No Graven Images...

[The Righterzpen]

I've read though this entire thread and I don't think anything anyone has said (as justification on either side of the fence) isn't something I've never heard before. And certainly some people have made some very good points!

The thing that keeps jumping out at me though is in Revelation where it talks about people worshiping the beast. Now there are almost as many interpretations of what the beast is, as there are answers over what idolatry is - fact still remains though; they are "worshiping" the beast and his "image".

Now the point I'd like to make about this is that no one today believes they are worshiping the beast; (regardless of what anyone's interpretation of it is) no one believes that they are (or will be) worshiping the beast.

The Scripture says the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; so I would conclude that there's a lot of deception going on about who or what is defined as an idol and what exactly is worship. (Maybe generally the "if it walks like a duck..." argument.)

He became seen when He became flesh, so Christ can now be depicted, and He is.

I did study this "don't make a graven image" command and came to a similar conclusion as @truefiction1 did (minus the "being depicted or not" as actually being the issue).

I came to the conclusion that they were commanded not to make a graven image because He who actually was God would show up on the scene eventually. So why hypostulate (is that even a word?) what God would be, or "properly represent" Him as by making images; when eventually you will be confronted with the genuine article. That interpretation of how the incarnation and the Old Testament interplayed made the most sense to me.

Now as to the argument of "no one knows what He looked like"?

I think on one level that is irrelevant. Adam was created "in the image of God"; that God was Christ. And so thus I don't think it's unusual at all, that probably every ethnic group on this planet has come up with their own interpretation of what Jesus might have looked like if He'd been one of them.

Fact of the matter is, that God still came in human form. And though even from the realm of Sci-Fi; I've seen humanoid extraterrestrial depictions of Jesus (which if one entertains the idea of life on other planets) invariably raises the question of what does "created in the image of God" mean? But that's the subject of a different thread. LOL

The matter of the fact remains that no one has depicted Jesus as a dog, or a bird, or a cow, or even a cross or a fish; (which invariably entails part of this command of not making graven images of things above the earth, on the earth, under the earth.... etc.) So I do think there is validity to the argument that "the depiction is not Jesus". This is absolutely true.

And in regards to this; it's also valid and fair to say that those who saw Jesus in the flesh would have obviously remembered what He looked like for the rest of their lives. So, when ever they sat down to write, or talk to someone about the subject; I'm sure the memories played in their mind the same way they play in ours. Thus they had "an image" in their heads that was based in "how ever real" memories are. And I'm sure God did not define that as "idolatry".

The question now becomes what constitutes "worshiping the image"? (Which in this regard "the cart" defines "the horse". Not that one created an idol to worship, but their worship has now defined the object as an idol.) And this is where I think @Grip Docility & @Jason0047 make very valid points with their following statements.

We are in the time where people now worship in Spirit and Truth.

The Ark of the Covenant, and the serpent on the pole were never meant to be things that were permanent.

And this point @SaintCody777 brings up; although most of us would say this is "extreme" it's also valid. The Amish and Mennonites are indeed correct. Those are "images". Just as other people have brought up the fact that there were "images" on the ark (and people did bow before it) and "images" in the temple etc.

This is not applying to all images. I know that the Amish take this commandment to the extreme to forbid ALL images to the point that even the dolls are faceless. And even a group of Mennonites had fought in a court in Canada to not have their images on their driver's licences.

And here I think @Oscarr has "hit closest" to truth as it applies to believers. I find these statements are certainly useful in our practical application of how do believers relate to the command of not making idols. Yet, on account of Jesus being "the lamb slain from the foundations of the world" also applied to believers on the OT side of history too.

Jesus is still at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us, and He will not appear in person until He comes again with all His saints.

These counterfeits can be very persuasive, and are usually believed by those who believe that God can give "new Scripture" through "revelation"

@Oscarr - I think you are "dead on" in this regarding people thinking they are "receiving revelation". I tend to be skeptical of anyone who comes up to me and says "Oh, this (miraculous) thing happened...." As I'm of the opinion that the truly miraculous is really in regards to redemption. For frankly let's face it; it's not miraculous from God's perspective at all, for Him to be able to manipulate the material world. It's redemption that actually "cost" God something.

Do you not believe that Paul had an encounter with Jesus before He was saved?

When this happened in Acts 9; no one "saw" Jesus. And all the other places in the New Testament where "visions" of Jesus took place post ascension; these people all stated that they were "in heaven".

No place in Scripture post ascension does Jesus "appear" on the earth. And the reason I believe that is, is because to do so would destroy the cosmos.

In the OT we have records of "theophanies". We don't see that in the NT though, because of the position of Christ as now reigning King, as He relates to the created universe in linear time. When He does make an appearance; it is "the end" because a corrupted universe can not coincide with God's glorified physical presence.

Now do people have dreams, what they perceive to be visions, or other such things concerning Jesus that can be used of God in relation to that person's redemption?

Yes, I believe that can and does happen; but are they "miraculous" and "prophetic" dreams and visions as the like that are recorded in the Scripture?

No they are not.

Why?
That has to do with the closing of the canon; which is a different subject altogether.

 

[Albion]

So He can do it if He wants then...

How does this stack up with what you said here...

He can do anything he wants. That doesn't mean he has chosen to do anything and everything mortals would like to believe that he did.

 

[Barney2.0]

That's the same stretch it's always been, but you clearly will only see what you were told to believe.

Why am I arguing? I was hoping to help you see, but it's clear can that won't be happening.

Without evidence yes it’s clear I won’t see your point, because false premises can’t be proven.

 

[Barney2.0]

Of course.


Lets use common, less extreme, examples of worship and see where we stand.

Those are the main examples of worship that God condemned repeatedly in the Old Testament that was being given to pagan deities. God constantly tells and reminds us that only he grants salvation and is fit to have sacrifice.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Without evidence yes it’s clear I won’t see your point, because false premises can’t be proven.

Do I need evidence the sun rises once a day?

Bowing is bowing, falling on ones face in the dirt, is falling on ones face in the dirt. It's you who have not proven that wrong, something anyone can see would not be possible.

Like i said, if you won't listen to God, then you won't listen to me.

 

[Albion]

Those are the main examples of worship that God condemned repeatedly in the Old Testament that was being given to pagan deities. God constantly tells and reminds us that only he grants salvation and is fit to have sacrifice.

Limiting yourself--or ourselves--to those acts has the effect of whitewashing the matter since relatively few instances of worshipping images or saints, go that far. Meanwhile, what IS done continues to be an issue, a concern.

 

[Jipsah]

Bowing is bowing, falling on ones face in the dirt, is falling on ones face in the dirt. It's you who have not proven that wrong, something anyone can see would not be possible. Like i said, if you won't listen to God, then you won't listen to me.

In Korean churches we bow to just about everyone we meet and aren't mad at (and sometimes even the ones we're mad at). Does that constitute worship?

 

[Kenny'sID]

In Korean churches we bow to just about everyone we meet and aren't mad at (and sometimes even the ones we're mad at). Does that constitute worship?

It doesn't matter, God had the wherewithal to cover that in detail.

Here's the scripture again, and take a very close look at the wording in bold:

Ex 20:3 You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol of any kind, or an image of anything in the heavens above, the earth below, or the waters under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them;

So, to answer your question, no, that would not be worship, why do you ask?

 

[Barney2.0]

Limiting yourself--or ourselves--to those acts has the effect of whitewashing the matter since relatively few instances of worshipping images or saints, go that far. Meanwhile, what IS done continues to be an issue, a concern.

It’s not white washing because that’s what worship is, I believe Anglican Churches have images in them aswell. No one worships image in Church as far as I know.

 

[Barney2.0]

Do I need evidence the sun rises once a day?

Bowing is bowing, falling on ones face in the dirt, is falling on ones face in the dirt. It's you who have not proven that wrong, something anyone can see would not be possible.

Like i said, if you won't listen to God, then you won't listen to me.

Falling before something in the dirt is bowing, falling on dirt and falling before something in dirt isn’t the same thing. you haven’t really quoted anything that supports your position on iconoclasm, meanwhile I have provided evidence both from the Bible and outside of it that shows ancient Israelites used icons and images in worship as we see in the synagogue and in the Bible. I suppose you represent God in this argument?

 

[Kenny'sID]

you haven’t really quoted anything that supports your position on iconoclasm,

Show me where i indicated a position on that so i can sort out if I need to support it in the first place.

, meanwhile I have provided evidence

Saying falling on our face in the dirt constitutes bowing is not evidence, it's you saying something is true with no proof.

 

[Barney2.0]

Show me where i indicated a position on that so i can sort out if I need to support it in the first place.



Saying falling on our face in the dirt constitutes bowing is not evidence, it's you saying something is true with no proof.

You say that all religious imagery is Idolatry I’ve been asking you to support that position from either the Bible or from the early Church. I said falling on our face before something is bowing or prostrating, I said that very clearly, please don’t twist my words.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You say that all religious imagery is Idolatry I’ve been asking you to support that position from either the Bible or from the early Church. I said falling on our face before something is bowing or prostrating, I said that very clearly, please don’t twist my words.

And as I already asked, i'm asking you to show me where I 'say" that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I said falling on our face before something is bowing or prostrating, I said that very clearly, please don’t twist my words.

Not sure where you think i twisted your words, because that which you speak of wasn't a quote, it was what you were essentially saying.

And that's the point i keep trying to make, you only "said" you offered proof.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I've read though this entire thread and I don't think anything anyone has said (as justification on either side of the fence) isn't something I've never heard before. And certainly some people have made some very good points!

The thing that keeps jumping out at me though is in Revelation where it talks about people worshiping the beast. Now there are almost as many interpretations of what the beast is, as there are answers over what idolatry is - fact still remains though; they are "worshiping" the beast and his "image".

Now the point I'd like to make about this is that no one today believes they are worshiping the beast; (regardless of what anyone's interpretation of it is) no one believes that they are (or will be) worshiping the beast.

The Scripture says the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; so I would conclude that there's a lot of deception going on about who or what is defined as an idol and what exactly is worship. (Maybe generally the "if it walks like a duck..." argument.)



I did study this "don't make a graven image" command and came to a similar conclusion as @truefiction1 did (minus the "being depicted or not" as actually being the issue).

I came to the conclusion that they were commanded not to make a graven image because He who actually was God would show up on the scene eventually. So why hypostulate (is that even a word?) what God would be, or "properly represent" Him as by making images; when eventually you will be confronted with the genuine article. That interpretation of how the incarnation and the Old Testament interplayed made the most sense to me.

Now as to the argument of "no one knows what He looked like"?

I think on one level that is irrelevant. Adam was created "in the image of God"; that God was Christ. And so thus I don't think it's unusual at all, that probably every ethnic group on this planet has come up with their own interpretation of what Jesus might have looked like if He'd been one of them.

Fact of the matter is, that God still came in human form. And though even from the realm of Sci-Fi; I've seen humanoid extraterrestrial depictions of Jesus (which if one entertains the idea of life on other planets) invariably raises the question of what does "created in the image of God" mean? But that's the subject of a different thread. LOL

The matter of the fact remains that no one has depicted Jesus as a dog, or a bird, or a cow, or even a cross or a fish; (which invariably entails part of this command of not making graven images of things above the earth, on the earth, under the earth.... etc.) So I do think there is validity to the argument that "the depiction is not Jesus". This is absolutely true.

And in regards to this; it's also valid and fair to say that those who saw Jesus in the flesh would have obviously remembered what He looked like for the rest of their lives. So, when ever they sat down to write, or talk to someone about the subject; I'm sure the memories played in their mind the same way they play in ours. Thus they had "an image" in their heads that was based in "how ever real" memories are. And I'm sure God did not define that as "idolatry".

The question now becomes what constitutes "worshiping the image"? (Which in this regard "the cart" defines "the horse". Not that one created an idol to worship, but their worship has now defined the object as an idol.) And this is where I think @Grip Docility & @Jason0047 make very valid points with their following statements.





And this point @SaintCody777 brings up; although most of us would say this is "extreme" it's also valid. The Amish and Mennonites are indeed correct. Those are "images". Just as other people have brought up the fact that there were "images" on the ark (and people did bow before it) and "images" in the temple etc.



And here I think @Oscarr has "hit closest" to truth as it applies to believers. I find these statements are certainly useful in our practical application of how do believers relate to the command of not making idols. Yet, on account of Jesus being "the lamb slain from the foundations of the world" also applied to believers on the OT side of history too.





@Oscarr - I think you are "dead on" in this regarding people thinking they are "receiving revelation". I tend to be skeptical of anyone who comes up to me and says "Oh, this (miraculous) thing happened...." As I'm of the opinion that the truly miraculous is really in regards to redemption. For frankly let's face it; it's not miraculous from God's perspective at all, for Him to be able to manipulate the material world. It's redemption that actually "cost" God something.



When this happened in Acts 9; no one "saw" Jesus. And all the other places in the New Testament where "visions" of Jesus took place post ascension; these people all stated that they were "in heaven".

No place in Scripture post ascension does Jesus "appear" on the earth. And the reason I believe that is, is because to do so would destroy the cosmos.

In the OT we have records of "theophanies". We don't see that in the NT though, because of the position of Christ as now reigning King, as He relates to the created universe in linear time. When He does make an appearance; it is "the end" because a corrupted universe can not coincide with God's glorified physical presence.

Now do people have dreams, what they perceive to be visions, or other such things concerning Jesus that can be used of God in relation to that person's redemption?

Yes, I believe that can and does happen; but are they "miraculous" and "prophetic" dreams and visions as the like that are recorded in the Scripture?

No they are not.

Why?
That has to do with the closing of the canon; which is a different subject altogether.

Just to say thanks for the effort you have put into drawing all the threads together.

For what it is worth I will clarify an aspect of my description of what happened when I saw Jesus. It was not a physical body. it was face to face but His whole radiant person was like suspended in the room had appeared suddenly spoke and was gone. This might be more correctly classified as a vision, I'm not too sure.

 

[Barney2.0]

And as I already asked, i'm asking you to show me where I 'say" that?

Your implying that use of religious imagery in worship is Idolatry.

 

[Barney2.0]

Not sure where you think i twisted your words, because that which you speak of wasn't a quote, it was what you were essentially saying.

And that's the point i keep trying to make, you only "said" you offered proof.

I said that falling on ones face before something is prostration, I emphasize on the words “before something.” I didn’t say putting your face on the ground means your bowing to something. I don’t need proof to say that falling before something is prostration, it’s common sense.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your implying that use of religious imagery in worship is Idolatry.

Still, after asking you to show me the things you claim I said, as well as prove the things you claim, you are still just claiming an not showing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I said that falling on ones face before something is prostration, I emphasize on the words “before something.” I didn’t say putting your face on the ground means your bowing to something. I don’t need proof to say that falling before something is prostration, it’s common sense.

And I told you mine was not a quote, nor was it intended to be a quote. Do you not remember that?

It's common sense it you choose to believe it, but no, in reality, it's far from that.

 

[Barney2.0]

Still, after asking you to show me the things you claim I said, as well as prove the things you claim, you are still just claiming an not showing.

I’m claiming that you implied it not said it directly, the fact your still arguing against my stance means you uphold the position of iconoclasm.