How to react when God sends his lightening bolts against your graven images? Rio's answer seems to be repair it: (link).
Let's hope that they get the message more quickly than the Philistines did!
1 Samuel 5
1And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod. 2When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon. 3And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the LORD. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again.
4And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the LORD; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him. 5Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day. 6But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof. 7And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god.
8They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines unto them, and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? And they answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about unto Gath. And they carried the ark of the God of Israel about thither. 9And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts.
10Therefore they sent the ark of God to Ekron. And it came to pass, as the ark of God came to Ekron, that the Ekronites cried out, saying, They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to us, to slay us and our people.
11So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again to his own place, that it slay us not, and our people: for there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there. 12And the men that died not were smitten with the emerods: and the cry of the city went up to heaven.
Praise be to the God who is not worshipped with the works of men's hands, as though He needed anything,
-Turretinfan
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
15 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
Hey... I guess I haven't been to your actual blog in a while. ... living in reader land... Nice new look!
ReplyDeleteYou might be interested in RC Sproul's radio message (from 2/9/08) on the Jerusalem Decree (gentile converts vis a vis food sacrificed to idols, etc). link
In it, he tangents on the history of images (including Calvin's statements on the matter).
A statue of the Incarnation is something that might be somewhat debatable as to whether it is a graven image of God. Truly, it is an image of the GodMan, but then, it is not an image of The Son... there is a difference.
Hi TJ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
I'm puzzled by your attempt to distinguish between the Godman and the Son.
If your point is just that graven images are insufficient to convey the entirety of Christ, I fully agree.
But that's even true of statues of mere men. Take the statue of Admiral Lord Nelson for instance: link.
-Turretinfan
How exactly is Rio supposed to be repairing it when the storm "did not damage the statue"?
ReplyDeleteNice picture, though.
No, that wasn't my point. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I agree that no image of anything can convey the entirety of that thing. However, my point was that it seems that an image of Jesus Christ-- provided that one does not bow down before it and worship it-- is not an idol.
ReplyDeleteThe Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, is Spirit and cannot be seen. The Second Person is infinite.
The Incarnation of the Son is flesh, is human, is finite, has been seen.
Therefore, it would seem that making an image of the Godhead (Father, Son, or Spirit) or any Person therein is both impossible and derogatory to Him.
However, making an image of Jesus Christ the Incarnation, is hypothetically possible (for he has been seen, even if the artist hasn't seen him) and no more derogatory than a statue/painting/etc of any other person.
By the way, TF, I have read your comment definition links. If you have rejected my original comment for one of the reasons you posted, I am at a loss to understand which one. As a friend, I would appreciate your guidance if I have transgressed something.
ReplyDeleteTJ,
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure you'll find that the second commandment explicitly forbids not only the worshipping of, but even the making of representations of God.
Christ is God.
Therefore, making (and not only worshipping) representations of Christ is forbidden.
Christ's divinity is an objective reality. Thus, I would not make an exception for say, an Ebionite, who fails to acknowledge Christ's divinity.
Maybe I'm still missing your point, though. Maybe your point is that the artist is portraying Christ as a man. If so, I'm not sure how that helps.
-Turretinfan
TJ,
ReplyDeleteNo - I held your original comment because I thought it would be confusing.
My not publishing people's comments doesn't mean that they have transgressed anything.
Sometimes it just means I need more time to respond.
-Turretinfan
HO,
ReplyDeleteI think that when I originally posted the link, the article had different wording - as the damage report per my memory was different. Perhaps I misread the article originally, though.
In any event, it would not have been the first time the statue has been repaired:
(link)
-Turretinfan
I do not intend to cast any doubt as to Jesus Christ's divinity. Neither do I suggest that Christ's human nature and his divine nature are any way separate.
ReplyDeleteI point out merely that because he was also human, that making an image of him the man (which is all that one would be able to do anyway), seems to be a different ball of wax than trying to make an image of the eternally spiritual Son (Second Person).
So yes, my point is that if the artist is portraying "Christ the man who walked the historical earth", then this is not the same as if the artist were trying to portray the divinity of Christ.
Again, I have my doubts regarding the artist's intent with the statue at Rio. The mere enormity of the statue (i.e., "larger than life") tends to make me think that the artist was attempting to capture Christ's divinity. (But as said, there is a small chance that the artist was merely advertising in a large way the Christian foundation of the city).
Dear TJ,
ReplyDeleteI don't think the two are separable in view of the Incarnation.
There's really no reason to portray Jesus at all, except for who is: God in the flesh.
-Turretinfan
Thanks, TF.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of any possible comparison between icons and idols arises as clearly as daylight from this short and simple passage of Holy Scriptures. Yet Your eyes are blinded and do not see that Light.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of comparison is obvious? What an odd claim.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between icons and idols is largely arbitrary and/or imaginary.
-TurretinFan
Tell it to Moses and Samuel! :)
ReplyDeleteThere is no need, Lucian.
ReplyDeleteNeither of them would imagine such a difference.
Nor would any of the prophets or apostles.
-TurretinFan