In the course of the comments on a previous post (link to post), I had asked:
What about the prohibition on picturing God? -- Why does that prohibition not apply to pictures of Jesus?
The response I got from one of my Eastern Orthodox readers was this:
"Because on Sinai we saw no image. In the Incarnation, we did."
This is sort of a standard response from the Eastern Orthodox, and I had tried to anticipate it somewhat in the post, although I wasn't dealing with an Eastern Orthodox person in the post. There are several responses:
1) There were theophanies before the Incarnation.
There were theophanies, appearances of God, prior to the Incarnation. Those theophanies were around both before Moses (see where the Lord visits Abraham in Genesis 18), and after Moses (see where the Lord appears in the fiery furnace with Daniel's three friends in Daniel 3).
So, the significance of the absence of the image on Sinai is not that no one ever saw God in a form before the Incarnation. There was no form shown to the people of Israel on Sinai, but there were other forms shown. Even closer to Moses, both Jacob (wrestled with the Lord in Genesis 32) and Joshua (who met with the Lord, see Joshua 5) saw God in human form.
2) We have not seen Jesus.
Jesus is presently in heaven. The apostles, other disciples, and even the unbelieving Jews saw Jesus. We did not. There are no detailed explanations of what Jesus looked like in the Scriptures, and while some Eastern Orthodox seem to think they have access to some kind of authentic tradition of what Jesus looked like, those stories are not credible.
3) There is greater significance to "for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire" than just that they did not know what God looked like
I am referring specifically to this:
Deuteronomy 4:15-19
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.
Notice that there are two things prohibited - making something that is supposed to be a likeness of God, and worshiping/serving anything other than God (even the sun, moon, and stars).
I'd like to suggest that the point about not seeing God's form, is that what is significant is that there was no form seen when God was explaining how He is to be honored. Thus, creating a form of God would be an example of something that adds to the law of God.
There are two Sola Scriptura verses in Deuteronomy that specifically provide for a limitation on innovation.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Keep in mind that the context of each of those passages supports the point I'm making.
In the first instance:
Deuteronomy 4:1-8
Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you. But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
Basically, in context, God is saying "do exactly what I say, neither more nor less." Furthermore, Deuteronomy 4:2 is in the context of the prohibition on images that we're discussing. Specifically, the linking verses are verses 9-14:
Deuteronomy 4:9-14
Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons; specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.
Notice that in this context, of solemnly insisting that the people keep God's law, God reminds them of the particular day on which the law was given. That day is the day that is then referred to when it comes to the question of making representations of God.
Just as there was no image of God shown to the people so that they would have a pattern after which to illustrate him on the day of Horeb, so also we are not given an image of God (of any person of the Godhead) that is to serve as an illustration so that we may try to show a likeness of God today.
We see no similitude, only words, just as the people of Israel saw no similitude, they only received words.
The same sort of thing is true with respect to the other passage from Deuteronomy 12.
Deuteronomy 12:28-32
Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God. When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Again, God is commanding that people do exactly what he commands, not adding to it or taking away from it. In particular, here, he forbids innovation in the form syncretism or borrowing. In other words, God explicitly tells people not to model their religious life after that of the nations around them, but simply to follow the word of God.
We are not given a portrait of Jesus in the Bible, just as the Jews were not given an image of God on the day the law was given. The same principle that applied then, applies now, notwithstanding the Incarnation.
-TurretinFan
Friday, July 30, 2010
23 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.
TF,
ReplyDeletewould you exegete the Exodus 24 passages I cited in the earlier thread where you are responding to Steve Hays?
It would serve me well to have a better clarity to my position. I am cautious that mine may not be on the mark as it should?
I have expressed as clearly as I can, so far, that I can see an "evangelistic" reason for drawing a cartoon, such as the one depicted in the Triablogue thread posted by Patrick, with some written words in it to convey a Gospel message or idea. My only caveat to that would be that if I drew a cartoon and published it as an evangelism of the Gospel and then found out it was offensive to someone, the Jew, the Gentile or the Church, then it would be my duty to apologize to them and retract the cartoon if it was wise and fruitful to do so?
The combination of a cartoon character or two or more coupled with a writing, a message, as that cartoon in question does, it seems to me, would become an enhanced version of these Words from Proverbs and Ephesians:
Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.
Eph 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles--
Eph 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you,
Eph 3:3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly.
Eph 3:4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ,
"There are no detailed explanations of what Jesus looked like in the Scriptures, and while some Eastern Orthodox seem to think they have access to some kind of authentic tradition of what Jesus looked like, those stories are not credible."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, it's mere self-serving EO mythology that they have some inherited "inside knowledge" on what Christ really looked like.
To take just one obvious example - why do EO icons depict Jesus having long flowing hair, which apostle Paul declares a shameful thing for men to have? (1 Corinthians 11:14)
(The concept of long-haired Jesus probably originated from the image of pagan philosophers and holy men, through unconscious imitation - a case of mild syncretism.)
Now, I have seen the suggestion that Christ was a "Nazirite" and thus could have had long hair. But if He was a Nazirite, then how could He have acquired a reputation as a "glutton and winebibber"? (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34) He specifically contrasted Himself to John the Baptist who really was a Nazirite ascetic.
Theophanies or visions of God in various forms do not mean that the Godhead has a form.
ReplyDeleteThe Holy Spirit is neither a dove, nor tongues of fire, for instance.
But an actual body is not *simply* a Theophany: Christ did NOT remain an un-incarnate, spiritual, purely-divine being, merely APPEARING under the form of a man (as the Docetists taught).
Lucian, you're right. I don't see how that helps you, though, because theophanies are equally capable of being sketched as Jesus himself was. Or do you disagree?
ReplyDeleteWe have not seen Jesus.
ReplyDeleteNeither did the Jews who worshipped in the Temple of Solomon see actual Cherubim -- yet there were images of Cherubim there...
I'm not opposed to drawing cherubim, without some further abuse taking place.
ReplyDeleteWhy not, since you haven't exactly seen any Cherubim either?
ReplyDeleteI don't have problem with drawing created things, unless someone is claiming that the created thing is God. I claim that Jesus is God, so a drawing of a man that is supposed to be a drawing of Jesus, I would have a problem with. Any other man, even one we've never seen (like Jesus' mother Mary), I have no problem depicting.
ReplyDeletetheophanies are equally capable of being sketched as Jesus himself was
ReplyDeleteThey would've believed that God actually had such a form, as depicted. -- But when God takes on or puts on an actual human body, the same confusion does not occur.
Remember the Dura-Europos church and synagogue? To my knowledge, the ancient Jewish icons there, while depicting OT scenes, did not depict God in human form.
Any other man, even one we've never seen (like Jesus' mother Mary), I have no problem depicting.
ReplyDeleteThen you gave a wrong reason in your post, when stating that you *DO* have such a problem.
Luka,
ReplyDeleteYou may have misread the post. I'm not sure what else to tell you. I don't see my contrary statement in the post. So, unless you can quote it to me.
As to "They would've believed that God actually had such a form, as depicted. -- But when God takes on or puts on an actual human body, the same confusion does not occur."
The icons of Jesus don't show his actual form. They are just imagined. And even if they did accurately depict his human nature, they would still not show his divine form. They would be a depiction of his human nature separate from the divine. Or do you disagree?
"Remember the Dura-Europos church and synagogue? To my knowledge, the ancient Jewish icons there, while depicting OT scenes, did not depict God in human form."
Both of those buildings are unique for the era - not much to base one's views on. Nevertheless, neither has an images that attempt to portray God according to a similitude.
And yes, the Jews do not now (and didn't following the return from exile) draw pictures of God.
-TurretinFan
They would be a depiction of his human nature separate from the divine. Or do you disagree?
ReplyDeleteThey don't depict His soul either; nor are the souls of the saints depicted in their icons either. (Obviously). And yet you said that you have nothing against depicting saints or angels...
The icons of Jesus don't show his actual form. They are just imagined.
ReplyDeleteThey're not "just imagined". Why do you think that all icons of Christ (or of very many other saints, for that matter) show the same face? From church tradition, as well as from appearences of the risen Christ to holy men for the last 2,000 years, we know of no other face.
neither has an images that attempt to portray God according to a similitude
ReplyDeleteThe church does have icons of Christ depicting scenes from the NT... if that's where you were getting at.
Luka:
ReplyDeleteThe icons don't all show the same face.
- TurretinFan
I think Benny Hinn saw that same face...I think he's EO:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um3-sHbGoCI
Show me the ones who according to you don't.
ReplyDeleteViisaus wrote, "To take just one obvious example - why do EO icons depict Jesus having long flowing hair. . ."
ReplyDeletePerhaps: "His head is as very fine gold, his locks are flowing, black as a raven." (Brenton Septuagint, Song of Solomon, 5:11).
"Pendulous" hair, says John Gill:
ReplyDelete". . .his locks [are] bushy, [and] black as a raven; which figures are used to set forth the beauty and comeliness of Christ: thick, bushy, well set hair, or "pendulous", as some render the word, hanging down upon the forehead and cheeks in a beautiful manner, makes very comely. . ." (John Gill's Exposition of Song 5:11).
http://www.freegrace.net/gill/
Fredericka,
ReplyDeleteThat is not likely to be the reason. The passage isn't usually viewed as being literally about Jesus Christ, even if it may be figuratively about him.
Additionally, few (if any) of the icons depict Jesus with either "black as raven" or golden hair.
Luka, next time you go to your church, compare the image of Jesus' face above the main door of the church and the Pantocrator image on the dome of the ceiling with the image of Christ to the right of the royal doors and on at the right hand icon stand / side altar. Typically there will be some differences between those faces, I think. Perhaps at your church all four look the same.
- TurretinFan
I hope you didn't think that I've been going to church my whole life and not payed attention to the icons... yes, they all look the same. -- Can you give some links to some pictures, to know what you have in mind?
ReplyDeleteLucian,
ReplyDeleteSince I'm opposed to the images in the first place, I'm not thrilled about linking folks to them. I'll think about it, and perhaps link them later.
And, of course, perhaps I'm thinking of the differences I've seen in RC iconography/statuary. Perhaps I'm misremembering the EO churches I've been in.
-TurretinFan
Link to them, and then delete the comment after a week or so, ok?
ReplyDelete