Christ the Light-Giver
Posted on 01/01/2016 10:28:21 AM PST by NRx
An Icon is an image (usually two dimensional) of Christ, the Saints, Angels, important Biblical events, parables, or events in the history of the Church.
St. Gregory the Dialogist (Pope of Rome ca. 590-604), spoke of Icons as being Scripture to the illiterate:
"For what writing presents to readers, this a picture presents to the unlearned who behold, since in it even the ignorant see what they ought to follow; in it the illiterate read" (Epistle to Bishop Serenus of Marseilles, NPNF 2, Vol. XIII, p. 53).
To those who would suggest that this is no longer relevant in our enlightened age, let them consider the rather large functional illiteracy rate we have, and the fact that even the most literate societies always have a sizable illiterate segment... their young children.
Icons also lift up our minds from earthly things to the heavenly. St. John of Damascus wrote, "we are led by perceptible Icons to the contemplation of the divine and spiritual" (PG 94:1261a). And by keeping their memory before us through the Icons, we are also inspired to imitate the holiness of those therein depicted. St. Gregory of Nyssa (ca 330-395) spoke of how he could not pass an Icon of Abraham sacrificing Isaac "without tears" (PG 46:572). Commenting on this, it was noted at the Seventh Å’cumenical Synod, "If to such a Doctor the picture was helpful and drew forth tears, how much more in the case of the ignorant and simple will it bring compunction and benefit" (NPNF2, Vol 14, p. 539).
The Functions of Icons, by Dr. Constantine Cavarnos. Ch. 3 from Orthodox Iconography.
A Discourse in Iconography, by St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco
Christians pray in the presence of Icons (just as Israelites prayed in the presence of Icons in the Temple), but we do not pray to the image.
To put this question in proper perspective, let's consider a few other questions: Did the Ark of the Covenant work miracles (e.g. Joshua 3:15ff; 1st Samuel 4-6; 2nd Samuel 11-12)? Did the Bronze Serpent heal those bitten by snakes (Numbers 21:9)? Did the Prophet Elisha's bones raise a man from the dead (2nd Kings 13:21)? Did St. Peter's shadow heal the sick (Acts 5:15)? Did aprons and handkerchiefs that had touched St. Paul heal the sick and caste out evil spirits (Acts 19:12)?
The answer to these questions are, Yes, in a manner of speaking. Nevertheless, to be precise, it was God who chose to work miracles through these things. In the case of the Ark and the Bronze serpent, we have images used to work miracles. God worked a miracle through the relics of the Prophet Elisha, through the shadow of a Saint, and through things that had merely touched a Saint. Why? Because God honors those who honor Him (1st Samuel 2:30), and thus takes delight in working miracles through his Saints, even by these indirect means. The fact that God can sanctify material things should come as no surprise to those familiar with Scripture. For example, not only was the Altar of the Temple holy, but anything that touched it was holy as well (Exodus 29:37). To reject the truth that God works through material things is to fall into Gnosticism.
So yes, loosely speaking, Icons can work miracles--but to be precise, it is God who works miracles through Icons, because He honors those who have honored Him.
Orthodox Christians do not worship Icons in the sense that the word "worship" is commonly used in modern English. In older translations (and in some more recent translations in which the translators insist on using this word in its original sense), one finds the word "worship" used to translate the Greek word proskyneo (literally, "to bow"). Nevertheless, one must understand that the older use of "worship" in English was much broader than it is generally used today, and was often used to refer simply to the act of honoring, venerating, or reverencing. For example, in the old book of common prayer, one of the wedding vows was "with my body I thee worship," but this was never intended to imply that the bride would worship her husband in the sense in which "worship" is commonly used now.
|
Christ the Light-Giver
|
Orthodox Christians do venerate Icons, which is to say, we pay respect to them because they are holy objects, and because we reverence what the Icons depict. We do not worship Icons any more than Americans worship the American flag. Saluting the flag is not exactly the same type of veneration as we pay to Icons, but it is indeed a type of veneration. And just as we do not venerate wood and paint, but rather the persons depicted in the Icon, patriotic Americans do not venerate cloth and dye, but rather the country which the flag represents.
This was the reasoning of the Seventh Å’cumenical Synod, which decreed in its Oros the following:
"Since this is the case, following the royal path and the teaching divinely inspired by our holy Fathers and the Tradition of the catholic Church--for we know that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit who lives in it--we decide in all correctness and after a thorough examination that, just as the holy and vivifying Cross, similarly the holy and precious Icons painted with colors, made with little stones or with any other matter serving this purpose (epitedeios), should be placed in the holy churches of God, on vases and sacred vestments, on walls and boards, in houses and on roads, whether these are Icons of our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ, or of our spotless Sovereign Lady, the holy Mother of God, or of the holy angels and of holy and venerable men. For each time that we see their representation in an image, each time, while gazing upon them, we are made to remember the prototypes, we grow to love them more, and we are more induced to worship them by kissing them and by witnessing our veneration (proskenesin), not the true adoration (latreian) which, according to our faith, is proper only to the one divine nature, but in the same way as we venerate the image of the precious and vivifying cross, the holy Gospel and other sacred objects which we honor with incense and candles according to the pious custom of our forefathers. For the honor rendered to the image goes to its prototype, and the person who venerates an Icon venerates the person represented in it. Indeed, such is the teaching of our holy Fathers and the Tradition of the holy catholic Church which propagated the Gospel from one end of the earth to the other."
The Jews understand the difference between veneration and worship (adoration). A pious Jew kisses the Mezuza on his door post, he kisses his prayer shawl before putting it on, he kisses the tefillin, before he binds them to his forehead, and arm. He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue. No doubt, Christ did likewise, when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue.
The Early Christians also understood this distinction as well. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp (who was St. John the Apostle's disciple, and whose Martyrdom was recorded by the faithful of his Church, who were eyewitnesses of all that it recounts), we are told of how some sought to have the Roman magistrate keep the Christians from retrieving the body of the Holy Martyr
"'lest,' so it was said, 'they should abandon the crucified one and begin to worship this man'--this being done at the instigation and urgent entreaty of the Jews, who also watched when we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing that it will be impossible for us either to forsake at any time the Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved--suffered though faultless for sinners--nor to worship any other. For Him, being the Son of God, we adore, but the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord we cherish as they deserve for their matchless affection towards their own King and Teacher.... The centurion therefore, seeing the opposition raised on the part of the Jews, set him in the midst and burnt him after their custom. And so we afterwards took up his bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place; where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birth-day [i.e. the anniversary] of his martyrdom for the commemoration of those that have already fought in the contest, and for the training and preparation of those that shall do so hereafter" (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:2-3; 18:1-3).
For a discussion of the Hebrew words (and to some extent, the Greek words) relevant to this discussion, see this excerpt from the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.
Is Venerating Icons Idolatry?, by Timothy Copple
|
The Nativity of Christ
|
The issue with respect to the 2nd commandment is what does the word translated "graven images" mean? If it simply means carved images, then the images in the temple would be in violation of this Commandment. Our best guide, however, to what Hebrew words mean, is what they meant to Hebrews--and when the Hebrews translated the Bible into Greek, they translated this word simply as "eidoloi", i.e. "idols." Furthermore the Hebrew word pesel is never used in reference to any of the images in the temple. So clearly the reference here is to pagan images rather than images in general.
Let's look at the Scriptural passage in question more closely:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (i.e. idol), or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor shalt thou serve (worship) them..." (Exodus 20:4-5a).
Now, if we take this as a reference to images of any kind, then clearly the cherubim in the Temple violate this command. If we limit this as applying only to idols, no contradiction exists. Furthermore, if this applies to all images--then even the picture on a driver's license violates it, and is an idol. So either every Protestant with a driver's license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the meaning of "graven images" lets simply look at what this text actually says about them. You shall not make x, you shall not bow to x, you shall not worship x. If x = image, then the Temple itself violates this Commandment. If x = idol and not all images, then this verse contradicts neither the Icons in the Temple, nor Orthodox Icons.
This passage instructs the Jews not to make a (false) image of God, because they had not seen God, however, as Christians, we believe that God became Incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, and so we may depict that "which we have seen with our eyes" (1st John 1:1). As St. John of Damascus said:
"Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God's body is God by union, it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by, a logical and reasoning soul."
Presumptuous Propositions, by Timothy Copple and Patrick Barnes.
Not only does one find Iconography throughout Christian Catacombs, but they are also found in Jewish catacombs of the same period. We also have the well preserved Jewish Icons of Dura-Europos, which were in a city destroyed by the Persians in the mid 3rd century (which of course puts a limit on how recent these Icons could have been made).
Often Josephus' views on Iconography are erroneously taken as the standard Jewish view on the subject, but this is clearly not the case. The specific text usually cited is the one referring to a riot which took place when the Romans placed an imperial eagle on the gate of the Temple.
This story is not so open and shut as some would like to think. These were zealots. Josephus, who was also a rebel, though one who switched sides and later aided the Romans, records these events.
|
The Mystical Supper
|
Josephus records that the Romans mounted an eagle over the entrance to the Temple, which the people tore down as sacrilegious--but was it images of beasts per se that were at issue, or was it Roman eagles on the Entrance to the Temple that were the issue. Josephus' views were so extreme on this subject that he thought the statues of animals in connection with the Brazen Sea in Solomon's Temple were a sin (Antiquities VIII,7,5).
The over all attitude of Jews towards religious art was not nearly so Iconoclastic. The Palestinian Talmud records (in Abodah Zarah 48d) "In the days of Rabbi Jochanan men began to paint pictures on the walls, and he did not hinder them" and "In the days of Rabbi Abbun men began to make designs on mosaics, and he did not hinder them."
Also, the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan repeats the command against idols, but then says "but a stone column carved with images and likenesses you may make upon the premises of your sanctuaries, but not to worship them."
Also, Jewish holy books have been illustrated as far back as we have them. They contain illustrations of Biblical scenes, much like those found at the Synagogue of Dura Europos (and like the Church found near by) which was buried in the mid 3rd century when the Persians destroyed that city (See "The excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters," Final Report VII, Part I, The Synagogue, by Carl H. Kraeling).
It is note worthy that the earliest Icons of the Catacombs were mostly Old Testament scenes, and Icons of Christ. The dominance of Old Testament scenes shows that this was not a Pagan practices Christianized by converts, but a Jewish practice, adopted by the Christians.
To see the images found in the Synagogue of Dura Europos, click on the following links:
Ah, but we do find them in the Scriptures--plenty of them! Consider how prevalent they were in the Tabernacle and then later in the Temple. There were images of cherubim:
On the Ark--Ex. 25:18
On the Curtains of the Tabernacle--Ex. 26:1
On the Veil of the Holy of Holies--Ex. 26:31
Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary--1st Kings 6:23
On the Walls--1st Kings 6:29
On the Doors--1st Kings 6:32
And on the furnishings--1st Kings 7:29,36
In short, there were Icons everywhere you turned.
|
The Mother of God
|
The Temple was an image of Heaven, as St. Paul makes clear:
"[the priests who serve in the Temple in Jerusalem] serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount" (Hebrews 8:5; cf. Exodus 25:40).
Before Christ came in the flesh and triumphed over death by His Resurrection, the Saints of the Old Testament were not in the presence of God in Heaven, but were in Sheol (often translated as "the grave", and translated as "hades" in Greek). Before Christ's Resurrection, Sheol was the destiny of both the just and the unjust (Genesis 37:35; Isaiah 38:10), though their lot there was by no means the same. As we see in Christ's parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31; cf. Enoch 22:8-15 [although the book of Enoch is not included in the Canon of Holy Scripture, it is a venerable part of Holy Tradition and is quoted in the Epistle of St. Jude, as well as in many of the writings of the holy fathers]) there was a gulf that separated the just from the unjust, and while the righteous were in a state of blessedness, the wicked were (and are) in a state of torment--the righteous awaited their deliverance through Christ's Resurrection, while the wicked fearfully awaited their judgment. Thus under the old covenant, prayers were said only for the departed, because they were not yet in heaven to intercede on our behalves. For as St. Paul said to the Hebrews when speaking of the Old Testament Saints, "And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us" (Hebrews 11:39-40). In Hebrews 12, St. Paul goes on to contrast the nature of the Old Covenant (12:18ff) with that of the New (12:22ff)--and among the distinctions he makes, he says that in the New Covenant we "are come unto... the spirits of just men made perfect (12:22-23). As both the Scriptures and the rest of Holy Tradition tell us, while Christ's body lay in the tomb, His Spirit descended into Sheol and proclaimed liberty to the captives (Ephesians 4:8-10; 1st Peter 3:19, 4:6; cf. Matthew 27:52-53). And these Saints that have triumphed over this world, now reign with Christ in Glory (2nd Timothy 2:12), and continually offer up prayers for us before the Lord (Revelation 5:8; the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius, Ch. 7 [St. Ignatius was one of the disciples of the Apostle John, and was made Bishop of Antioch by him]).
Thus, while in the Old Covenant, the Temple imaged heaven with only the attending Cherubim, in the New Covenant, our Temples image heaven with the great cloud of witnesses that now reside in glory there.
The Scriptures do command the Israelites to bow before the Ark, which had two prominent images of cherubim on it. In Psalms 99:5, it commands: "bow before the footstool of His feet...." We should note first of all that the word for "bow" here, is the same word used in Exodus 20:5, when we are told to not bow to idols.
And what is the "footstool of His feet"? In 1st Chronicles 28:2, David uses this phrase in reference to the Ark of the Covenant. In Psalm 99 [98 in the Septuagint], it begins by speaking of the Lord who "dwells between the Cherubim" (99:1), and it ends with a call to "bow to His holy hill"--which makes it even clearer that in context, this is speaking of the Ark of the Covenant. This phrase occurs again in Psalm 132:7, where it is preceded by the statement "We will go into His tabernacles..." and is followed by the statement "Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou and the Ark of Thy strength."
Interestingly, this phrase is applied to the Cross in the services of the Church, and the connection is not accidental--because on the Ark, between the Cherubim was the Mercy Seat, upon which the sacrificial blood was sprinkled for the sins of the people (Exodus 25:22, Leviticus 16:15).
If you look at the passage in question (2nd Kings 18:4), you will see that the Bronze Serpent was not destroyed simply because people honored it, but because they had made it into a serpent God, called "Nehushtan."
|
The Triumph of Orthodoxy: Restoration
|
It is important to keep in mind, when considering the question of Icons (and thus also Iconoclasm), that there are two separate questions that are often confused:
It is clear from the Old Testament that the answer to both questions is, Yes. While Protestants, however, object to the veneration of Icons, they typically do not object to the making or possession of images. If they did, they would not have illustrated Gospel tracts, TV's, or pictures... but aside from the Amish, one would be hard pressed to find another group of Protestants that consistently eschews images. Protestants do typically object to the veneration of images, but interestingly the arguments and evidence that they use almost always argues against any images of any kind, if the logic of their line of argumentation were consistently followed.
The Iconoclasts, who are often cited by Protestants as supporting their position on this question, in fact actually argue against Protestants. On the one hand, the Iconoclasts anathematized all those who "venture to represent...with material colours..." Christ or the Saints--something almost all Protestants do themselves. On the other hand, they also anathematized all those who "shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as one having confidence in her access to our God since she bare Him..." and they also anathematized anyone who "denies the profit of the invocation of the Saints..." (NPNF2, Vol. 14, p. 545f). So as a matter of fact, Protestants find themselves under more of the Iconoclast's anathemas than do the Orthodox.
Protestants might wish to take solace that at least Iconoclasts opposed the veneration of images, but veneration was never an issue per se with the Iconoclasts. They only opposed venerating Icons, because they opposed Icons. They were not opposed to venerating holy things--the Iconoclasts venerated the Cross, and made no bones about it (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974, p. 110).
Protestants also cite some other fathers and early writers of the Church to support their position. Most of these quotations simply denounce idolatry, and have nothing to do with Icons. In those few cases in which the quotes could plausibly be interpreted as condemning Icons (some of which are arguably later Iconoclastic interpolations) a consistent interpretation would require that no images be made... because again, the objection found in these texts is to the making of and possession of images. None of these texts even addresses the question of veneration.
The Canon of the Synod of Elvira is often cited in support of an Iconoclast position. In its 36th Canon, the council decreed: "It is ordained that Pictures are not to be in churches, so that that which is worshipped and adored shall not be painted on walls." Even Protestant scholars concede that the meaning of this canon is not as clear as Protestant apologists often suggest. For one, it is unclear what was the occasion for this canon, and it is not clear what it was trying to prevent, a fact even Protestant scholars acknowledge:
"...no great weight can be attached to this [canon 36 of the council of Elvira], the exact bearing of the canon being unknown" [Edward James Martin, A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1930), p. 19, fn 4].
Because of the wording of this canon, it is almost certainly not a blanket ban on images. What is not clear is what it is banning, and more particularly to what end. Plausible interpretations range from this being merely a ban on images in Church, to a precautionary measure to protect Icons from the Pagans (since the canon was composed during a time of persecution, this is certainly possible). In any case, the fact of the matter is that Icons were in use in Spanish Churches before this Synod, and they continued to be used after this Synod, without any further evidence of controversy. Furthermore, this Synod was of a purely local character, and was never affirmed on an Å’cumenical level.
For one thing, Iconoclasm would have thrived in Islamic dominated territory... but it didn't. The first out break of Iconoclasm began in Moslem territory, though this was not Christians destroying images, but Moslems destroying Christian images (Pelikan, p. 105). There is also reason to think that Moslem influence inspired the Iconoclastic Emperors (for one, all of them were from parts of the Empire in which Moslems had made inroads), but the fact of the matter is that the only part of the Church in which Iconoclasm took hold was in those areas in which the Iconoclast Emperors could impose their heresy upon the people. In all areas of the Church beyond the reach of Byzantine arms, the Church opposed the Iconoclasts and broke communion with them. One of the most vocal opponents of the Iconoclasts was St. John of Damascus, who lived under Moslem rule, and suffered persecution as a result. If the Iconoclast view were really the traditional view, we should have expected to see this opinion dominate the Christians living under Moslem rule. At the very least, we would expect some Iconoclasts to speak out from among these Christians, but in fact, the opposite was true--there were no Iconoclastic voices heard from Moslem dominated lands, despite the obvious advantages such Christians would have had with their Moslem rulers.
Also, prior to the Iconoclastic controversy, we have extensive archeological evidence that Icons were used throughout the Church, and were this a departure from Apostolic Tradition we should expect to find a huge controversy on the subject from the very moment that Icons first came into use, which would have only intensified as their use became more common. We find, however, nothing of the sort. In fact, thirty years prior to the Iconoclastic controversy, the Quinisext council established a canon regarding what should be depicted in certain Icons, but hasn't the faintest hint of any controversy about Icons per se:
"In some of the paintings of the venerable Icons, a lamb is inscribed as being shown or pointed at by the Precursor's finger, which was taken to be a type of grace, suggesting beforehand through the law the true lamb to us Christ our God. Therefore, eagerly embracing the old types and shadows as symbols of the truth and preindications handed down to the Church, we prefer the grace, and accept it as the truth in fulfillment of the law. Since, therefore, that which is perfect even though it be but painted is imprinted in the faces of all, the Lamb who taketh away the sin of the world Christ our God, with respect to His human character, we decree that henceforth he shall be inscribed even in the Icons instead of the ancient lamb: through Him being enabled to comprehend the reason for the humiliation of the God Logos, and in memory of His life in the flesh and of His passion and of His soterial death being led by the hand, as it were, and of the redemption of the world which thence accrues" (Canon LXXXII of the Quinisext Council).
Aside from this, there are many other things about the Iconoclast which show the novelty of their heresy: they opposed monasticism, despite the fact that it had unquestionably been embraced by the Church for centuries, they were found of robbing monks, taking their land, and forcing them to marry, eat meat, and attend public spectacles (and those who resisted often were the public spectacles), contrary to well established monastic practice. Even Protestant historians are forced to concede that the holy men and women of the day were supporters of the veneration of Icons, and that the Iconoclasts were a rather immoral and ruthless lot.
"Much has been written, and truly written, of the superiority of the iconoclastic rulers; but when all has been said that can be, the fact still remains, that they were most of them but sorry Christians, and the justice of the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin's summing up of the matter will not be disputed by any impartial student. He says, "No one will deny that with rarest exceptions, all the religious earnestness, all which constituted the quickening power of a church, was ranged upon the other [i.e. the orthodox] side. Had the Iconoclasts triumphed, when their work showed itself at last in its true colours, it would have proved to be the triumph, not of faith in an invisible God, but of frivolous unbelief in an incarnate Saviour." (Trench. Mediaeval History, Chap. vii.) The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in NPNF2, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, p. 575, cf. 547f.
One can only be an Iconoclast if they believe that the Church can cease to exist--contrary to the Scriptures--because there is no doubt that the Church rejected Iconoclasm and used Icons from at least as far back as its use of catacombs (which are full of Christian Icons). This is an option that thoughtful Evangelicals generally reject (see, for example, A Biblical Guide to Orthodoxy and Heresy, Part Two: Guidlines for Doctrinal Discernment, in the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1990, p. 14, section 3, "The Orthodox Principle").
For a thorough history of the reception of the Seventh Å’cumenical Synod, particularly the mistranslations of many of its decrees in the West, and the resulting misunderstanding of the council on the part of the Franks, see The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in NPNF2, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, pp. 575-587.
By the way, further proof that Psalm 99 is talking about the Ark is found in Psalm 132:7-8:
“We will go into his tabernacles: we will worship at his footstool. Arise, O LORD, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength.”
Also, I see no evidence in Scripture that only Scripture is authoritative. In fact, I see evidence in Scripture of just the opposite. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2, which both speak about Christian Tradition as being authoritative, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 specifically endorses oral Tradition.
A ridiculous claim. There was a time when the vast majority of people were illiterate, and iconography was especially instructive for such people.
“There was a time when the vast majority of people were illiterate, and iconography was especially instructive for such people.”
They are still instructive. Just the other day I posted the icon of the Resurrection to demonstrate that the Evil One had indeed been bound by Christ in Hades.
“Is wearing pants a sign of Muslim influence, because I do wear pants? I admit it.”
Not that I know of. Most of the Mohammedan men around here wear pants, though when they are going to the mosque they wear sort of a long white dress. Do you wear a long white dress to church? That could be a pretty good sign that you are well down the road to Mohammedanism.
“A ridiculous claim. There was a time when the vast majority of people were illiterate, and iconography was especially instructive for such people.”
May 2016 be the year literacy descends and wipes out the scourge of illiterateracy-based idolatry. We’ve waited since the dark ages. May light finally come this year.
You are just repeating the same things and ignoring what I said. Get back to me with biblical support for bowing to, praying toward, and offering incense to images. I have given mine.
“By the way, further proof that Psalm 99 is talking about the Ark is found in Psalm 132:7-8”
God’s people in the Old Testament were supposed to pray toward the temple. Priests and non-priests did bow down. Incense was offered. But this is because the tabernacle and the temple subsequently were the designated place where God met with man. It was the one and only place on earth so designated.
They were not bowing to the cherubim or offering incense to them. These things were directed to God. The cherubim faced where God met with man above the mercy seat.
It is clear from scripture that the tabernacle and temple were not God’s actual dwelling / home because they were mere symbols of a Heavenly reality.
So we see people in the Old and New Testaments praying with their hands lifted up and facing Heaven. Are they directing prayers and worshipping birds? No. The sky? No. The sun, moon, stars? No. It is an acknowledgement that God’s throne is in Heaven.
There is no earthly temple currently. There is no physical meeting place or physical object where God meets with us today. The ark of the covenant still exists, but since the crucifixion, the veil of the temple was torn, and the glory of God’s presence departed for a second time.
God’s Spirit resides in His people, not physical objects or buildings. We do not bow down toward other people even though God dwells in them. All of the examples in the New Testament of doing this are negative examples of doing what God forbade. And no example in the Old or New Testament supports setting up images and bowing to them. Even when objects like the brass serpent or even the temple were used for idolatry, they had to be destroyed.
2 Kings 18:4
He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.
Would it have been okay to burn incense to it if they had not given it a name as a false god? You admitted earlier that they turned it into an idol, but do you also admit that burning incense to it was an act of idolatry?
The New Testament repeatedly warns of idolatry and never directs us to use images in this manner.
You do know, I trust, that the fellows who decided which books made up the canon of scripture in the bible you thump, what was in, what was out, I’ll trade you Hebrews for Revelation, those guys, were a group of Greek and Latin speaking bishops...who venerated icons!
“I see no evidence in Scripture that only Scripture is authoritative. “
God has established authorities in the home, church, and government. There are also natural laws that teach us. And in any organization someone has to be in charge and becomes the “authority” for those who choose to be part of it.
But there is no authority higher than God’s word. He created the Heavens and earth by His word. Christ is the Word incarnate. Anyone trying to exercise authority above God’s word is in rebellion.
Who should people obey when these “authorities” direct doing things contrary to the Bible?
Acts 5:29
But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
Here are the verses you referenced:
1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
Who established these traditions? The apostles. There is a difference between traditions of men and traditions of the apostles. Notice that these traditions were also by “epistle”. That is, they were transmitted by the New Testament scriptures. At the time of this writing, the New Testament was incomplete. Obviously the church traditions were implemented orally until they were written. This is one of the reasons Peter specifically gives for writing his epistles (i.e. letters).
To introduce a tradition after the apostles were dead, or to change a tradition of the apostles, is to actually fail to keep the tradition of the apostles. The Catholic church is among those who claim to exert apostolic authority, but we see from several passages in the New Testament that apostolic authority could be falsified and must be tested. No one today has such authority. Peter, Paul, James, John and other apostles are still with us in their apostolic authority today. It is found in their writings which are scripture.
John 15:20
Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
Galatians 1:11-12
But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 1:12-15
For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.
Matthew 15:3
He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”
Mark 7:8
For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.
He was quoting from this passage when He said it:
Isaiah 29:13
Therefore the Lord said:
“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men”
Isaiah also had this to say about such people who prefer manmade religion over the word of God:
Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
“You do know, I trust, that the fellows who decided which books made up the canon of scripture in the bible you thump, what was in, what was out, I’ll trade you Hebrews for Revelation, those guys, were a group of Greek and Latin speaking bishops...who venerated icons!”
That is like the security guard outside the mall claiming to own it.
No human beings “decided” what would be in the holy canon of scripture. No human being kept God’s word from being destroyed. Because the message of the Bible is the word of God, it is impossible to destroy. And even when leaders of your religion tried to dilute the scriptures with phony writings and altered texts, the actual scriptures emerged unscathed. And even when the leaders of your religion had people burned at the stake for translating the scriptures and printing them in the common language of the people, God preserved His word and enabled men like William Tyndale to do His work before being martyred by the leaders of your religion who were too busy having orgies and setting up houses of prostitution to care about the common people hearing the word of God.
If you want to claim credit for what your religion under the supposedly infallible leadership of continuous succession has done, then take credit for the whole ball of wax.
It's clear you are making that up to justify your false interpretation...
and so when it says to bow before the footstool of His feet, it is saying to bow towards the Ark.
The context is to bow at the throne of God where He sits which is on top of the Ark...NOT to bow to in inanimate object...
I wouldn't say 'we' if I was you because that has been proven to be wrong many, many times...
“No human beings “decided” what would be in the holy canon of scripture. No human being kept God’s word from being destroyed.”
I know some protestant sects believe that that the authors of the OT and NT as well as the bishops who decided what was in and what was out were, like Mohammed, at base automotons, mere scribes for God. Would that include yours? Do you believe that the authors were in trances, like Mohammed?
” And even when leaders of your religion tried to dilute the scriptures with phony writings and altered texts, the actual scriptures emerged unscathed.”
Which phoney writings and altered texts did the Eastern Fathers and Patriarchs use to dilute the scriptures? The writings of the early Fathers were among the standards used by The Church to determine what in fact was Holy Writ and what was not, unlearner. Even that lead to compromises. Revelation was rejected in the East and Hebrews in the West. Eventually there was a deal and in they came. Truth be told, though, for us, Revelation is kept on top of the bookcase in the back...dusty.
” And even when the leaders of your religion had people burned at the stake for translating the scriptures and printing them in the common language of the people, God preserved His word and enabled men like William Tyndale to do His work before being martyred by the leaders of your religion who were too busy having orgies and setting up houses of prostitution to care about the common people hearing the word of God.”
The scriptures in The Church in the East have always been in the “common language of the people”, at least until we converted the Slavs and even then, the Patriarch of Constantinople sent out Sts. Cyril and Methodios to translate the OT, the NT and the Liturgy and other services into Slavonic. We also didn’t do burnings at the stake, even of heretics. You have us confused with some other church perhaps?
” If you want to claim credit for what your religion under the supposedly infallible leadership of continuous succession has done, then take credit for the whole ball of wax.”
We don’t have an “infallible leadership under continuous succession”, unlearner. Our bishops and patriarchs are all too fallible. The only infallible institutions we have are Ecumenical Councils.
Did you read the post you are responding to, especially the Biblical quote?
God is sitting between the cherubim.
It is God that was being worshiped because He was RIGHT THERE! Way cool.
There are no cherubim here, yet the icon is worshiped as if God is inside of it.
“like Mohammed, at base automotons, mere scribes for God”
I would like to know which Christian sects believe the writers of the Bible were similar to Muhammed. I don’t know of any that would accept such a comparison. It is the kind of thing only opponents would assert to discredit someone else. No one would agree to the comparison.
My opinion is that various writings of the Bible were constructed under a variety of circumstances, writing styles, methods and forms. For example, Psalms and Proverbs are collections of writings that originated from multiple authors but were compiled by God’s divine direction. Some scriptures contain parts that were directly dictated by God as if He was speaking to a scribe. Some are largely from the author’s description of visions from God. Some probably came from men who had been taught by God, taught others over many years, and then carefully compiled a form of these teachings. Some are simply recollections of historical events.
What is not my opinion, but is fact, is that all of the scriptures were inspired (God-breathed). This means they contain no errors and are directly from God as general revelation to us.
The Apocryphal writings have been rejected because they were not inspired writings.
Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Bezae, Codex Alexandrinus, Vetus Latina, Vulgate are among the manuscripts which are not authoritative even though they may contain scriptures and may have attempted to faithfully preserve them.
The Textus Receptus is authoritative. Attempts to dilute it with “higher criticism” (John Mill in early 1700’s through Westcott and Hort in the late 1800’s) failed. This text comes to us mainly through the majority text.
Since there is the potential to spend a lifetime studying the history, language, and roles that people had in the transmission of scriptures to us today, it is impossible to have “simple” debate on the subject.
As far as your church history, I thought I was addressing a Roman Catholic. My mistake.
I’ve given you the evidence. You just don’t seem to be willing to be swayed by Scripture. There is no question that the Scriptures speaking of bowing before the Ark, and people prayed before it. It’s in the Bible.
The Church has preserved Apostolic Tradition. Furthermore, the Scriptures make no claim that Scripture alone is authoritative, and so to assert the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is to assert a doctrine that contradicts itself.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word [i.e. oral tradition] or our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15).
The word here translated “traditions” is the Greek word paradosis — which, though translated differently in some Protestant versions, is the same word that the Greek Orthodox use when speaking of Tradition, and few competent Bible scholars would dispute this meaning. The word itself literally means “what is transmitted.” It is the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7:3, 5, 8), and also when referring to authoritative Christian teaching (I Corinthians 11:2, Second Thessalonians 2:15). So what makes the tradition of the Pharisees false and that of the Church true? The source! Christ made clear what was the source of the traditions of the Pharisees when He called them “the traditions of men” (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul on the other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, “I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you” (First Corinthians 11:2), but where did he get these traditions in the first place? “I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you” (first Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition — “the Faith once delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints” (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, “the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowledge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became “the pillar and ground of the Truth” (I Timothy 3:15).
The testimony of the New Testament is clear on this point: the early Christians had both oral and written traditions which they received from Christ through the Apostles. For written tradition they at first had only fragments — one local church had an Epistle, another perhaps a Gospel. Gradually these writings were gathered together into collections and ultimately they became the New Testament. And how did these early Christians know which books were authentic and which were not — for (as already noted) there were numerous spurious epistles and gospels claimed by heretics to have been written by Apostles? It was the oral Apostolic Tradition that aided the Church in making this determination.
It is clear that you have never studied Hebrew, and don’t know how to access lexical resources that would explain the meaning of the word in question. Because it literally means “to bow”. It is often translated as “worship”, but this is really a looser translation of the word, though depending on the context, it may or may not be a bad way of putting it into English.
Sometimes people are loose in the way they speak about such things, but no Orthodox Christian believes that they can ask an icon to do something. They can ask the person depicted in the icon to do something, and that is what they in fact do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
