Graven images of Jesus

[RileyG]

Iconoclasm is heretical, because the core of Iconoclasm is a denial of the Incarnation.

-CryptoLutheran

agreed.

 

[RileyG]

Do you have pictures of your family or friends? Is that a graven image as insult to God because they are made in the image and likeness of God?

Icons and statues reminds us of heavenly things.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jesus died in 33 AD, paintings drawn hundreds of years later are just guessing,

That completely misses the point. Icons aren't literal depictions.

there is nothing in the Bible that allows us to worship a man made image of Jesus, it is not accurate to do so.

Then I recommend not worshiping images of Jesus. I don't. Neither do any other Christians. If you think those of us who use icons are worshiping them, then you are very mistaken.

Those paintings are not Jesus

Of course they aren't Jesus.

those are offensive and scary.

You are free to whatever opinion you so choose to hold. But nobody here is beholden to your subjective opinions and feelings. And long before you and I were even a glimmer, the Church of Jesus Christ already had this debate, and the conclusion was that Icons are not idols, and the difference between the two is enormous.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RickReads]

That completely misses the point. Icons aren't literal depictions.



Then I recommend not worshiping images of Jesus. I don't. Neither do any other Christians. If you think those of us who use icons are worshiping them, then you are very mistaken.



Of course they aren't Jesus.



You are free to whatever opinion you so choose to hold. But nobody here is beholden to your subjective opinions and feelings. And long before you and I were even a glimmer, the Church of Jesus Christ already had this debate, and the conclusion was that Icons are not idols, and the difference between the two is enormous.

-CryptoLutheran

But Crypto its a lot of fun picking on Catholics for their choices in decoration. I got some rocks in my pocket I'm just itching to throw.

 

[jamiec]

you can call it "Icons" or "we don't worship it" but it is still graven image and idolatry forbidden by the word of God Bible, why would anyone believe anything outside of the Bible which is the word of God, that is idolatry!

The teaching of Jesus, when first spoken, was not in the Bible. Neither were the sermons or letters of the Apostles. Neither was the Book of Revelation.

Most things are not mentioned in the Bible. Penicillin, Ibuprofen, Mogadon, Ritalin, Xanax, daisies, anthracite, nature reserves, books on paediatric medicine, speeding fines, Keynesian economics, international law, the Geneva Conventions, pure mathematics, Old High German, the futhark, chocolate ice cream, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Hadramaut, peregrine falcons, lion-taming, depth charges, Oxford University, haggises, Scotch pies, tiramisu, linguine, fettucine, the Mason-Dixon Line, palanquins, hookahs, isosceles triangles, the works of Aristotle, Neo-Platonism, the Plimsoll Line, Samarkand, the Jaxartes River, polypropylene, electricity, central heating, Bath buns, Eccles cakes, pasties, linoleum, mosaics, showers, rugby football, lacrosse, tennis, rounders, soccer, sky-diving, roller skates, ice skating, hamsters, computers, iPads, birthday cakes, shopping lists, domestic cats, and very many other things, are absent from the Bible.

The list of 27 books that all Evangelicals accept as Holy Scripture, is not in itself given in Scripture. Jesus never said anything about "letters of Paul", not even to say they would be added to (what Christians call) the Old Testament. All indications from the Gospels are that He was entirely satisfied with the books of the OT. There is not a hint of the addition of any additional "New Testament" books; the books of the NT could be used as purely human works, neither God-breathed nor in any way on a par with the books of the OT. That could in principle have occurred - in practice, the churches & the Church chose differently, with no Biblical warrant for doing so. Like Jesus, and the Apostles, they greatly respected Scripture, & quoted, echoed, and drew upon it for ideas and imagery; but, like Jesus & the Apostles, they were not confined by it.

The only "new testament" Jesus ever spoke of, was this one: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" - Matthew 26:28 This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

None of these objections tell against Sola Scriptura, other than that Sola Scriptura is not itself named in Scripture either. They all tell against Nuda Scriptura - which is not the doctrine of the Protestant Confessions.

 

[The Liturgist]

It was not the idol being worshiped, but the deity it represented.

That’s not true, actually. If we look at Pagan religions, past and present, including Hinduism and Shinto, which both represent continuing traditions of idolatry that predate the birth of Christ, as well as the ancient religions of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica, we see a standard pattern in which the idol is actually worshipped, that is to say, given ritual service, as a physical manifestation of the deity it depicts. This is why sacrifices of animals and other foodstuffs, milk, saffron, honey, incense, libations, and other things are made before them, exactly like the sacrifices made to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the Temple in Jerusalem, where there was no idol, only an Ark, which contained the fragments of the tablets on which a written representation of the Word was engraved by God.

This Ark symbolized the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was chosen and consented to be the Mother of God, for the Word was conceived in her Womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was born, and became Imanu-El, God With Us, our incarnate Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

And because He became incarnate we can depict Him, as we would depict any man, because He is fully human, indeed, He is more human than you or I ever will be in this life; and He is also fully God, enabling us to become saved through partaking in the divine nature.

Thus, it becomes imperative that we depict Christ in icons, although these are icons, not idols; we do not worship them, nor do we worship the saints or our relatives. Only God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is worthy of worship and adoration. However, our loved ones and those Christians who have left this world but are alive in Christ, with whom we will be reunited and who will be numbered among the faithful at the dread day of judgement, we should venerate, just as we should venerate icons of Christ out of respect for His incarnation, which changed everything.

I would also note that historically, Judaism had iconography, in addition to that mentioned in the Bible, such as the winged cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant. We know this from the excavated synagogue at Dura Europos, which featured beautiful frescoes of Old Testament events, which, like the nearby house church which dated from roughly the same era, was destroyed by barbarians from ISIS. Hopefully archaeologists will find another, hopefully in Israel or another country more secure from Islamist violence.

 

[The Liturgist]

Iconoclasm is heretical, because the core of Iconoclasm is a denial of the Incarnation.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree, for the reasons given at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD.

 

[dani'el]

dani'el said: ↑
It was not the idol being worshiped, but the deity it represented.​

That’s not true, actually. If we look at Pagan religions, past and present, ..., we see a standard pattern in which the idol is actually worshipped, that is to say, given ritual service, as a physical manifestation of the deity it depicts. ...

Which is what I just said.

 

[prodromos]

Which is what I just said.

So you claim the idol wasn't worshipped, but agree that it was? You can't have it both ways.

 

[BNR32FAN]

why are there falsely so many unbiblical graven images of Jesus in so called church buildings, online, in memes, and wherever else that has Jesus as white with long blonde/gold hair (long hair is a sin for a man 1 Corinthians 11:14) and they always have him doing some kind of unbiblical hand sign, we don't even know what that means, what is going on there?

Where are you finding these pictures of Jesus? I have never seen a blond Jesus before.

 

[BNR32FAN]

why are there falsely so many unbiblical graven images of Jesus in so called church buildings, online, in memes, and wherever else that has Jesus as white with long blonde/gold hair (long hair is a sin for a man 1 Corinthians 11:14) and they always have him doing some kind of unbiblical hand sign, we don't even know what that means, what is going on there?

Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:”

Statues of so called saints and bible figures or anyone else alive or dead is a sin, graven image and idolatry, some even falsely claim they see statues moving or crying, or even bleeding! yet when it comes to images of Jesus so many people still falsely use unbiblical images of a made up Jesus online and this is falsely accepted that Jesus was white blonde long hair. why?

how do we know what Jesus looked like? even if there is a true and accurate depiction out there among the thousands that is still a violation of Gods written commands to use any depiction of Jesus any color, race, ethnicity it is all a sin, graven image and idolatry, and very offensive.

(Now I want to clearly state that I in no way endorse this false new age depiction of Jesus circulating around online, that is very offensive and false as well.)

The word “image” in Exodus 20:4 is translated from the Hebrew word pasal which only refers to idols not all pictures or statues. In verse 3 God commanded “you shall have no other gods before Me.” This does not refer to pictures or statues of Jesus this is referring to making and worshiping false gods. Pictures and statues of Jesus does not fall into that category.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You have quoted Ex 20:4 out-of-context. I assume deliberately for the purpose of furthering you own agenda.

Exodus 20:4-5
(4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
(5) Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;​

These two vss. are not separable. The making of an image, in and of itself, is not prohibited. The making of an image for the purpose of bowing down and worshipping the image is prohibited.
Israel was commanded to make images of cherubs and place them on the Ark of the Covenant. After the Israelites rebelled while Moses was on the mountain they were commanded to make the image of a serpent place it on a staff and look at it to prevent them from being killed by snakes.

Amen not to mention that verse 3 should also be included in that message to emphasize that the point was that the Israelites should have no other gods before Him.

 

[dani'el]

So you claim the idol wasn't worshipped, but agree that it was? You can't have it both ways.

It was worshiped as a representative of the god it represented. It was a channel, a physical touchstone to bring the worshiper closer to the god it represented, and to bring the god closer to the worshiper. As I pointed out earlier, God said we were not to worship Him like that. It's a pagan practice, and not of God. We are privileged to come directly to our God either to worship or petition Him. Jesus Himself told the Samaritan woman we would worship Him "in spirit and in truth." Our faith should obviate the need of a physical representation to come before His presence. Now, do I believe what I say?

Well, actions speak louder ... . When I became convicted of this I destroyed about $300.00 worth of leather stamps. I used to make leather cases and tool bags for people. I could carve, but didn't really like it. So I traded a belt tool holder for a press and invested in a lot of stamps they could choose from. But I threw them out, along with several things I had made. One was a round waterproof case with a large, beautiful Thunderbird carved on it. Others just had stamps which I defaced. The stamps left raised images of things they should not have, so both stamp and the item had to go. And that was just the beginning- medals and devices from my military service, items from my service with the ambulance crew which had the Staff of Asclepius emblem- I had a really good but complex belt tool holder that I used for light veterinary work with livestock after they said no more leather on ambulances. But it had the emblem, so I defaced it. That was hard, because even after hard use it was a very nice piece of work. But since faith without works is dead, I did it. You get the picture. I do believe, and act on that belief, even though it cost me in those and many more ways.

Worship as you like, but you are bringing "strange fire" before the Lord when you incorporate idolatry into your service. And it is sin to do so in everyday life. God said so through His prophet Moses. If that doesn't convince you then who am I to say thee nay? Go for it; do as you please. But trying to convince me is a waste of time, I promise.

 

[prodromos]

Well, actions speak louder ... . When I became convicted of this I destroyed about $300.00 worth of leather stamps. I used to make leather cases and tool bags for people. I could carve, but didn't really like it. So I traded a belt tool holder for a press and invested in a lot of stamps they could choose from. But I threw them out, along with several things I had made. One was a round waterproof case with a large, beautiful Thunderbird carved on it. Others just had stamps which I defaced. The stamps left raised images of things they should not have, so both stamp and the item had to go. And that was just the beginning- medals and devices from my military service, items from my service with the ambulance crew which had the Staff of Asclepius emblem- I had a really good but complex belt tool holder that I used for light veterinary work with livestock after they said no more leather on ambulances. But it had the emblem, so I defaced it. That was hard, because even after hard use it was a very nice piece of work. But since faith without works is dead, I did it. You get the picture. I do believe, and act on that belief, even though it cost me in those and many more ways

You bring to mind Romans 10:2 "zeal without understanding". Your mindset towards images hardly differs from that of Islam.

 

[dani'el]

You bring to mind Romans 10:2 "zeal without understanding". Your mindset towards images hardly differs from that of Islam.

Ooooh, the dreaded Islam analogy. And not into using scripture in sniping attacks. So you "win."

James 4:11 ESV Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.

 

[prodromos]

Ooooh, the dreaded Islam analogy.

Not an analogy, just stating a fact.
Based on your interpretation of the Scriptures, you would have removed all the images in the temple, many of which were "graven images". According to your interpretation, God instructed the Jews to break one of the 10 commandments multiple times when decorating the temple. Is that what you believe?

 

[The Liturgist]

Which is what I just said.

What you appeared to say was that the idol was used as an object for relating to the deity, like an icon, whereas what I said, and what is the truth of the matter, is that idols were understood to be locally present manifestations or avatars of the deity that were worshipped directly, with sacrifices both akin to those offered in the Temple and also sacrifices not offered in the Judeo-Christian religion, for example, human sacrifices.

Icons are not worshipped; Christians who use icons, such as Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Moravians, Roman Catholics, Congregationalists and others, venerate them, and do not offer sacrifices to them. Indeed Lutherans deny that any sacrifice is offered to God during the Divine Liturgy, rather, they see the Liturgy as Gottesdienst, that is to say, God offering Himself to us.

Continuing on this theme, the Eastern and Orthodox Orthodox regard the Eucharist as the essential Christian sacrifice, to the extent that the Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic terms for the Divine Liturgy are Qurbono Qadisho and Soorp Badarak, meaning Holy Sacrifice, but this sacrifice is best understood from this quote from the Epiklesis, or prayer of consecration, from the Anaphorae, or Eucharistic Prayers, of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Byzantine form of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, “Thine Own of Thine Own, we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all, and for all.” Which is to say, the sacrifice of the Eucharist is an anamnesis, a re-presentation or recapitulation, somewhat poorly translated as remembrance in the KJV, of the sacrifice of Christ our God on the Holy Cross.

This understanding of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist is stressed still further in the traditional Scholastic Roman Catholic theology of the mass, in which it becomes the role of each priest to offer the daily sacrifice of the mass and the laity is obliged to assist, at a minimum on Sunday, partaking of the Eucharist, but also, there is a uniquely Western Catholic tradition of Eucharistic adoration: since the Eucharist does become the actual body and blood of Christ our God, it can be the subject of adoration without constituting idolatry, and consequently Roman Catholics and Anglican Catholics engage in this practice (whereas the other denominations I have mentioned, while believing in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, do not adore the Eucharist or carry the Eucharist aloft in processions but rather partake of the Eucharist directly, reserving some, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, for the communion of the sick and for the Liturgy of the Presanctified during Lent and Holy Week).

Finally there is the Memorialist interpretation most popular among Baptists, who even in the case of Reformed Baptists, tend to shy away from the Calvinistic doctrine of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist in favor of either a Zwinglian symbolic interpretation of the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, or a Memorialist interpretation, in which Baptism is in memory of the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan and the Lord’s Supper is in memory of Him, especially His saving Passion and Resurrection. Thus we can see the Eucharist forms a continuum. And one will find beautiful stained glass windows and painted icons in Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches. And one will not encounter any idolatry in any of them.

And of course we have these churches represented in this very thread by @prodromos and @HTacianas of the Eastern Orthodox, @RileyG and @jamiec of the Roman Catholics, @Jipsah of the Anglicans
, @Der Alte of the Baptists @ViaCrucis and @MarkRohfrietsch of the Lutherans, and @dzheremi and @Pavel Mosko of the Oriental Orthodox.

 

[The Liturgist]

Worship as you like, but you are bringing "strange fire" before the Lord when you incorporate idolatry into your service.

There is no idolatry in the worship service of the Eastern Orthodox Church or any other traditional Christian denomination mentioned in this thread. I know of only one parish of an ostensibly Christian, but very far left, denomination, in the US, that is engaging in actual idolatry, which I documented in my thread on problematic parishes in Denomination Specific Theology, but that’s because they’re worshipping a gilded image of a Greek goddess. I regret they are a part of an otherwise Nicene, Trinitarian denomination and not the Unitarian Universalist Association where they belong, but that is a strange and isolated case, and the only reason that parish survives in an otherwise doctrinally orthodox denomination is because most people in that denomination haven’t heard of it or are unaware of the full scale of what is occurring.

But that strange anomaly is an aberration, and it is also not Eastern Orthodox, of which @prodromos is a member, and I can attest there is no trace of idolatry in the Eastern Orthodox church. Indeed the worship of icons is prohibited by the same canons of the Second Council of Nicaea that require the veneration of icons.

Now, as far as your decision to deface your military medals and leather-working stamps is concerned, I find that to be a confusing act. Christianity does not call for it, Judaism, Samaritanism and mainstream Islam certainly does not call for it, which is why Jewish American soldiers and Israeli soldiers proudly wear their military decorations and Jewish businessmen use trademarks, and Jewish doctors and Christian doctors use the Rod of Asclepius on its own, and Paramedics use it likewise, by itself and on the six-pointed Blue Paramedic Cross, and also often use the Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Star of David as regulated by the International Association of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Citation needed, or retraction and apology. You won't be able to provide the former, so I hope the latter will be forthcoming.

Yeah it is funny the game of telephone that gets played when it comes to ancient Church history....

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ooooh, the dreaded Islam analogy. And not into using scripture in sniping attacks. So you "win."

It's also historical fact. Iconoclasm was a product of the influence of Islam. Specifically certain Christians, including Christians of major influence such as Emperor Leo were of the opinion that the reason why Rome was losing against the Muslim armies was because Muslims didn't have any images at all. You see, at this time in history most Christians still thought of Islam as a Christian heresy, rather than as a fully distinct religion in its own right, and so Muhammad was not condemned as a non-believer, but as a heretic. Which is also why, historically, Christian sources called Islam "Muhammadism", in the tradition of naming heresies after their founder.

So when Leo tried to enforce his Iconoclastic views, and given their ultimate source (Islam, not Christianity), it shouldn't be shocking that Christian pastors and theologians took a stand against Iconoclasm, even in spite of the fact that it was forced upon Christians by those in positions of political power. Ultimately resulting in the Second Council at Nicea, which is also the Seventh Ecumenical Council as accepted by the vast majority of Christians.

James 4:11

ESV

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.

Aren't you the one engaging in judgment against your brothers when you falsely accuse us of idolatry?

Icons are not depictions of the Divine. In fact, according to the Second Council of Nicea images of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were expressly forbidden for this very reason. It is contrary to the commandment of God to make images of God. But images of Christ are about images of God Incarnate. God, in His Essence, has no form--and therefore cannot be depicted. But God the Son, in becoming human of the Virgin Mary, is truly human and with visible, tangible, human form. Thus when we depict the Son of God, we depict Him in the flesh.

And what do the Scriptures say? They say that Jesus Christ is the very ICON of God.

Colossians 1:15
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
"Who being the Icon of the invisible God, the Chief of all creation."

We can't depict the invisible God, but we can depict the invisible God made visible in Jesus Christ--because it's Jesus. God DOES have an image, a form, it's the Incarnate God-Man, Jesus Christ our Lord.

-CryptoLutheran