# 2nd commandment, OT cherubim and Icons



## Claudiu (Dec 28, 2010)

**Disclaimer: I'm not making an argument _for_ Icons/Icon "veneration", or anything of that nature**

I had to say that up front because I don't want anybody getting the wrong idea that I'm endorsing Icons. 

With that said, when bringing up the subject of icons with people that "venerate" them, like the Orthodox, and one is to use the argument that icons are a 2nd commandment violation the Orthodox point to various texts to make their own case. Among these texts are Exodus 26 (just six chapters after the 2nd commandment), 1 Kings 6-7, and Ezekiel 41 to show that even though there was the 2 commandment, the Jews in the OT still had images of "the form of anything that is in heaven above" (Cherubims) in the tabernacle and temple. 

What would be the response to the assertion of OT tabernacle/temple images not violating the 2nd commandment, and therefore, neither are the icons in churches breaking the 2nd commandment? 

Is there a difference between the images in the OT and the images, or icons, found in some churches? (OT images were of cherubim and animals, such as bulls, while the icons found in churches are of Jesus, Mary, the Saints and Angels).


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 28, 2010)

I see the 2nd commandment as prohibiting any representation of the Godhead no matter the form. The cherubim were never viewed as diety, thus would not be breaking the 2nd.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 28, 2010)

Yep, that.

The cherubim argument is a silly straw man. The Hebrews were never told to venerate them; they were not worshipped.


----------



## Claudiu (Dec 28, 2010)

Joshua said:


> If one considers both the context surrounding the 2nd Commandment, the Analogy of Scripture, and the holy perfections of God, then one would not, while being intellectually honest and scripturally consistent, think that the fashioning of cherubim by God's command would violate another of his commands.
> 
> ...
> 
> Also, if we consider that other places in Scripture, to which you've alluded, have God commanding the Israelites to make certain images, if we were to interpret the 2nd Commandment the way pro-icon folk do, then we'd have to say that God is commanding them to sin. May no such charge ever truly be made of God's children, for God's holiness is perfection.


 
The pro-icon folk would say that the contradictions appears only because we are reading the 2nd Commandment the wrong way! If we read it to mean, they say, that all images were prohibited there is a contradiction when we see God commanding cherubim on the tabernacle curtains, since they are "the form of...that...in heaven above." So, the EO would assert, then, the 2nd Commandment isn't prohibiting _all_ images, since God commands them six chapters later in Exodus 26, which gets rid of the contradiction. 

How do we reconcile what appears to be a contradiction if we read the 2nd commandment to prohibit _all_ images found in heaven above, yet the tabernacle curtain and Ark of Covenant is to have that exact image on them?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 28, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Forgive me, Brother, but I must be failing to be unclear.


I don't think you are, but I don't think that is what you mean to say.


----------



## Claudiu (Dec 28, 2010)

Is this correct? (I found it doing a google search: Why did God command carved cherubim on the ark when he also said don’t make carved images? | Bible Q)

Question: Why did God command carved cherubim on the ark when he also said don’t make carved images?
God commands the Israelites not to make carved images (Exodus 20:4), but also commands the Israelites to carve images of cherubim on the Ark (Exodus 25). This would appear to be contradictory. However if you read the context of the command, it seems that God is not forbidding images of any sort but forbidding images that are worshipped. “You shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Exodus 20:5). (This would be the same claim that pro-icon EO would hold to). 

Answer: The cherubim do seem to have been there as a visible sign of God’s presence among them. He said he would meet with Israel there, at the ark, and would speak “from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony”. (Exodus 25:22). When establishing the commands for the Day of Atonement, God said he would “appear in the cloud over the mercy seat” (Leviticus 16:2). Being “enthroned on the cherubim” is a title which is applied to God in a number of places as a part of praise and worship of his greatness (e.g. Psalm 80:1; Psalm 99:1; Isaiah 37:16). So obviously the image does have some importance.
However, I think something relevant about the cherubim on the ark is that they were not actually to be seen by the people of Israel, just by God’s chosen representatives. While the people of Israel could have worshipped them, it would only have been by hearsay (unlike the Golden Calf, for example).
The ark of the covenant was to be kept in the Most Holy Place of the tabernacle (and afterwards the temple), and only the high priest went in there once a year on the Day of Atonement, following a carefully prescribed ritual (Leviticus 15). This was very important so that the priests would not be killed by the presence of God.
In the wilderness when the ark was carried it was meant to be carefully covered by the priests (Numbers 4:5 – 6). Even looking at the holy things for a moment could lead to death (Numbers 4:17 – 20). In short the cherubim were not intended to be an image visible to the people or even the priests (though it doesn’t seem these commands were completely followed , and as a result some died after looking into the ark in 1 Samuel 6:19).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 29, 2010)

And what we actually get down to, in the case of the ikons and the statues of saints and angels, etc., is the treating of these things as _objects of worship, veneration, etc._ Now, these EO and RC folks will deny that they are giving to the ikons or the statues (or the bones, or the pieces of the True Cross, or the cloths, or the nails, etc. etc.) *worship* that is due to God alone. Instead, they will say they are only doing "service" or "respect," "veneration," "latria" instead of "dulia," and many other *subterfuges* for smuggling in religious devotion for the non-divine which is properly reserved for the divine.

The fact is, that there was a great war in the church, originally in the East, over the introduction of images into the church. There were councils, and counter-councils, much like the Arian controversy. And the innovators "won" the ikonoclastic controversy. That is, they took control of the church-structure, and sanctioned what was once universally abhorred. The greatest tragedy, perhaps, is that once ikons were made fixtures in the churches, the Mahommetans who came to life only a short while later could boast of a more "spiritual" understanding of God! And what did the church reply? They mocked the ikonoclasts for being too much like the Turks!

We are not permitted to make *images* (a Hebrew word specifically designating IDOLS) OF GOD; and we are not to use such images to WORSHIP HIM under those auspices. And if not those images, how much LESS are we to offer religious devotion to any thing beside? This is the structure of the logic in the Second Commandment; and the analysis is backed up by examining how true devotion is contrasted to false (in all forms) through the rest of Scripture.

Where are saints prayed unto? Where (OT) is anything permitted to be "holy" outside of a strict connection to the Tabernacle/Temple? Does not the angel who speaks to John refuse his worship, twice! Rev.19:10 & 22:8? When the brazen serpent (Num.21:8), which was once to be "looked at" (not worshiped, not prayed-to), came to be reverenced, was it preserved? No, it was destroyed as a snare, 2Ki.18:4.

Was there ever, anywhere, an example in Scripture of "aids to devotion" such as we see employed by the RC and the EO? None, and positive-prohibitions against any such thing. So, as a last resort, they tell us, "The Hebrews needed such laws; we are free from such restrictions," and they pit the OT against the NT. In the end, it is a self-serving hermeneutic that only reads Scripture to confirm one's bias, and not to have our sinful predilections corrected, our arrogant self-perceptions reduced.

It is NOT that we are so weak, that we need to come up with our own "worship aids." It is that we are so WEAK, that we dare not come to God in any way other than what he has plainly authorized, the one true way that he has smoothed for us.


----------



## Claudiu (Dec 29, 2010)

Awesome guys, thank you for the input.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 29, 2010)

WRT the specificity of the kinds of images prohibited, I read the following this morning, from Calvin's Genevan Catechism, on the Second Commandment:



> Scholar. - Thou shalt not sculpture to thyself the image, or form any of those things which are either in heaven above or on the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore nor serve them.
> 
> Master. - Does it entirely prohibit us from sculpturing or painting any resemblance?
> 
> ...


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 29, 2010)

What about the context in which the tabernacle/temple ornamentation was given? 

Look at the incredible details that were given for the priestly garments, how the alter, furnishings and utensils were to be adorned, etc. This was commanded by God. Since we know God will not contradict Himself, we must conclude that this artwork served His divine purpose. In part, the artwork in the old covenant was to further illustrate the work of the great high priest that was yet future.

Now under the new covenant, we have the full revelation of Christ -- in a sense, our artwork is the beautiful words of scripture that show us our savior and His work. And the second commandment forbids us to create ornamentation that would detract from the beauty of God and His work. Having icons in worship make about as much sense as telling the women we have to worship out on the front porch -- something God commanded for the temple, but is now no longer a useful illustration under the new covenant.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 29, 2010)

Look at this way: we are prohibited from making any images of God. That necessarily includes images of anything meant for use in worship, _because God alone is to be worshipped_. So if you are making an image for worship, the intention is either to break the 1st commandment, by rendering worship to not-God, or to break the 2nd, by representing God by that image. The wording of the 2nd commandment takes for granted that the 1st is being fulfilled, and so it regards the making of any image for worship as making an image of God. Images of not-God are allowed, but if they are used for worship, they break the 1st commandment.


----------

