a golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, all around on the hem of the robe.


There were also the 12 bronze bulls under the laver in Solomon's temple.

I really think we should be able to at least agree that God's prohibition was not against images (of anything in heaven, on earth, in the sea) being made, and used in the worship carried out in the Tabernacle and Temple.

You have a completely illogical conclusion in using that command to forbid all images. That would mean God directly ordered a violation of His commandments, and of course He did not.

 

[Almost there]

I thought that was obi-wan kenobi in your avatar...

 

[Tom 1]

Oh, not a legalist? K, but God does forbid images and idols. Period.

Yes, but Jesus also expects us to think about what he means when he speaks, what is the actual point of the teaching, in the context of the bible and now. These are a couple of the relevant passages:

“You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved 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, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God’

And

The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house.

In the historical context (and maybe in some religions today), people were actually making things from wood, metal, stone etc that they believed actually were gods, that some god actually lived in the thing made and could be carried around, put in a house etc. They were worshipped as gods, treated as gods, in all respects as if they were actual gods. This practice provoked God’s jealousy, anger and even incredulity, as here:

“Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, “Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.” From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, “Save me! You are my god!””

Isaiah 44:16-17 NIV

The reasons for this are obvious; people actually believed they were making gods, actual gods, and they were turning away from the true god to worship these things that they made. Pictures like the avatar being discussed here just aren’t the same thing. It’s a picture of a young guy with a beard and long hair, because that is generally what we tend to think Jesus probably looked something like. The picture isn’t Jesus, it’s not supposed to be Jesus, it’s just a vague representation of him that I don’t think anyone believes is imbued with any kind of status as deity. To my mind, to see that as idolatry is just thoughtless religious dogma, that, moreover, clouds the original message about actual idolatry.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As long as Yahweh says make no images, I will listen to Him.
This is in His Word also, without any dispute, with no doubt.
Naturally, the world does not go along ......
This too is in His Word.

 

[eleos1954]

It has been pointed out to me that my avatar is a violation of the second commandment against idolatry and images, based on the Presbyterian Westminster Catechism (Questions 108-110). This seems to be a misapplication of the Westminster standards and a misinterpretation of the second commandment. Am I wrong? If so, how?

The image posted, I can not view in its "full form" and do not know what the words say.
However, regarding the 2nd commandment,

 

[~Anastasia~]

As long as Yahweh says make no images, I will listen to Him.
This is in His Word also, without any dispute, with no doubt.
Naturally, the world does not go along ......
This too is in His Word.

If your conscience is violated, my brother, you are right to make no images. It is important to follow one's conscience. Even a lawful thing becomes sinful if practiced against conscience.

But I have another concern. It is also potentially damaging to one spiritually to be scandalized continually by one's brothers and sisters in Christ. If we were all sharing meat at table, we could avoid eating meat that might scandalize another. However, in a worldwide forum with many members, and everything continually in public view and archived even, it is impossible to respect the sensibilities of every person.

If you are going to be offended, I hope you can take a care to yourself. I'm not looking to change your mind on this issue, but you demand to be right even when shown God Himself actually commanded images to be made.

I might not mention this except you have many times replied and written to me about my not abiding by the rules as you see them, and I don't like being in the position of scandalizing anyone, but cannot abandon Truth. Paul did not foresee this total transparency in internet communications when he advised us, and I don't think avoiding all communication is the answer.

God be with you.

 

[HereIStand]

do Presbyterian churches reject depictions of Christ? a quick google search reveals hundreds of Presbyterian churches with Christ depicted in stained glass windows. What is the difference of the values within the church walls vs your avatar according to your conservative Presbyterian friends?

Good question. The Presbyterian church that I attend has a stained glass window depicting Christ. We are part of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I would imagine that some of the more strict Calvinist denominations would not have stained glass windows depicting Christ.

 

[Tom 1]

If your conscience is violated, my brother, you are right to make no images. It is important to follow one's conscience. Even a lawful thing becomes sinful if practiced against conscience.

Good point, I hadn’t thought about it like that, in the light of 1Cor 8

 

[DamianWarS]

Good question. The Presbyterian church that I attend has a stained glass window depicting Christ. We are part of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I would imagine that some of the more strict Calvinist denominations would not have stained glass windows depicting Christ.

If these conservative Presbyterians do indeed reject all images of Christ this certainly your avatar would be consistent with that rejection. I personally don't take issue with images of Christ, even if depicted in a wanted poster, but if a christian group does I can still respect this position so long as it's consistent.

 

[HereIStand]

If these conservative Presbyterians do indeed reject all images of Christ this certainly your avatar would be consistent with that rejection. I personally don't take issue with images of Christ, even if depicted in a wanted poster, but if a christian group does I can still respect this position so long as it's consistent.

I can respect their belief as well. It seems misguided to me. I could be wrong.

In terms of overall consistency though, some Presbyterian churches will only sing the Psalms in worship, because that's literally all that's allowed for based on the Presbyterian confessions. The broader questions are how far does one go to maintain consistency with confessional standards and when do these standards become ends in themselves, supplanting the authority Scripture? I may start another thread on those themes.

 

[eleos1954]

It has been pointed out to me that my avatar is a violation of the second commandment against idolatry and images, based on the Presbyterian Westminster Catechism (Questions 108-110). This seems to be a misapplication of the Westminster standards and a misinterpretation of the second commandment. Am I wrong? If so, how?

**

Can not fully view the "avatar", including the words, however regarding the 2nd commandment.

Exodus 20

3“You shall have no other gods before Me.

4“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Beyond that though: Consider

21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in His steps.

Isaiah

14 And it shall be said,“Build up, build up, prepare the way,remove every obstruction from my people’s way.”

Pray about it.

God Bless

 

[Devin P]

It has been pointed out to me that my avatar is a violation of the second commandment against idolatry and images, based on the Presbyterian Westminster Catechism (Questions 108-110). This seems to be a misapplication of the Westminster standards and a misinterpretation of the second commandment. Am I wrong? If so, how?

I would say so. Those on mount Sinai made a feast to the Lord with the golden calf. They intended that worship of the calf to be given to God, but because it was an idol and not God, much like that's a depiction OF Jesus that isn't Jesus. In my opinion it brakes the command, but that's my opinion. I've done research into it though, and statues of zeus look just like that depiction though. Am I saying that's where it came from? No, but they look like twins, which weirds me out.

We do know for sure that Jesus wasn't white though. He was from the middle east, dark skinned, and almost definitely had a beard (because He kept Torah and Torah urges men to keep the growth of a beard).

 

[HereIStand]

I would say so. Those on mount Sinai made a feast to the Lord with the golden calf. They intended that worship of the calf to be given to God, but because it was an idol and not God, much like that's a depiction OF Jesus that isn't Jesus. In my opinion it brakes the command, but that's my opinion. I've done research into it though, and statues of zeus look just like that depiction though. Am I saying that's where it came from? No, but they look like twins, which weirds me out.

We do know for sure that Jesus wasn't white though. He was from the middle east, dark skinned, and almost definitely had a beard (because He kept Torah and Torah urges men to keep the growth of a beard).

The golden calf was fashioned for the purpose of worship. An avatar isn't considered an object of worship.
It seems natural that art would be influenced by classical art.
If all images of Christ are prohibited, whether He is depicted as white isn't an issue.