The 2nd commandment issue seems to be a heated topic. But to avoid controversy and hopefully just to explain where Orthodox are coming from, I offer the following snip-its. You don't have to agree and this debate is pretty old, even amongst Catholics. I am not aware of the RCC's stance on certain things like statues and how they actually view images/statues in relation to how God/Christians use them so I can only offer the Orthodox perspective.
A few questions I might ask though, in the face of such controversy:
Have you ever pictured Jesus in your own mind or put yourself in the shoes of the disciples when Jesus washed their feet or in the woman's shoes (though they wore sandals) when she washed Jesus feet?
I'm sure if took those images and compared them side by side to Jesus actual feet, insofar as they wrong, we would be guilty of picturing something contrary to the actual image of Christ, in our minds. Will we have to answer for this in the life to come? Pray we won't.
When you pledge your allegiance to the flag of your country are you actually pledging your allegiance to your Country above God? Is it alright to swear on the bible (personally I would say no, in this case)?
Is it wrong for an athlete to kiss a trophy they've just received?
Is it wrong to burn a cross? Absolutely. However, if it's just an empty religious object devoid of any honor or respect (veneration) then why the offense?
Was Paul wrong to hug his chains?
Is it wrong to kiss a picture of a loved one that you've lost or have not seen in a long while? Is it the actual picture that compels you to kiss the picture? Is it the paper and the image that you kiss? If you had a child and you lost your wife/husband and you gave a picture of the loved one to the child and the child hugged or kissed the picture, is the child wrong?
Also, because this issue can get side-tracked on the Saints issue. Let it be known that there's a difference between canonized Saints and believer saints. Canonized Saints are just Saints that, according to the whole (which is the definition of 'Catholic') are recognized as Saints. St. Paul is an example. St. John etc. Saints that everyone knows. Though, I must admit, not everyone is savvy to who all the canonized Saints are because there are so many.
Also in contrast to the RCC, we don't have saints for very specific things as in the RCC. Like, if you are a fireman I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) then you can pray to a specific Saint that seems (to me anyway) to specialize in something that has to do with being a fireman. In short, I think RCC and the EO see prayer/intercession of the Saints quite differently.
Also, if a loved one passes on and as many in protestantism say, "they've gone to be with the Lord", they too are considered Saints.
Ok, I'm sort of just mentioning things that come to mind when people hear Saints.
The following snip-its will help you see an Orthodox perspective. By no means exhaustive.
2. Do Orthodox Christians pray to Icons?
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.
5. Doesn't the 2nd Commandment forbid Icons?
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:
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.
9. Why were there only Icons of Cherubim, and not of Saints?
(this question is in response to the fact that there are icons of Cherubim etc. in the OT temple because it was a shadow and copy of the things in Heaven - see Hebrews etc.)
The Temple was an image of Heaven, as St. Paul makes clear:
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.
If you would like to read the entire article which has about 11 FAQ about Orthodox icons you can CLICK HERE.
The following snip-it has to do with Calvin's view on icons and there's some pretty interesting historical info in there as well as some picture of Jewish/early Christian images that were/are found in the temples/Churches/places of worship.
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sanserif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sanserif]As one of the leading theologians of the Protestant Reformation John Calvin helped define and shape Protestant theology. One of Calvin's lasting legacies is Protestantism's iconoclasm. According to Georg Kretschmar, "Calvin built up the most precise and radical position opposed to the icon theology of the 787 Council of Nicea" (1990:80). Where Luther was quite tolerant of images in churches, Calvin and his followers were much more vigorous in their opposition to images in the church. As a consequence, Protestant places of worship have a stark austerity in comparison to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches.[/FONT][/FONT]
CLICK HERE to read the entire article.
And this is from Eusebius of Caesarea. You kind find some of his works online.
NPNF2: Vol. I, The Church History of Eusebius, Book 7, Chapter 18.
Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there. For there stands upon
2 an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases. They say that this statue is an image of
3 Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. Nor is it strange that those
4 of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings,140 the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – c. 339[1]) (often called Eusebius Pamphili, "Eusebius [the friend] of Pamphilus") became the bishop of Caesarea Palaestina, the capital of Iudaea province, c 314.[1] He is often referred to as the Father of Church History because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church, especially Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History[1].
I hope that the information will at least show that not a small amount of reverence for God has gone into the use of icons. Icons have a very long and winding history. Wouldn't hurt to check it out.
God bless,
Federer kissing his trophy....
A few questions I might ask though, in the face of such controversy:
Have you ever pictured Jesus in your own mind or put yourself in the shoes of the disciples when Jesus washed their feet or in the woman's shoes (though they wore sandals) when she washed Jesus feet?
I'm sure if took those images and compared them side by side to Jesus actual feet, insofar as they wrong, we would be guilty of picturing something contrary to the actual image of Christ, in our minds. Will we have to answer for this in the life to come? Pray we won't.
When you pledge your allegiance to the flag of your country are you actually pledging your allegiance to your Country above God? Is it alright to swear on the bible (personally I would say no, in this case)?
Is it wrong for an athlete to kiss a trophy they've just received?
Is it wrong to burn a cross? Absolutely. However, if it's just an empty religious object devoid of any honor or respect (veneration) then why the offense?
Was Paul wrong to hug his chains?
Is it wrong to kiss a picture of a loved one that you've lost or have not seen in a long while? Is it the actual picture that compels you to kiss the picture? Is it the paper and the image that you kiss? If you had a child and you lost your wife/husband and you gave a picture of the loved one to the child and the child hugged or kissed the picture, is the child wrong?
Also, because this issue can get side-tracked on the Saints issue. Let it be known that there's a difference between canonized Saints and believer saints. Canonized Saints are just Saints that, according to the whole (which is the definition of 'Catholic') are recognized as Saints. St. Paul is an example. St. John etc. Saints that everyone knows. Though, I must admit, not everyone is savvy to who all the canonized Saints are because there are so many.
Also in contrast to the RCC, we don't have saints for very specific things as in the RCC. Like, if you are a fireman I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) then you can pray to a specific Saint that seems (to me anyway) to specialize in something that has to do with being a fireman. In short, I think RCC and the EO see prayer/intercession of the Saints quite differently.
Also, if a loved one passes on and as many in protestantism say, "they've gone to be with the Lord", they too are considered Saints.
Ok, I'm sort of just mentioning things that come to mind when people hear Saints.
The following snip-its will help you see an Orthodox perspective. By no means exhaustive.
2. Do Orthodox Christians pray to Icons?
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.
5. Doesn't the 2nd Commandment forbid Icons?
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.
9. Why were there only Icons of Cherubim, and not of Saints?
(this question is in response to the fact that there are icons of Cherubim etc. in the OT temple because it was a shadow and copy of the things in Heaven - see Hebrews etc.)
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.
If you would like to read the entire article which has about 11 FAQ about Orthodox icons you can CLICK HERE.
The following snip-it has to do with Calvin's view on icons and there's some pretty interesting historical info in there as well as some picture of Jewish/early Christian images that were/are found in the temples/Churches/places of worship.
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sanserif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sanserif]As one of the leading theologians of the Protestant Reformation John Calvin helped define and shape Protestant theology. One of Calvin's lasting legacies is Protestantism's iconoclasm. According to Georg Kretschmar, "Calvin built up the most precise and radical position opposed to the icon theology of the 787 Council of Nicea" (1990:80). Where Luther was quite tolerant of images in churches, Calvin and his followers were much more vigorous in their opposition to images in the church. As a consequence, Protestant places of worship have a stark austerity in comparison to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches.[/FONT][/FONT]
CLICK HERE to read the entire article.
And this is from Eusebius of Caesarea. You kind find some of his works online.
NPNF2: Vol. I, The Church History of Eusebius, Book 7, Chapter 18.
Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there. For there stands upon
2 an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases. They say that this statue is an image of
3 Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. Nor is it strange that those
4 of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings,140 the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – c. 339[1]) (often called Eusebius Pamphili, "Eusebius [the friend] of Pamphilus") became the bishop of Caesarea Palaestina, the capital of Iudaea province, c 314.[1] He is often referred to as the Father of Church History because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church, especially Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History[1].
I hope that the information will at least show that not a small amount of reverence for God has gone into the use of icons. Icons have a very long and winding history. Wouldn't hurt to check it out.
God bless,
Federer kissing his trophy....
