Graven images

[dizzle]

The second commandment either A) prohibits the making of any image whatsoever or B) prohibits the making of them for the purpose of bowing down to them and serving them.

Those are the options. Limiting the production of images to those “of God” is illegitimate.

http://wedgewords.reformedblogs.com/2007/04/20/thats-not-what-the-commandment-prohibits/

Thoughts?

[rogue06]

Kind of strange when you really stop to think about it. It seems to first prohibit the making of images and then prohibits the worshipping of images. I guess this means when you encounter an image made by others since you shouldn't have made any in the first place. :shrug: In any case, no where does it state images of God.


And just to pick a nit. There is no general agreement concerning the enumeration of the 10 Commandments. IIRC, most Protestants and the Greek Orthodox number the prohibition of images as the 2nd, whereas the RCC and Lutherans see it as part of the 1st. And I believe that Jewish tradition has a different way of numbering them still. If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will soon correct me. :teeth:

[Tlalynet]

I thought it was to stop us engraving CD Images... Copyright protection and all

[Spinyn00bman]

I thought it was to stop us engraving CD Images... Copyright protection and all

:brood:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The second commandment either A) prohibits the making of any image whatsoever or B) prohibits the making of them for the purpose of bowing down to them and serving them.

Those are the options. Limiting the production of images to those “of God” is illegitimate.

http://wedgewords.reformedblogs.com/2007/04/20/thats-not-what-the-commandment-prohibits/

Thoughts?Context demands that it be images of God that are in question here. This very law that prohibits the making of something called "graven images" also commands the making of the images of animals in the temple. So it's obviously wrong to say that it means all images for any purpose whatsoever.


The people knew what a graven image was. It was an image made for religious veneration. There are two commandments. Neither make any such thing, nor worship them.

[dizzle]

Context demands that it be images of God that are in question here. This very law that prohibits the making of something called "graven images" also commands the making of the images of animals in the temple. So it's obviously wrong to say that it means all images for any purpose whatsoever.


The people knew what a graven image was. It was an image made for religious veneration. There are two commandments. Neither make any such thing, nor worship them.

Then it isn't just an image of God but any image for veneration? (not trying to bring in the whole RCC/EO thing here so let's please not go down that road anyone)

[Timothy Leary]

I'd agree with Theonomy
Remember the snake?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Then it isn't just an image of God but any image for veneration? (not trying to bring in the whole RCC/EO thing here so let's please not go down that road anyone)
Fair comment, I guess it's not just images of God, as I said before. Yes, I think that images for religious veneration of any kind are covered by the first, and worshipping them is explicitly mentioned in the second. Many of the pagan religions had images that they did not directly worship, but used as aids to worship. There would have been no doubt at all to the reader that such things are forbidden by the first of these two commands, even though it didn't actually violate the second of them.

Incidentally, in case people don't realise it, that Catholic tradition divides the commandments up differently to Protestants. For us, these are two commandments. For Catholics, the are melded together into one, so that there is no specific separate command about making images, only one command about worshipping them. To push the number of commandments up to ten, they split the commandment about coveting into two, so that covetting somebody's wife is a separate commandment.

[commonman]

The second commandment either A) prohibits the making of any image whatsoever or B) prohibits the making of them for the purpose of bowing down to them and serving them.

Those are the options. Limiting the production of images to those “of God” is illegitimate.

http://wedgewords.reformedblogs.com/2007/04/20/thats-not-what-the-commandment-prohibits/

Thoughts?

This is a bit rough, but here is something I wrote a couple of years ago:

What is a graven image?

Paul tells us that we are a temple of God in 1 Corinthians 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1Corinthians3:16).
There are several places in scripture that compare the mind to the temple of God. One of those places is Ezekiel 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=ezekiel8). Another is Psalm 74 (http://www.common-man.net/bible_studies/psalms/psalm074.html). The temple of Solomon was an incredibly extravagant building. Inside the temple the walls were carved with intricate detail. Every surface of the inside walls was a bas relief. That relief was then gold plated.
Like the real temple the walls of our mind are engraved with images. These images have been seared in our psyche as a result of our experiences. You can’t prevent this process. our experiences result in us believing that things should be a certain way. We create a rule or law or a conviction that this is the way things ought to be. These things etched in our psyche are graven images or idols.The verse goes on to say that we carve these images to resemble the things we can perceive with our senses, things we see in the heavens, things we see in the earth, and things we see in the waters. What do all these things have in common? They are all bound to creation and exist in time! They change from moment to moment.

Everything we can perceive with our senses is a created thing and exists in time. If your foundation is God, and, therefore, eternal, then you know not to attach importance to anything that changes with time. So what’s important to you? That is the thing you serve, the graven image you make and bow down to. You know you are bowing down to serve an idol if you are concerned with the outcome in time. Once you are concerned with the outcome, you worship an idol or graven image and are breaking the commandment!

[Sparko]

I think it is just a commandment against making idols and worshiping them. It is not about not making any images or even images of God.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I think it is just a commandment against making idols and worshiping them. It is not about not making any images or even images of God.
Sparko, that covers the second command here, and I think most would agree with your assessment. But what do you think the first one forbids?

[Crow]

Sparko, that covers the second command here, and I think most would agree with your assessment. But what do you think the first one forbids?

!) Don't make images, AKA idols, for the purpose of worshiping them, and then 2) If you didn't get it by now, dummy, don't worship idols.
I think that the two statements are dealing with the exact same issue, don't worship idols, and that the double statement is meant as emphasis.

[Sparko]

Sparko, that covers the second command here, and I think most would agree with your assessment. But what do you think the first one forbids?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

I think that is pretty self explanatory to me.

[Soyeong]

This is a bit rough, but here is something I wrote a couple of years ago:

What is a graven image?
Paul tells us that we are a temple of God in 1 Corinthians 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1Corinthians3:16).
There are several places in scripture that compare the mind to the temple of God. One of those places is Ezekiel 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=ezekiel8). Another is Psalm 74 (http://www.common-man.net/bible_studies/psalms/psalm074.html). The temple of Solomon was an incredibly extravagant building. Inside the temple the walls were carved with intricate detail. Every surface of the inside walls was a bas relief. That relief was then gold plated.
Like the real temple the walls of our mind are engraved with images. These images have been seared in our psyche as a result of our experiences. You can’t prevent this process. our experiences result in us believing that things should be a certain way. We create a rule or law or a conviction that this is the way things ought to be. These things etched in our psyche are graven images or idols.The verse goes on to say that we carve these images to resemble the things we can perceive with our senses, things we see in the heavens, things we see in the earth, and things we see in the waters. What do all these things have in common? They are all bound to creation and exist in time! They change from moment to moment.

Everything we can perceive with our senses is a created thing and exists in time. If your foundation is God, and, therefore, eternal, then you know not to attach importance to anything that changes with time. So what’s important to you? That is the thing you serve, the graven image you make and bow down to. You know you are bowing down to serve an idol if you are concerned with the outcome in time. Once you are concerned with the outcome, you worship an idol or graven image and are breaking the commandment!

That seemed to me to be a bit more abstract and out of place when compared to the other commandments.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

I think that is pretty self explanatory to me.Sparko, I meant the first of the two that this thread is about..... :doh:

[Jawa Man]

I hope the thing about not wanting to get into RCC/EO stuff doesn't mean I can't offer my own opinion!

Fair comment, I guess it's not just images of God, as I said before. Yes, I think that images for religious veneration of any kind are covered by the first, and worshipping them is explicitly mentioned in the second. Many of the pagan religions had images that they did not directly worship, but used as aids to worship. There would have been no doubt at all to the reader that such things are forbidden by the first of these two commands, even though it didn't actually violate the second of them.
It seems to me to be covering idolatry which is connected to paganism, because "the Lord your God is a jealous God". I honestly don't see where it says not to use images at all for religious worship. I also wonder about this since the people were said by Josephus to annually bow down towards the Holy of Holies, where originally the Ark of the Covenant would have been; this was done because God was enthroned on the man made object (which had idols of cherubim on it).

[Timothy Leary]

guys, doesn't the snake settle the debate about images in general?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Jawa, the law in which these commands appear doesn't command such bowing, does it?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

guys, doesn't the snake settle the debate about images in general?As noted previously in this thread, it rules out one reading of the first of these two instructions.

[Vigilante]

I also think it's just images that are worshiped.

We can't deny that the bible, and the teachings of Jesus and acts of God are chock FULL of imagery. Where we get crosses and fish an mana and "this is my blood" and "this is my body" and trees and stars, sun and moon. They are all "images" of things used to make a point, and that point TO something else. Parables are entirely imagery that point to something else. We do not suddenly worship fig trees or grape vines after hearing such parables. And yet the image of a fig tree can still serve to remind us of things and bring to remembrance the teachings of Jesus.

It's impossible to say we can't make any images at all, otherwise it is impossible for us to attempt to conceive of the truths taught using them. How hard would it be to explain the word of Jesus without invoking those images of blood, the cross, sacrificial lamb, and so forth?

I have been around those who think it is breaking the commandment if you attempt to paint Jesus, or find an actor to play him in a movie. They say immediately, as soon as you create an "image" of Jesus, you are breaking the commandment. Of course they don't care about creating images of ANY other person in the bible, we don't know what they looked like either for the most part.

I think it's sad that mankind has invented a sort of patent image of Jesus that is used when depicting him, but at the same time, how COULD you create training materials, movies or documentaries, or even children's cartoons and picture books, without SOME kind of depiction of Jesus? I mean, have random actors or drawings but then where Jesus should be there is a black shadow? Somebody shows up as the most important person to ever live and he says "you cannot depict me in any fashion". Well that makes things hard doesn't it?
A good example is yesterday I was showing my sister a video of an easter sermon by our mother church, and it started out by a man reading a poem about the events. And during the reading they had imagery of the scenes talking about, like "Judas was betraying" and it showed a drawing depicting the scene. And so then the voice got to parts about Jesus, and of course they had drawings depicting the thorns, or him carrying the cross. And almost immediately after one of those pictures came up (showing Jesus), my sister mutters under her breath "thou shalt not make any graven images". I almost had to laugh. I mean, IS THAT a graven image? Just to depict Jesus in a drawing while reading a poem? Is there any person alive who would suddenly bow down and worship the drawing because it showed what is supposed to be Jesus?
Is it a graven image to have a little brown-haired, yellow skinned Jesus in a children's story book? Is it a graven image to have a beautiful oil painting hanging on your wall showing Christ at the last supper with a scripture printed on it? Is it an image? Certainly. Is it graven? Dunno. Is it worshiped? Certainly not. Is it OK? Dunno. Is it breaking the commandment? Discuss...

I'm actually very interested in this subject, I hope somebody can assist with a real biblical account of it, or point me to some additional reading on the subject. Is it bad to have an actor play Jesus? Paint Him? Depict Him in any way? Bad to have a "fish" bumper sticker? Bad to get a tattoo of a cross? Let's not forget the cry of all those people who refuse to watch any movie or documentary on Jesus because they have an actor play him. I know many people in my circle who refused to watch The Passion just because it depicted Jesus. And to be honest, I haven't seen the movie yet either.
Why do some people think graven image only means an image of Christ? Some think just idols. Others think only idols which are worshiped. There is an important distinction there. For example, an image of Buddha might be considered an idol. But say you collect eastern artifacts and have a little brass Buddha statue somewhere on your bookcase. You obviously do not worship the "idol" or consider it of any value to your own religion. But then I know some other people who believe Satan himself resides in those idols. And if you even had a BOOK on your shelf (say about Buddhism) which had a picture of Buddha on it, demons could live in that picture (idol) and could possess you!
I've seen both sides of the pendulum, and so I'm trying to find where it rests in the middle.
In the bible we read stories of repentance where the people threw out all there idols and crushed them, burned them, etc... Would this have been ALL images? Or just things that they were revering to some degree?
Let's say you are a Christian, and you suddenly become convicted that to many things are taking your time and attention that aren't good. Such as bad movies or something. You feel these things or hobbies are becoming idols, so you decide to go through your house and toss out all idols. You throw away bad books and movies and magazines and perhaps even pictures and files on your computer. Would you also grab that little brass Buddha on your book shelf? Is that an idol or not?

I have my own ideas on the subject, but this is to long already.

[Jawa Man]

Jawa, the law in which these commands appear doesn't command such bowing, does it?
Even if not, the physical act of bowing is not my point really. The intent of the heart is still to see God as dwelling in a man made object. The object, therefore, must be treated with reverence and awe (there was a whole ritual where only the High Priest could be in the Holy of Holies, and the Ark had to be carried a certain way and could not be touched, as you know), even though it was made by humans. This seems to be similar to how the Pagans treated their idols regarding their gods, i.e. their gods were not contained solely in their idols, but they still manifested the god in a special way. So I don't see why God would have forbade the veneration of images if he Himself demanded it in His own case.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I guess I see this command as I see other commands, like "do not kill."

The word there does not entail a special kind of killing, just killing in general. But there are exceptions, as the law spells out. In other words, don't kill except int he circumstances that God specifies.

Similarly, don't make images for religious purposes unless God specifies an exception.

[Jawa Man]

How about the commandment "do not steal"? Example: Let's say I am Jack Bauer, and I see terrorists coming towards a car I am next to, and it's full of bombs? Let's say I know they are planning on taking it to blow up something. As far as I know, God never gave an exception for stealing, but would it be wrong for me to hop in the car and take it before they do?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

It's not just obvious to me that Scripture does not allow an exception in that case. For example there are clear instructions about protecting the innocent. Scripture also allows for the defense of others, which may well involve disarming an aggressor.

So I do think that the commandments can be taken as "never do this, unless I say otherwise."

[Rusty T]

Colossions 1:15: In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I think Deut. 4 is an important passage. At least from where I stand.

And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land that you are going over to possess.

"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,

If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.

"Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

rusty

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

tizzi, I don't think anyone is going to deny anything that appeared in that post, as it's all Scripture. What are you trying to use them to say here? I think I might be missing it.

[Sparko]

Sparko, I meant the first of the two that this thread is about..... :doh:

:rofl:

I consider them to go together. The first part says not to make idols, the second not to worship them. In the first part the graven image or idol is not just any image of things in heaven or on earth but specific images that are worshiped as gods, "idols" - the fact that God commanded them to carve angels on the ark shows that he was not talking about any normal images or even religious images in general. Just images worshipped as gods. Idols.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Exodus 20:4-6 NIV

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

:rofl:

I consider them to go together. The first part says not to make idols, the second not to worship them.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Exodus 20:4-6 NIVNobody disputes that they go together. But as you yourself say - "The first part says not to make idols, the second not to worship them. " So you have said that there are two parts, each of which contains an instruction.

What relevance do you think the first instruction has for us today?

[Sparko]

Nobody disputes that they go together. But as you yourself say - "The first part says not to make idols, the second not to worship them. " So you have said that there are two parts, each of which contains an instruction.

What relevance do you think the first instruction has for us today?

Not to make religious images that will be worshiped.

Personally I think the whole orthodox thing with the icons is a bit too close to breaking that commandment. I know they deny worshipping the icons but it seems a bit too close to it for my comfort.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Not to make religious images that will be worshiped.

Personally I think the whole orthodox thing with the icons is a bit too close to breaking that commandment. I know they deny worshipping the icons but it seems a bit too close to it for my comfort.
Sparko, I see you saying there are two instructions, but when I ask you what the first one means, you utter them both as an answer.

If you're correct, the first is redundant, and all we would need is a version of the second that says "you must not bow down to or serve any graven image."

[Sparko]

Sparko, I see you saying there are two instructions, but when I ask you what the first one means, you utter them both as an answer.

If you're correct, the first is redundant, and all we would need is a version of the second that says "you must not bow down to or serve any graven image."

Um. the fact that the "second" directly refers back to the first as "them" instead of reiterating "graven images" kinda means that they DO go together as one.

They are not seperate.

Don't make idols and don't worship them. One continuous idea.

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, 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. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Sparko, unless I'm mistaken, we are speaking different languages. You freely refer to the "first" and "second" instruction, yet you insist that there's only one idea here. If your words mean what they are to mean, this has got to be false.

Nobody will deny that the second of these instructions presupposes the first, buy using the word "them," referring back to it. If you have no graven images, then you can't worship them. But the first instruction does not presuppose the second. You can make a graven image without literally bowing down and worshiping it.

[Rusty T]

What are you trying to use them to say here?

I hope I'm not trying to use them to say anything other than what they say.

The injunction against making images was because they "saw no form."

We already know that the commandment against making images was not a blanket policy. The Jews were not Muslims. We know this through scripture and through archeology (http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/05/24/images-in-the-synagogue). Chapter 4 of Deuteronomy explains the why of the commandment perfectly. In talking about worshiping the heavens: lest "you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven."

I hope we can agree that the prohibition was twofold. (1) Making a physical representation of God. (2) Worshiping an image as another god.

You ask what I meant by referencing the scripture I did. Can you imagine the horror that the Jewish people must have felt when Jesus says, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"? Or "I and the Father are one"? But as a Christian, someone who actually believes that when pointing at Jesus, broken and bleeding on the cross, I could legitimately say, "There is God, dying for me." Or if I were an artist and Jesus was before me, I could paint a picture of Him and claim, "I painted a picture of God." Christian art, to me, is a proclamation of the incarnation. I take solace in the fact that I'm not alone in the great horde of Christian men and women of the past and present.

In other words, what I am saying, the word which was spoken by God on Mt. Horeb was in darkness, in "gloom"; but Christ, the Word of God, the Light of the World, changed the darkness of Horeb into the Light of Tabor.

Yeah, it sounds wispy. But I believe it.

rusty

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

tizz, so you'd be one who thought that the commandment only ever referred to images of God then?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall it being said frequently among the Catholic and the orthodox that it doesn't matter if icons actually look like Jesus or not. I will assume you reject that claim, based on what you say here. What you say here seems to commit to the view that we may make religious images only because we now know what they should look like.

[Sparko]

Sparko, unless I'm mistaken, we are speaking different languages. You freely refer to the "first" and "second" instruction, yet you insist that there's only one idea here. If your words mean what they are to mean, this has got to be false.

Nobody will deny that the second of these instructions presupposes the first, buy using the word "them," referring back to it. If you have no graven images, then you can't worship them. But the first instruction does not presuppose the second. You can make a graven image without literally bowing down and worshiping it.


I am saying that the phrase "graven image" has an intrinsic meaning of it's own. It is not just ANY image of things in heaven or on earth. We know this from the fact that there are cherabim on the ark. And the snake on the pole. The phrase "graven image" as used in the commandment means an IDOL.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Sparko, are you sure that this doesn't just get closer and closer to the position I'm advocating here? namely, no religious images are permitted unless God makes exceptions (e.g. cherubim etc).

[Rusty T]

tizz, so you'd be one who thought that the commandment only ever referred to images of God then?

Nope. Did you read what I wrote: I hope we can agree that the prohibition was twofold. (1) Making a physical representation of God. (2) Worshiping an image as another god.


And correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall it being said frequently among the Catholic and the orthodox that it doesn't matter if icons actually look like Jesus or not.

I think it matters that when you're making a representation of Christ that you try your best to make it appropriately. One shouldn't make a picture of Christ as a woman. Or a man in his seventies. One shouldn't portray Christ as anything other than what He was: a man. That's the glorious mystery and scandal of it all.


I will assume you reject that claim, based on what you say here. What you say here seems to commit to the view that we may make religious images only because we now know what they should look like.

I don't see how you got that from what I said. But let me ask you this: if we knew what Christ looked like exactly - would it be wrong to paint a picture of Him?

rusty

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Nope. Did you read what I wrote: I hope we can agree that the prohibition was twofold. (1) Making a physical representation of God. (2) Worshiping an image as another god. Uh, no. I didn't read what you wrote.... I do that, just comment without reading....

Anyway... so you do say that it only referred to images of God - or a god, then?
I think it matters that when you're making a representation of Christ that you try your best to make it appropriately. One shouldn't make a picture of Christ as a woman. Or a man in his seventies. One shouldn't portray Christ as anything other than what He was: a man. That's the glorious mystery and scandal of it all.So it's a matter of degree? See, your reasoning in your last post was that until Christ came, nobody had seen God, but now we've seen the image of God. So it seems to me that your point consists of our ability to make images of God because now he has been seen.
I don't see how you got that from what I said. Seriously, I don't see how you could have meant anything else.
But let me ask you this: if we knew what Christ looked like exactly - would it be wrong to paint a picture of Him?I guess it would depend on what it's for.

I have no problem, for example, with Michaelangelo's painting of the Last Supper.

[Rusty T]

Uh, no. I didn't read what you wrote.... I do that, just comment without reading....

Not sure if you're serious. . . but if you are . . . stop it! :P

Anyway... so you do say that it only referred to images of God - or a god, then?

The prohibition was against making images of God and images worshipped as another god.

So it's a matter of degree?

No, it's a matter of accuracy. Was Christ a woman? Was Christ an old man?

See, your reasoning in your last post was that until Christ came, nobody
had seen God, but now we've seen the image of God.

I've never seen Christ. But I do believe He was really a man and that He was really God. And that religious art is a proclamation of this very real truth.

So it seems to me that your point consists of our ability to make images of God because now he has been seen.

To a point. I don't think anyone would say that when Michaelangelo painted a picture of Christ that that was what Christ looked like. But the mere possibility that it may well be what Christ looked like is the real proclamation of the Gospel. At least to me. Iconoclasm, in my eyes, looks like a denial of the incarnation.

Seriously, I don't see how you could have meant anything else.

I meant what I meant. Simply asking for clarification rather than making assumptions would have been more prudent.

I guess it would depend on what it's for.

I have no problem, for example, with Michaelangelo's painting of the Last Supper.

Degrees, eh?

rusty

[Sparko]

Sparko, are you sure that this doesn't just get closer and closer to the position I'm advocating here? namely, no religious images are permitted unless God makes exceptions (e.g. cherubim etc).

So in your view, crosses are out? Paintings of Jesus, angels, etc?

I think that goes beyond what the text says. If someone were to worship a cross or a painting of Jesus, then that would be a problem, but just making them or viewing them? I don't agree with that.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The prohibition was against making images of God and images worshipped as another god.I guess I'm missin g some subtle thing here. it looks to me like you do agree with my assessment of what you said.
No, it's a matter of accuracy. Was Christ a woman? Was Christ an old man? So it is a matter of degrees. Of accuracy. So again you agree. What is it with trying to drum up disagreement?
To a point. I don't think anyone would say that when Michaelangelo painted a picture of Christ that that was what Christ looked like. But the mere possibility that it may well be what Christ looked like is the real proclamation of the Gospel. At least to me. At least to you? Well, I don't think so. Just having a photo of a woman on the wall isn't a good way to remember my mother.
Iconoclasm, in my eyes, looks like a denial of the incarnation. That really came outta left field. It's false and unwarranted. Grossly so.
I meant what I meant.What a shock!
Simply asking for clarification rather than making assumptions would have been more prudent.Call me crazy, but it's my view that people say things in the hope of conveying something, and it looks to me like I understood you.
Degrees, eh?

rusty:confused: Who said that's bad? I was asking when i mentioned degrees. y'know, asking instead of assuming. But in any case, no, there's no appeal to degrees on my part. The appeal was to purpose.

[Rusty T]

At least to you? Well, I don't think so. Just having a photo of a woman on the wall isn't a good way to remember my mother.

I've had this discussion with you before and the result wasn't purty. I've said my part, and you've said yours - so I'll just leave it at this: if you didn't know what your mother looked like, then yes, having a picture of a woman (or a mother!) on the wall may very well be a good way to remember your mother.

rusty

[Rusty T]

That really came outta left field. It's false and unwarranted. Grossly so.I wasn't calling you an iconoclast, and I'm sorry if you thought I was.

rusty

[Rusty T]

Sorry to post a link in the middle of a discussion, but I was looking through my daily blogs, and one of my favorite ones (a lady who reads ancient and out-of-copyright texts aloud and records them - how cool is that?) posted her part one of St. John of Damascene's "On Holy Images (http://marialectrix.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/731-part-1a-on-holy-images-by-st-john-damascene/)." Thought I'd share.

rusty

[Amazing Rando]

So in your view, crosses are out? Paintings of Jesus, angels, etc?

I think that goes beyond what the text says. If someone were to worship a cross or a painting of Jesus, then that would be a problem, but just making them or viewing them? I don't agree with that.

I've had a small copy of the icon of Christ Pantocrator from St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai for about 2 months now, and it's been an immense aid to my prayer life. Seeing a theologically rich representation of Christ such as that one helps increase my desire for the person of Christ.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So in your view, crosses are out? Paintings of Jesus, angels, etc?

I think that goes beyond what the text says. If someone were to worship a cross or a painting of Jesus, then that would be a problem, but just making them or viewing them? I don't agree with that.You asked a question. Then in the same post, before waiting for an answer, you make comments that presuppose what my answer would have been!

The answer to the question is: That depends what they are for.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I've had a small copy of the icon of Christ Pantocrator from St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai for about 2 months now, and it's been an immense aid to my prayer life. Seeing a theologically rich representation of Christ such as that one helps increase my desire for the person of Christ.Are you a consequentialist?

[Amazing Rando]

Are you a consequentialist?

Depends on the consequences. :tongue:

[dizzle]

Are you a consequentialist?

Interesting. Good observation.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Depends on the consequences. :tongue:
Should I take that as a yes?

[Amazing Rando]

If you mean in a "the ends justify the means" sense, then definitely not. Here's a link (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=89759) to the thread where I talk about the icon at length. It's a really rich image.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

If you mean in a "the ends justify the means" sense, then definitely not. Here's a link (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=89759) to the thread where I talk about the icon at length. It's a really rich image.
OK, but in this case you used the end to justify the means. Did you do that because it's a good ethical method, or because it justifies something that you're personally in favour of?

If you think that sounds harsh, it's not, I really am trying to scrutinise your view here.

[Amazing Rando]

OK, but in this case you used the end to justify the means. Did you do that because it's a good ethical method, or because it justifies something that you're personally in favour of?

If you think that sounds harsh, it's not, I really am trying to scrutinise your view here.

I think you misread me. I wasn't positing an argument or trying to justify anything. Simply pointing out that I use and enjoy the icon of the Lord that has recently come into my posession.

'Twas a simple statement of fact.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I think you misread me. I wasn't positing an argument or trying to justify anything. Simply pointing out that I use and enjoy the icon of the Lord that has recently come into my posession.

'Twas a simple statement of fact.
OK, I just wanted that to be crystal clear. So we can agree that we can't evaluate the use of icons, images statues and the like from a Christian point of view by asking how they affect our ease of prayer etc?

[Amazing Rando]

OK, I just wanted that to be crystal clear. So we can agree that we can't evaluate the use of icons, images statues and the like from a Christian point of view by asking how they affect our ease of prayer etc?

I don't see where there's anything to evaluate. It's not forbidden by Scripture, the ancient tradition of the church has affirmed it as a beneficial spiritual practice for those who are drawn to it, and my own personal devotions have aquired a particular dimension of richness that had been lacking. Read what I wrote in the thread I linked to if you want to understand how I view the church's iconographal tradition- it's not identical to the Catholic or Orthodox understanding. For me, it's a celebration of the Incarnation in that the unseen God of Israel has made himself manifest in human flesh. Colossians literally says that Jesus is the eikwn (icon) of the invisible God. The unseen God has become the tangible, knowable, visible Savior of the world, and because of this, a new kind of relationship with that same God is possible for those who desire it- an intimacy unknown in preincarnational times, and for me at least, that is something to celebrate. It's in the spirit of this incarnational celebration that the church has historically affirmed iconography as one way (though certainly not the only way) in which the God revealed in human flesh might be worshipped.

In my pre-seminary days, I was heavily into black and white photography. Before I discerned God's vocation for my life, I thought I'd be a professional photographic artist. It was through imagery, both of my own creation and the works of the masters, that God initially drew me into a relationship with him, and I suppose that I'm just glad to have found out that I'm not the first who has been drawn nearer to the Lord through imagery. From the earliest days of the Christian church, artists have been expressing their devotion to the Lord through art, and visual people like myself have been led to a deeper walk with Christ through this medium, just as others are drawn closer to God through sacred music or other auditory or tactile worship aids.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Well if you're just gonna bypass the task of interpreting Scripture and say that it's not forbidden by Scripture, there's little to talk about. If it's not then there's no concern.

I do also notice another consequentialist argument in your second paragraph - or was that just a statement of fact again?

[Sparko]

You asked a question. Then in the same post, before waiting for an answer, you make comments that presuppose what my answer would have been!

The answer to the question is: That depends what they are for.

I dont get you then theo. you seem to be saying the same thing I have been saying, but you keep arguing with what I say.

How about you just come out and tell me what you think instead of playing Socrates with me?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Sparko, I've said firstly that there are two commands here, not merely one. That's something we disagreed on, so we're not saying the same thing.

I've also said that while it's true that the second command depends on the first, it's not true that the first depends on the second.

I've also said (prior to our exchange, but in this thread) that I accept that the context here is religious images, not just any image, but the prohibition is not just on bowing down to them, but on making them.

I didn't think i was evasive or unclear when I said those things, but if you think i was, hopefully you agree that I've now laid them out clearly in this post.

This also answers the question about making images of creatures, or images of Jesus. It depends what they are for. If they are religious images used for worship, we need God's permission. If they are used merely for the purpose of depiction, "e.g. here is a painting of the last supper" then I have no issue with it.

The issue is that we can't just decide the terms on which we worship God. If you recall, that's why God destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. "Creative worship" is not a good thing.

[Sparko]

Sparko, I've said firstly that there are two commands here, not merely one. That's something we disagreed on, so we're not saying the same thing.

I've also said that while it's true that the second command depends on the first, it's not true that the first depends on the second.

I've also said (prior to our exchange, but in this thread) that I accept that the context here is religious images, not just any image, but the prohibition is not just on bowing down to them, but on making them.

And yet when I asked if this meant making crosses or pictures of Jesus you said "depends on the use" - knowing full well that I was speaking about religious use.
So do you think the making of crosses in regards to Christianity (not telephone poles) breaks that commandment?

I didn't think i was evasive or unclear when I said those things, but if you think i was, hopefully you agree that I've now laid them out clearly in this post.

No you are still being slightly evasive.

This also answers the question about making images of creatures, or images of Jesus. It depends what they are for. If they are religious images used for worship, we need God's permission. If they are used merely for the purpose of depiction, "e.g. here is a painting of the last supper" then I have no issue with it.

What about crucifixes? or cross necklaces? or crosses hanging up in the church? What about statues of angels in churches?

Where do you draw that line?

The way I see it even you are making the first commandment dependent on the second one. You are not saying we can't make images of angels, crosses, etc, but that we are forbidden from making them and then USING them in a certain way (which the second commandment explains)

[Amazing Rando]

Well if you're just gonna bypass the task of interpreting Scripture and say that it's not forbidden by Scripture, there's little to talk about. If it's not then there's no concern.

I do also notice another consequentialist argument in your second paragraph - or was that just a statement of fact again?

I wrote all that so you might understand a bit where I'm coming from, but you don't seem to me to be terribly interested in that. You haven't demonstrated much concern to understand the iconographical tradition (e.g. nary a comment on the St. John of Damascus link tizzi provided, nor in my own expressions here or in the thread I linked to), only in being condemnatory toward worship practices that differ from your own (or so it seems to me, at least). I understand that you feel that all such religious imagery used for religious purposes is to be prohibited on the grounds of appeal to the 2nd commandment. I happen to heartily disagree, but I just figured you might be interested in understanding an alternative perspective- that's why I went into the theological rationale in my previous post. :nsm:

Tizzi- I was searching CCEL for a written copy of John of Damascus' treatise on icons, and I found one here- in case you haven't seen it, it's here (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/damascus/icons.i.html). :smile:

[Jawa Man]

It's not just obvious to me that Scripture does not allow an exception in that case. For example there are clear instructions about protecting the innocent. Scripture also allows for the defense of others, which may well involve disarming an aggressor.

So I do think that the commandments can be taken as "never do this, unless I say otherwise."
I just disagree I suppose. I don't see where the text itself requires the interpretation you give it in this case, that it applies unless God gives an exception.

I especially find your argument weak because Jewish tradition itself has "icon-veneration" outside of this context. In synagogues today they will dress the Torah scroll with crowns or symbols of animals, and the Torah has to be kept in the synagogue's Ark. It is then carried in procession and accompanied with a song. This isn't worship of course, but it is veneration for a man made object. (Edit: I wasn't sure if I should write this at first, but I think it makes a good connection to Christian icon veneration and Jewish veneration; if you go to a Greek Orthodox Church, they do the EXACT same thing. They will take the Gospels out of the Holy of Holies behind the iconostasis, then have a procession around the Church, and finally go back up to read from it. What struck me especially was that when I was in a synagogue, the people kissed the rabbi as she walked by during the procession [it was a Reform synagogue; a lesbian rabbi...], which the Greeks do, too, at the exact same time!)

So I don't see why I should suspect this Jewish tradition of being wrong. Of course my case isn't from the Bible, but I don't see your interpretation there, either. If you can see it there, I would like to know where it is.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I just disagree I suppose. I don't see where the text itself requires the interpretation you give it in this case, that it applies unless God gives an exception.

I especially find your argument weak because Jewish tradition itself has "icon-veneration" outside of this context. In synagogues today they will dress the Torah scroll with crowns or symbols of animals, and the Torah has to be kept in the synagogue's Ark. It is then carried in procession and accompanied with a song. This isn't worship of course, but it is veneration for a man made object. (Edit: I wasn't sure if I should write this at first, but I think it makes a good connection to Christian icon veneration and Jewish veneration; if you go to a Greek Orthodox Church, they do the EXACT same thing. They will take the Gospels out of the Holy of Holies behind the iconostasis, then have a procession around the Church, and finally go back up to read from it. What struck me especially was that when I was in a synagogue, the people kissed the rabbi as she walked by during the procession [it was a Reform synagogue; a lesbian rabbi...], which the Greeks do, too, at the exact same time!)

So I don't see why I should suspect this Jewish tradition of being wrong. Of course my case isn't from the Bible, but I don't see your interpretation there, either. If you can see it there, I would like to know where it is.Does the Law condone any such thing done by Jews?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I wrote all that so you might understand a bit where I'm coming from, but you don't seem to me to be terribly interested in that. You haven't demonstrated much concern to understand the iconographical tradition (e.g. nary a comment on the St. John of Damascus link tizzi provided, nor in my own expressions here or in the thread I linked to), only in being condemnatory toward worship practices that differ from your own (or so it seems to me, at least). I understand that you feel that all such religious imagery used for religious purposes is to be prohibited on the grounds of appeal to the 2nd commandment. I happen to heartily disagree, but I just figured you might be interested in understanding an alternative perspective- that's why I went into the theological rationale in my previous post. :nsm:

Tizzi- I was searching CCEL for a written copy of John of Damascus' treatise on icons, and I found one here- in case you haven't seen it, it's here (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/damascus/icons.i.html). :smile:This such tosh. First you accuse me of not being interested in any worship tradition other than my own, when actually the only issue before us is the interpretation of this part of the law. That's just offensive and completely ignorant. Then you start implying that it's about how I feel.

Good day.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

And yet when I asked if this meant making crosses or pictures of Jesus you said "depends on the use" - knowing full well that I was speaking about religious use.
So do you think the making of crosses in regards to Christianity (not telephone poles) breaks that commandment?

No you are still being slightly evasive.

What about crucifixes? or cross necklaces? or crosses hanging up in the church? What about statues of angels in churches?

Where do you draw that line?

The way I see it even you are making the first commandment dependent on the second one. You are not saying we can't make images of angels, crosses, etc, but that we are forbidden from making them and then USING them in a certain way (which the second commandment explains)I'm withdrawing because you are seriously irritating me by asking questions that I believe I have clearly answered. I don't know why you are, but you are and it pisses me off.

[Amazing Rando]

This such tosh. First you accuse me of not being interested in any worship tradition other than my own, when actually the only issue before us is the interpretation of this part of the law. That's just offensive and completely ignorant. Then you start implying that it's about how I feel.

Good day.

The word "feel" in my third sentence was intended as a synonym for "believe," or "maintain." I did not mean to imply that your convictions are based on only "feeling"; I know that's not the case. Sorry if that was unclear.

Can you link us to something (either written by yourself or some writing you agree with) that clearly delineates where you think the boundaries ought to be and why? I share Sparko's confusion.

[Sparko]

I wasn't trying to tick you off Theo, I just am not "getting" it.

You seem to be saying that the first commandment says that we are not allowed to make any images unless they are specifically OK'd by God himself. But when I asked you if that was the case you said, "depends on their use" - which sounds like what I have been saying. But if that is the case then what are you drilling me about it for?

Oh well.

[Yankee_Doodle]

The second commandment either A) prohibits the making of any image whatsoever or B) prohibits the making of them for the purpose of bowing down to them and serving them.

Those are the options. Limiting the production of images to those “of God” is illegitimate.

http://wedgewords.reformedblogs.com/2007/04/20/thats-not-what-the-commandment-prohibits/

Thoughts?

The word "graven" itself means carvings, but also to "impress deeply" (e.g. graven on the mind). I read somewhere that God's intent in prohibiting images, which even may represent Him, was that God doesn't want us to include an image of some artists rendition of God or anyone else in our minds when we are praying (in other words we shouldn't be thinking about the face of Christ we saw on a painting or statute when we pray). I personally take a strict view of this commandment, mainly because we are not only commanded not to worship any image, but also not to "bow down" to any image.

I have a broad view when defining graven images, worship, and bowing down. I think any statute, cross with a sculpture of Christ on it (but not just a simple cross made out of two pieces of wood), painting, or anything representative of God (and even worse anything representative of a Saint, who we shouldn't be praying to anyway) violates this commandment.

On this question I feel like why not stay on the safe side (since we certainly know no images whatsever are required for worship) and not include any images (of any kind) in our worship or private prayer? I'm still wondering about paintings on stained glass (which my church has....but would be cost prohibitive to replace)?

Maybe I'm going to far on this? But again, better safe than sorry (on the flip side I don't want to be over legalistic on this point either)

Great thread topic by the way.

AW

[Yankee_Doodle]

I don't see where there's anything to evaluate. It's not forbidden by Scripture, the ancient tradition of the church has affirmed it as a beneficial spiritual practice for those who are drawn to it, and my own personal devotions have aquired a particular dimension of richness that had been lacking. Read what I wrote in the thread I linked to if you want to understand how I view the church's iconographal tradition- it's not identical to the Catholic or Orthodox understanding. For me, it's a celebration of the Incarnation in that the unseen God of Israel has made himself manifest in human flesh. Colossians literally says that Jesus is the eikwn (icon) of the invisible God. The unseen God has become the tangible, knowable, visible Savior of the world, and because of this, a new kind of relationship with that same God is possible for those who desire it- an intimacy unknown in preincarnational times, and for me at least, that is something to celebrate. It's in the spirit of this incarnational celebration that the church has historically affirmed iconography as one way (though certainly not the only way) in which the God revealed in human flesh might be worshipped.

In my pre-seminary days, I was heavily into black and white photography. Before I discerned God's vocation for my life, I thought I'd be a professional photographic artist. It was through imagery, both of my own creation and the works of the masters, that God initially drew me into a relationship with him, and I suppose that I'm just glad to have found out that I'm not the first who has been drawn nearer to the Lord through imagery. From the earliest days of the Christian church, artists have been expressing their devotion to the Lord through art, and visual people like myself have been led to a deeper walk with Christ through this medium, just as others are drawn closer to God through sacred music or other auditory or tactile worship aids.

Interesting view.....I haven't thought about it like that; thank's for the perspective

[rlundberg]

The word "graven images" is key here, I think people create an image of God in their mind that often times does not line up with His self-disclosure in Scripture.

[Ryokan]

The second commandment either A) prohibits the making of any image whatsoever or B) prohibits the making of them for the purpose of bowing down to them and serving them.

Those are the options. Limiting the production of images to those “of God” is illegitimate.

http://wedgewords.reformedblogs.com/2007/04/20/thats-not-what-the-commandment-prohibits/

Thoughts?

Honestly, I think it addresses more a problem the ancient Israelites had, specifically their proclivity for making big statues of God and callign it God or an avatar of him, and then making offerings to it. Now we use other things to take Gods place, and that is what is prohibited.

[Amazing Rando]

Interesting view.....I haven't thought about it like that; thank's for the perspective

That's the way I've come to see it. My understanding is not identical with those of the Orthodox or Catholic traditions, but it does have some definite similarities such as the stress on the newness of the Incarnation.

I used to have my photography up on the internet for everyone to see, but the site's been taken down. Here's an archived cache (http://web.archive.org/web/20041204100009/http://www.imagingthespirit.com/) of my site that preserved some of my images and the stuff I wrote about them.

I belong to a Mennonite congregation that is pretty darn traditional in terms of having a very bare, spartan sanctuary. I'm trying to get people at church open to incorporating more visual elements in worship. It'd be cool (in my opinion) to have more artwork around the sanctuary, both to heighten the worship experience and engage our sight in worship just as we use music to engage our hearing in worship.

[Yankee_Doodle]

That's the way I've come to see it. My understanding is not identical with those of the Orthodox or Catholic traditions, but it does have some definite similarities such as the stress on the newness of the Incarnation.

I used to have my photography up on the internet for everyone to see, but the site's been taken down. Here's an archived cache (http://web.archive.org/web/20041204100009/http://www.imagingthespirit.com/) of my site that preserved some of my images and the stuff I wrote about them.

I belong to a Mennonite congregation that is pretty darn traditional in terms of having a very bare, spartan sanctuary. I'm trying to get people at church open to incorporating more visual elements in worship. It'd be cool (in my opinion) to have more artwork around the sanctuary, both to heighten the worship experience and engage our sight in worship just as we use music to engage our hearing in worship.

I took a look at it....nice work. I concede that I have a very traditional (sort of the bare bones, spartan chapel) view that is probably similar to the Mennonite view. However, as you state I think it may perhaps be possible that Christ changed the dynamic by which we should view this commandment (as He did with other OT laws). People sort of forget that the 10 commandments were only the "first 10" of many commandments. In fact, as Jews would note, the OT contains 613 laws; most of which are not binding on Christians (Paul tells us for example that Christ abolished all the sacrificial rites from Levitical priesthood, and we see in Peter and other passages that dietary & sabbath rules were changed).

Moreover, many commandments are affirmed throughout the NT. I'm on the fence, however, with whether the NT only requires obedience to the commandments it expressly discusses, or whether it only alters (or abolishes) those OT laws it expressly dealt with (leaving alone the others). I have generally held the latter view because I think to do otherwise creates the risk of a dangerous slippery slope. However, I think there are reasonable arguments both ways (I also admit to not devoting a great deal of time exploring this topic).

AW

[Amazing Rando]

I took a look at it....nice work. I concede that I have a very traditional (sort of the bare bones, spartan chapel) view that is probably similar to the Mennonite view. However, as you state I think it may perhaps be possible that Christ changed the dynamic by which we should view this commandment (as He did with other OT laws).

That's exactly how I understand it, yes.

People sort of forget that the 10 commandments were only the "first 10" of many commandments. In fact, as Jews would note, the OT contains 613 laws; most of which are not binding on Christians (Paul tells us for example that Christ abolished all the sacrificial rites from Levitical priesthood, and we see in Peter and other passages that dietary & sabbath rules were changed).

Moreover, many commandments are affirmed throughout the NT. I'm on the fence, however, with whether the NT only requires obedience to the commandments it expressly discusses, or whether it only alters (or abolishes) those OT laws it expressly dealt with (leaving alone the others). I have generally held the latter view because I think to do otherwise creates the risk of a dangerous slippery slope. However, I think there are reasonable arguments both ways (I also admit to not devoting a great deal of time exploring this topic).

AW

The New Testament (as I understand it) makes explicit a new ethical paradigm that is really only hinted at in the Old Testament. The paradigm is the Passion and the cross- discipleship, suffering love, being a "servant to all," taking up your cross to follow Jesus, and all the other ways the gospels and epitsles describe it. As I understand it, that which is most "ethical" for Christians is that which is most faithful to the paradigm of the cross. It's a "messy" way to do moral discernment, and is certainly not as clean-cut or easy as the way that searches the Mosaic law trying to understand which laws still apply and which ones we can disregard, but it's the way that Paul and the other epistle writers went about the process of moral discernment, and it's the most prevalent way that we find in the writings of the early church of the first several centuries.

If you're interested in doing some serious study of Christian ethics, I'd recommend RIchard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Vision-New-Testament-Contemporary/dp/006063796X/ref=sr_1_1/104-1311884-4283941?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178294335&sr=8-1) as an excellent starting place. After surveying the moral teachings of the different NT authors, Hays posits three key paradigms that the New Testament stresses over and over as guides in the process of moral discernment- cross, community, and new creation. He then filters a number of tough contemporary issues through these paradigmatic lenses- with some very interesting results. It's a superb book that I can't recommend highly enough.

[Xelsorsior]

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing 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 serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

I see three commands in the first or second and sometimes third commandments, because there are three commands here. Whether one religion wants to say one, two or three is of no consequence, since the commands remain the same.
Time is an interesting issue, since there was no time before the creation of the world, God created time, interesting point of view. And likewise there will be no time after the destruction of the world. This is a testing ground and proving ground for all to proceed into eternity, with the age old question of whose vainity is greater or who is the most humble?
As Scripture states, it is of the wise to be humble in the Knowledge of "God" and of the foolish to be wise in the knowledge that is foolishness to "God".