# Images of God in the Pentateuch?



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 22, 2008)

[bible]Genesis 15:17[/bible]

[bible]Exodus 3:2[/bible]

Is it sinful to illustrate the smoking fire pot and the flaming torch or the burning bush? At least within their scriptural context anyway (i.e. anyone is permitted to draw a pot, a torch or a burning bush that is not associated with these passages).


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 22, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Wow, could we broaden this also to the burning bush that Moses saw too?



Did you read the post?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 22, 2008)

Sorry..meant to write the pillar and cloud that followed Israel...but my mind was slow to catch up with my fingers.... It was a sign of God's presence after all, but was it a theophany proper?


----------



## SRoper (Feb 22, 2008)

I suppose a case can be made from Deut. 4:15-18 that making such an image would be OK:

"'Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.'"

I think it's fair to say that the burning bush was not a likeness of God, so it can be depicted in art.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 17, 2008)

bump


----------



## Davidius (Mar 17, 2008)

They still have the bush at St. Katherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. 

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Image:BurningBush.jpg


----------



## Gryphonette (Mar 17, 2008)

I don't see how that would be a problem, For what it's worth, and I'm one who believes any phonied-up image of Christ, whether for kiddie Bibles or church banners, evangelization films, etc., is unacceptable.

We _are_ visual creatures, though, so the LORD has kindly provided some symbolic visualizations for us, such as the smoking pot and burning bush, or the dove in the NT.

As a side note, the Kimbell museum here in Fort Worth has an exhibition of early Christian art, and I was fascinated to learn that images of Christ were unknown until I'm thinking it was the 4th century, and when they did appear, it was in a negative context. During the earliest time of the Church, the LORD was shown by such visualizations as you mention, or by utilizing OT figures like David and Moses.

It wasn't until after Constantine that images intended to be of Christ began to appear (trying to recall what I learned in early January), often on decorative items for the home for the well-to-do Christian. The papacy - and I forget which pope in particular - was the driving force behind increased use of images, in an attempt to combat one of the prevalent heresies (Arianism, perhaps?).


----------



## Sonoftheday (Mar 17, 2008)

How about painting a slaughtered lamb(or any of the other visions in the Revelation) to represent Jesus?


----------



## SueS (Mar 17, 2008)

Sonoftheday said:


> How about painting a slaughtered lamb(or any of the other visions in the Revelation) to represent Jesus?






That's interesting - for years I displayed a folk art wreath featuring a cross and a lamb with the inscription "Behold the Lamb" on my front door until recently when I became convicted that it was improper. The wreath is now in the attic.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2008)

Obviously, care should be taken in this area, but the general rule I follow is: if it was a _symbol_ in the Bible, even a symbol of God's presence, and not a symbol of God, per se, then depicting it should not be objectionable. Otherwise then we shouldn't try to imagine the tabernacle and temple, and many many other things, which were designed to be seen in those days; and a right understanding of them would rather (I say) encourage us to imagine them ourselves.

If the picture or symbol of a lamb is to put us in mind of the OT lambs, I say "fine;" it is a symbol of a symbol. But if meant to put us in mind of Christ, "this is THE Lamb," then I might be more likely to object, although I prefer to err on the side of charity and not take offense.

A picture of the Angel of the Lord, or the Spirit descending as a dove, the man Christ Jesus, etc., these should be avoided. But I don't feel the same about the burning bush, smoking firepot, pillar of cloud/fire, Sinai wreathed in darkness--all indicative of God's presence, but not forms of God. The latter spoke of God somewhat indirectly, rather than of his essence.

(In worship, there should be no deliberate visuals not directed by God--i.e., nothing besides water, bread and wine.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## etexas (Mar 17, 2008)

SRoper said:


> I suppose a case can be made from Deut. 4:15-18 that making such an image would be OK:
> 
> "'Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.'"
> 
> I think it's fair to say that the burning bush was not a likeness of God, so it can be depicted in art.


I agree with Scot here. I think caution is always needful, but, I do agree the burning bush in art really would not be an attempt to actually picture God.


----------

