Did the early Christians venerate images?

If one wants to be make the case that "God in human flesh" is violation of the Ten Commandments -- if that was what God was trying to get people "not to do" then first the case has to actually be made exegetically.

Go to Exodus 20 and "show" that this is what the text is speaking to --

THEN and ony then can we talk about " a lessening" of that restriction. For now you seem to assume the part of the argument that needs to first be proven.

in Christ,

Bob

 

He wasn't an image. He was God himself. We worship God, not an image. It is wrong to make an idol, something of wood and stone. Christ wasn't an image. He was God. Do you deny that Christ was God, Matt?
Do you believe that a crucifix or other images in the RCC have the same deity as Christ does?

 

Well, I said I wouldn't post again until after the Christmas season, but I thought I'd add a Scripture passage for discussion.

From the OT...

"Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of an fish that is in the water beneath the earth." Deuteronomy 4:15-18

From the NT (these verses having already been mentioned)...

"He is the image of the invisible God" Colossians 1:15

"Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Corinthians 4:4

Regarding Christ, John talks about how they had seen, heard, and handled the Word of Life which was manifested to them (1 John 1:1-3), and also that the Word became flesh and dwelt among them and that they beheld His glory (John 1:14).

For Discussion:

What is the significance about God not revealing a "form" on Mt Horeb (at the institution of the Law)--and how it relates to Him not allowing a depiction of Him--compared with God manifesting Himself in the Word Incarnate who could not only be heard, but also seen and handled (at the institution of grace--John 1:17)?


Does this comparison have any bearing on whether God (the Word) can now be depicted, since He indeed made Himself visible in Christ?


And given how holy objects such as the Ark and Tabernacle/Temple were treated with such reverence, how then should we treat the pictures of Christ or of those glorified saints who have become the very partakers of the divine nature in Christ (2 Peter 1:4)?

Is it okay to kiss such pictures, like some do to those of close relatives?
Why or why not?

Would it be okay to kiss the Bible? Why or why not?

Conversely, would it be okay to spit upon pictures of Christ or His saints? Would it be okay to spit upon the Bible? Why or why not?

And would you personally spit on pictures of Christ or the on the Bible? Why or why not?

 

Follow Up Questions:

Often in biblical times, folks would "bow" to each other (and to their king in particular) as a sign of respect. Do you think these folks were able to distinguish the act of bowing for honorand respect from the act of bowel for worship? Why or why not?

 

At Mt. Horeb they were commanded not to make an image--an idol out of wood or stone, in the likeness of God.
Christ is God. He is not simply the manifestation of God; He is God, and therefore all worship is due Him. We are commanded to worship Him because He is God. He is not simply a representation of God; He is deity. Do you deny that? For that reason we bow down and worship He who is King of kings and Lord of lords. He is not an idol made of wood or stone. He is God come in the flesh. One cannot take away from his deity simply because he came in the flesh.

No, He cannot be depicted. Representations cannot be made of Him, for He is still God. The Ten Commandments still hold true. Thou shalt not make any graven image or bow down to it. Besides that you have no idea what Christ looked like do you. So whatever image you made would be just another lie. (See this is what Christ looked like--liar) You have no idea what Christ looked like.

God commanded them to treat them with reverence for in the OT they were holy, and made holy by a holy God.

These pictures or images are not holy they are profane, secular and sin. You do not know what Christ looked like so every time you put forth an image of "him" you create a lie. Pictures do not become the partakers of the divine nature--what foolishness is that?? Images are forbidden in the Ten Commandments.

That is worship and idolatry.

I believe that is Bibliolatry--the worship of a book. There are many well meaning Christians that do it. Their intentions may be good, but misplaced.

No, riots have been started this way. People have been killed by actions of this sort, and that just recently. It is sad that believers in nations like India and Pakistan where Christians have much more respect for the Word of God than believers in so-called civilzed nations do. It is the Bible, the book, and what it stands for. It stands for the very words of God, not just letters on a page.

Never! For the reasons given above.

 

So you see no relevance in the relationship between the reason given for the prohibition of images in the OT (Deut 4:15) and the fact that reason no longer applies historically in the arrival of Christ--who Scripture calls not only the image of God (Col 1:15) but the form of God (Phil 2:6)?

Granted, but Scriptures also call Christ the image of God. There's no contradiction between Christ being God and Christ being the image of God.

Indeed, and in His flesh He was seen, hear, and handled (1 John 1:1-3) in contrast to on Mt. Horeb where no form was seen, only a voice was heard (Duet 4:15)

Yet He became a visible flesh and blood human in the Incarnation (again in contrast to having no visible form at Mt Horeb).
Do you deny the realness of His humanity? Or do you deny the unity of His Person?

Do you worship on Saturday? Do you ever do any type of work on Saturday?

So you think it's impossible for folks in antiquity to have preserved in paintings or sculptures an image of what a historical personage looked like? Why or why not?

So you would forbid all pictures of Jesus Christ--in paintings, children's books, film, etc?

The glorified saints aren't made holy by God?

Oxen in the temple (1 Kings 7:25)--were they not images?
Cherubim on the Ark (and in the Temple)--were they not images?

Really? When a person kisses a picture of relative whom he loves and misses he is "worshipping" and committing "idolatry"?

So merely kissing a book is worshipping a book?
The Jews kissed the Torah--were they worshipping a book?
I kiss my wife and children--am I worshipping them in so doing?
What if I kissed their picture--would I be worshipping them then?
(How would you know?)

So, in a similar way, would a picture of Christ stand for Christ, and not just be assorted pigments on paper?

Why would you "never!" spit on an image (picture) of Christ if such a picture was just "a lie" (in your words), and was just "profane, secular, and sin" (in your words)?

 

Ohhh, so lets say I’m a Marine in Iraq and I’m about to lead a convoy of medical supplies and a picture of my wife and kids I carry on me, I take out and kiss before I head out is considered “worship” and is “idolatry”? Give me a break! So I guess I shouldn't kiss my wife…it would be considered “to lust after”?

Hmmmm…I guess the designer of the Tabernacle and the Temple didn’t get the memo…

ICXC NIKA
-

 

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
This sets the context of the Ten Commandments which you deliberately avoid or are ignorant of.
Is your wife an image of God, or is she God? Do you bow down to her as God? Is the image that she represents God? If it is God, in your mind, then yes you are committing idolatry, and should not treat your wife as deity. (Some men do idolize their wives).

They did. They never worshiped the tabernacle. Chapter and verse please.
These were never images made in God's image. -[/quote]

 

No I don't deny Christ was God; but the inescapable fact is that the Pauline Scriptures referred to on this thread also call Him an icon.

 

No the Scriptures don't. You choose to use that definition, but the Scriptures don't. That is not the one and only meaning of that word. In fact it isn't even the meaning of the word at all. It is the root of the English word icon. It is where icon comes from. It is not the meaning of the word in Greek. So you are sadly mistaken. Get your facts straight. You don't get to pick and choose at random, according to your own pre-conceived theology the definition of any given word (especially when it isn't even the actual definition). The Pauline Scriptures NEVER refer to Christ as an icon. That is just absurd.

 

How did people come up with the image of an Angel?

How did people come up with the image of an Angel?

Now and days we go to the stores and also see in many homes pictures of Angels? Does the word of God describe how Angel's look like. Do they have wings?

 

Would you prefer 'image', then? If not, how then would you translate
eikon?

 

On Images: A capsule of the argument by John of Damascus in On the Orthodox Faith:

But since some find fault with us for worshiping and honoring the image of our Saviour and that of Our Lady, and those, too, of the rest of the saints and servants of Christ, let them remember that in the beginning God created man after His own image. On what grounds, then, do we show reverence to one another unless it is because we are made after God's image? For as Basil, that much-versed expounder of divine things, says, the honor given to the images passes over to the prototype. Now a prototype is that which is imaged, from which the derivative is obtained. Why was it that the Mosaic people honored on all hands the tabernacle which bore an image and type of heavenly things, or rather of the whole creation? God indeed said to Moses, "See that you make them after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain" (Ex 25:40) The cherubim, too, which overshadow the mercy seat, are they not the work of men's hands? What, further, is the celebrated Temple at Jerusalem? Is it not handmade and fashioned by the skill of men?

Moreover the divine Scripture blames those who worship graven images, but also those who sacrifice to demons. The Greeks sacrificed and the Jews also sacrificed: but the Greeks was rejected and condemned, but the sacrifice of the just was every acceptable to God. For Noah sacrificed, and God smelled a sweet savor, receiving the fragrance of the right choice and goodwill towards Him. And so the graven images of the Greeks, since they were images of deities, were rejected and forbidden.

But besides this, who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed, formless God? Therefore to give form to the Deity is that height of folly and impiety. And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not common. But after God in the depths of His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly man, and after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again, and was taken back to heaven, since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. But seeing that not every one has a knowledge of letters nor time for reading, the Fathers gave their sanction to depicting these events on images as being acts of great heroism, in doubtless, when we have not the image of Christ's crucifixion, His saving passion is brought back to remembrance, and we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, nor the material of the icons, but that which these typify.

For wherein does the cross, which typifies the Lord, differ from a cross that does not do so? It is just the same also in the case of the Mother of the Lord. For the honor which we give to her is referred to Him who was made of her incarnate. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us up to be brave and to emulate and imitate their valor and to glorify God. For as we said, the honor that is given to the best of fellow servants is a proof of goodwill towards our common Lady, and the honor rendered to the image passes over to the prototype.

John of Damascus: On the Orthodox Faith

PS: sometimes it is constructive to go to 'First Sources' and simply let them speak for themselves.

 

[FONT=&quot]

The literal translation is "likeness." However in every translation I looked in the word was translated "image." No translation gave "icon," and the word "icon" is not even given in the definition. Definitions are not necessarily derived from their etymology, not always.

This is Vine's Word Studies. Vine emphasizes the aspect of "image." He is a prototype. He comes into this world "in the form of God."

This is from A.T. Robertson.

It seems as if he is saying that Christ is the one who represents God the Father--the stamp of God the Father. He was before the Incarnation.


In no way do any of these definitions have anything to do with an icon.

 

I've been following this thread and if I may add: To say that "Icon" is a proper translation of eikon is committing the etymological fallacy.

1. "Icon," rather than saying it is a translation, is really a transliteration. For example, baptism is not a translation but a transliteration of baptismos.

2. DHK is correct in saying that we cannot determine always the meaning of a word from its etymology.

Also, I see the danger of committing the anachronistic fallacy, which is reading back a later meaning to an early usage of a word---no reliable lexicon supports "icon" for eikon.

 

The etymology really isn't that important (although I do take your point) - the point is that, in Jesus Christ, God now has a 'likeness', 'representation' or 'image', notwithstanding and in contradistinction to the Old Covenant prohibition on images and likenesses. My question is, what implications does this have for the use of images and icons etc under the New Covenant?

 

Both Seraphim and Cherubim are described in scripture.

6 wings for Seraphim
4 wings for Cherubim

http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/topics/cherubim.htm

The Angels God described for the ark fo the covenant had only two -- they should have been Cherubim so not sure if 2 or 4

 

The same prohibition stands, and has always stood.
Thou shalt not make unto me any graven image. Thou shalt not bow down unto them. The context of course is God. To make an image of God (whether of the Father of the Son) is wrong. I believe it is wrong to have such things, not only like graven images (crucifixes), but also pictures of Christ. They also are images of Christ. I would leave a nativity scene without a child in it, perhaps just the cloth that he was supposedly wrapped in. But generally speaking we don't have nativity scenes at all. I am speaking hypothetically, as if, I were to have a nativity scene.
However in the above scene if a person were to come and bow down before it (because of Mary or even the manger and what it supposedly represents), I would take it down immediately. Bowing down and praying before images is wrong. That is what the heathen do. Behind every image that is prayed before (as an idol) is a demon.

 

As for the “graven image” of Exodus 20:4: what God was forbidding was idolatry: making a stone or block of wood God. The Jews were forbidden to have idols (like all their neighbors had), and God told them not to make an image of Him because He revealed Himself as a spirit. The KJV and RSV Bible versions use the term graven image at Exodus 20:4, but many of the more recent translations render the word as idol (e.g., NASB, NRSV, NIV, CEV). Context makes it very clear that idolatry is being condemned. The next verse states: “You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (NIV, NRSV).

In other words, mere blocks of stone or wood ("them") are not to be worshiped, as that is gross idolatry, and the inanimate objects are not God. This does not absolutely preclude, however, the notion of an icon, where God is worshiped with the help of a visual aid.

Idolatry is a matter of disobedience in the heart towards the one true God. We don't always need an image to have an idol. Most idols today are non-visual: money, sex, lust for power, convenience, our own pride or intellects; there are all sorts of idols. Anything that replaces God as the most important thing in our life and the universe, is an idol.

Idolatry is also a “heart issue.” It's all about what is going on interiorly, just as lust is. One can lust without having a person of the opposite sex right in their vision. The heart is always key in Christianity.

The frequent objection and opposition to veneration of images is as silly as saying that a person raising their hands towards God in worship and praise during church is worshiping the ceiling. That person may not have an image of God in their mind, but they use the symbolism of "upwards" as being directed towards God (yet God is everywhere, so they could just as correctly stretch their arms downward or sideways).

We are physical creatures; God became man, and so by the principle of the Incarnation and sacramentalism, the physical becomes involved in the spiritual. Icons and images are based on these presuppositions.

 

You are in error.

#1. Animism is what you are describing above AS IF this is the "only form of idolatry that exists". And that is error. The other kind -- the more common kind - is the same kind practiced by the RCC.

#2. In Hindu cultures for example - the wood is NOT god -- rather the wood is merely an ICON that STANDS for god - representing a god to be prayed to and worshipped - you know... just like the RCC does.

I work with a lot of Hindu's and never met one that said that they think the marble, the wood, the stone ITSELF is the god in whose image it has been carved.