Posted on 02/03/2008 1:34:04 PM PST by Chris DeWeese
Jesus Was an Iconoclast
During the days of the Byzantine Empire , a group of religious zealots arose in the Orthodox Church known as iconoclasts. Their self-appointed job was to go to various religious sites and smash what they called idols, which to them were various forms of religious art that depicted saints and the Deity.
Iconoclasm in our world has come to have a different meaning. Its broader meaning refers to the practice of forcefully challenging, even destroying, established beliefs or institutions.
Jesus was an iconoclast because he loved to challenge his day’s conventional thinking. He challenged the Pharisees’ restrictive view of the Law in general and the Sabbath in particular. He challenged their view of the role of women, counting many among his followers, some of whom were outcasts due to previous lifestyle or ritual impurity. The despised Samaritans were among the people he befriended and used as examples of true neighborliness. He claimed that the Temple , the center of Judaism, would one day cease to exist, and his enemies interpreted some of his comments as a threat to destroy this symbol of Judaism.
And Jesus was good at asking questions designed to challenge widely accepted beliefs. “How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" (Mark 12:35-37 NIV) If the Messiah was to be nothing more than a human descendant of David, why would David call him Lord? Jesus, great teacher that he was, knew how to ask such challenging questions in order to get people thinking.
“Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” That was another challenge to their narrow interpretation of the Law. "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." (Matt 12:11-12 NIV)
If Jesus were to visit your church (and I hope he does often) would he be an iconoclast? What idols would he smash? Your music? Your order of services? The attention or lack thereof that you pay to younger people? Your power structure? Your political bent? Your rigidity?
What would he say about your attitude toward other believers, especially those who don’t see things quite the way you do? Would he be happy with the labels you hang on them? Or the snide comments that might come out of the pulpit? What if he were to tell you that the Samaritans’ church had more faith and genuine love than yours?
Do you think maybe there are some icons in your church that need to be smashed?
LC
Interesting title, but I think that after reading the lead-in, I shall pass.
Destroying the icons of the pagan past is one thing; destroying the icons of the Risen Lord is another. I think that I shall also resist following a link to a book by the same author entitled “Morning Coffee Companion”.
Perhaps expending some energy in finding out what Jesus was for and what His instructions to us were might be of value.
Reading Lenny's essays is a very insightful way of doing just that! Thanks for the ping.
***Reading Lenny’s essays is a very insightful way of doing just that!***
The Church and Scripture just might provide substance beyond Lenny’s essays. I think that that Church Fathers millennia ago had certain insight that modern opportunists don’t possess.
Lenny is a certified financial planner and makes his living in the private sector.
Then why do you discard them in favor of modern "scripture scholars" and scientists?
Have you ever wondered if all there was to learn was available to past generations, why are we still here? From Mount Sinai to the return from exile to Jesus’ public ministry, to the ECF councils, to the reformation, to the 1850’s, and on, everyone always thinks they have it all figured out and we just have to sit around looking to the east waiting for Jesus to come back, but He doesn’t. I wonder why.
Is a crucifix an icon of the risen Christ ?
Jesus was not an iconoclast.
There, now the issue is resolved.
There, now the issue is resolved.
NAsbU Deuteronomy 4:16 so that you do not act corruptly
and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure,
the likeness of male or female,
We all have copies of the text, and in several languages. No need to post random irrelevancies.
As I understand it, there are two commandments about images (1) not to make images (2) not to worship them, doing either could be wrong. Somewhere in the bible there were faithful Jews bemoaning the fact that that there were images introduced into the temple, and God seemed to have approved them. There was something about marking them by an angel on the forehead.
Jesus was certainly raised in an iconoclast culture even if he might not have been one himself. Jesus wrote something in the sand, but there is no evidence he ever drew or sketched anything nor any of the apostles or early Christians. The first iconography that appeared was Luke's (?) icon of Mary which some believe is a legend, others believe it still exists in Poland.
Islam and Orthodox Jews, even other Jews, probably don't use images in worship, but some of them allow photographs, etc., otherwise.
Without going strictly by church doctrines, I never figured out just what laws apply or not. Revelation tells that there were some that followed the law that were saved.
So you believe that the Holy Word of Elohim is irrelevant !
In Acts, by Luke as Part Two of his history, the doings of Paul were laid out, where he went outside the Jewish community where the old mosaic law was if not unknown at least was not in effect, and said none of that mattered to the new religion. It's a new game and you may keep your traditions if you want or not if you don't want.
Being of the gentile tradition, the OT tradition belongs to somebody else.
You shouldn't. There's nothing particularly new about the point the guy makes ... but it's a good Lenten reminder about focusing on the important stuff.
Regarding images, there are a few of us Christians out here who have removed them from our homes and worship. The only images I can remember God being happy about were the cherubim covering the ark. However, the tent of meeting and the temple all had images of pomegranates and such as decoration.
A reading of Acts chapter 19, specifically 19:24 until Acts 20:1 will show that Paul was willing to give his very life preaching the removal of images. The silversmiths of the city of Ephesus wanted Paul killed because he was teaching the people not to worship or even possess idols. It is very interesting that Paul did not tell the silversmiths "worry-eth not about thy profits, thou shalt make images of the risen Lord upon a cross and images of a woman with a child and sell them instead of your Artemus statues".
The Folly of IdolatryAll who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing? Behold, all his companions shall be put to shame, and the craftsmen are only human. Let them all assemble, let them stand forth. They shall be terrified; they shall be put to shame together.
The ironsmith takes a cutting tool and works it over the coals. He fashions it with hammers and works it with his strong arm. He becomes hungry, and his strength fails; he drinks no water and is faint. The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house. He cuts down cedars, or he chooses a cypress tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it. Then it becomes fuel for a man. He takes a part of it and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread. Also he makes a god and worships it; he makes it an idol and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire. Over the half he eats meat; he roasts it and is satisfied. Also he warms himself and says, "Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire!" And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for you are my god!"
They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand. No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, "Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?" He feeds on ashes; a deluded heart has led him astray, and he cannot deliver himself or say, "Is there not a lie in my right hand?" (Isaiah 44:9-20)
The difference between an "Icon" and an "Idol" can be pretty subjective. Or not....
There is only one G-d and His Name is YHvH. You must worship the greek god Gee-zeus. If you want salvation from your sins you will have to call on the Name Yah'shua YHvH is my salvation ==> Yah'shuaI don't know what god you worship.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
Excuse me. I was responding to a statement by MkBsnr to the effect that the ancient church fathers knew much more than any modern. However, he (and the vast majority of Catholics) radically switches gears when it comes to Biblical inerrancy or evolutionism. I call this hypocrisy.
As for you, haven't you heard . . . one of the new things we've "learned" over the years is that Mt. Sinai never happened! [/sarcasm]
I suppose you claim to reject a "living constitution" but you believe in a "living religion!"
Traditions are one thing, commandments another, to my way of thinking. But I'm a lightweight when it comes to this sort of thing.
Let's assume that images are wrong (I'm not saying they are). But I can see that it might be possible to get rid of images in our homes, I could sell my camera and quit that hobby, get rid of my tv and computer.
But so long as I don't make them myself and don't worship them, maybe it would be ok to at least look at them on our cereal boxes :-). No way to escape them in our society. We couldn't possibly be where we are even in secular society if there were no images.
What about building a home? You don't draw the pictures or architectural drawings but they are needed in modern society. I could think of hundreds of examples.
I've got a lot of art around my home and pictures on the walls, have one catholic saint picture up I'm fond of.
Mormons are heavily into images, too, as are all sects I can think of, but our local stake (I attended as a visitor a few times) had no cross or other images. But their books are full of them, and I think there are many in their temple.
Mind you now, this was just for the sake of discussion. I'm still not 100% either way and acknowledge the cherubim and pomegranates (although I'll have to look up the passage about the poms again).
It's also impossible to avoid religious symbols in present day. Our family has removed them and our congregation would be considered on the extreme side of keeping the commandment, Catholics, Orthodox, and such would be on the opposite side spectrum. Ultimately it is up to the believer to decide, IMO.
***Lenny is a certified financial planner and makes his living in the private sector.***
I see. Then I have to apologize in advance for questioning his authority in Biblical scholarship and translation abilities.
Because, of course, it would be absurd for anyone to hold a real job and be well versed in history and the scriptures at the same time. That would be insane...
A couple years back, I read lots of interesting discussion about it all on an Orthodox newsgroup, something about Irene pushing the icons on the Orthodox at a council, how they rationalize iconography, when it first appeared, would have to try to find it in the archives, won't take the time now, fascinating stuff.
Interesting, yes you are extreme :-).
Thanks for all the gibberish.
***Then why do you discard them in favor of modern “scripture scholars” and scientists?***
We discard nothing of the Church Fathers. They are some of the greatest men in the history of the world. Why would you say that?
I know. I was reading Acts the other day, seeing as how we ate allowed to do that, which was not always true. There was a time only Church officials were allowed to even have a Bible. Death penalty seems excessive for owning a Bible.
The Crucifix is an icon of the process that the Lord went through in order to become the Risen Christ. It is a reminder of all that He has done for us.
Dying, You destroyed our death.
Rising, You restored our life.
Lord Jesus, come in glory.
***I was responding to a statement by MkBsnr to the effect that the ancient church fathers knew much more than any modern. However, he (and the vast majority of Catholics) radically switches gears when it comes to Biblical inerrancy or evolutionism. I call this hypocrisy.***
I call this bearing false witness.
I never said that they knew much more than any modern. I shall quote myself:
-—The Church and Scripture just might provide substance beyond Lenny’s essays. I think that that Church Fathers millennia ago had certain insight that modern opportunists don’t possess.-—
Please pay attention. It makes for better debate.
***I know. I was reading Acts the other day, seeing as how we ate allowed to do that, which was not always true. There was a time only Church officials were allowed to even have a Bible. Death penalty seems excessive for owning a Bible.***
When was this?
There was even a thread on this. Private people could own a couple books such as Psalms and Proverbs without facing the fire. But, it was in Latin anyway, so mostly nobody could read it. That’s where Luther upset the applecart.
XS> I don't know what god you worship.
There is only one G-d and His Name is YHvH.
You must worship the greek god Gee-zeus.
If you want salvation from your sins you will have to call on the Name Yah'shua
YHvH is my salvation ==> Yah'shua
RW>Thanks for all the gibberish.
I pray that if YHvH has chosen you that you do not resist His Grace.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
You discard their interpretation of Genesis because "they were men of their time but nowadays we know so much more."
I never said that they knew much more than any modern. I shall quote myself:
-—The Church and Scripture just might provide substance beyond Lenny’s essays. I think that that Church Fathers millennia ago had certain insight that modern opportunists don’t possess.-—
Please pay attention. It makes for better debate.
So what are you saying? That the fathers had better insight on everything other than how the world was created???
I know my pain amuses you, but please, show some modicum of decency.
Being gentile, I was not of the Chosen People. Not Chosen. Saved anyway probably, for no apparent reason.
If there was a death penalty for owning a bible, I think it may have only been during the Inquisition. All that I'd rather not get into because it doesn't apply now. Everybody who wants one can own one unless you live in a country where it is forbidden by state law.
But the earliest Christians did seem to have access to and be able to read the OT, and some of the letters from the New.
I do not blame it all on the church that people didn't have bibles. I think there was always one in the church that people who could read might have access to and be able to copy however much they were able, not sure about that.
If I didn't have some historical context, if somebody handed me a bible in English and I read it, yes, God could speak to me through his word in some passages, but I would not understand most of it, and even having somewhat of a context, I have to resort to commentaries and footnotes, etc., whether Catholic or Protestant. Much of it is still not clear to me at all.
The message of the NT is supposed to be very simple and clear, but it kind of gets lost in the 2000 years of commentary since. So, ignore the commentary. The message is right there plain as day in Matthew, which is the book the first Christians had and preached from.
It’s all to the good. Paul was practically driven out of hisw own Jewish community so he took it to the gentiles, and there found receptivity.
Matthew 9:13"But go and learn (A)what this means: '(B)I DESIRE COMPASSION, [a]AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for (C)I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired;My ears You have opened;Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.
Micah 6:8 8He has (A)told you, O man, what is good; And (B)what does the LORD require of you But to (C)do justice, to (D)love kindness, And to walk (E)humbly with your God?
Jesus sure did break it down, and you sure can get what you need out of just what is considered the NT, but it is the same faith today that saved Abraham.
Mt 9:13 is indeed the message, and for those who might have missed it, it is repeated later.
There have been so many arguments about it. One of the biggest stumbling blocks is John 6:66 literal or symbolic? I don't want to argue about it here, there have been so many interminable arguments about it already.
Yes, they parted company, some went home, some went on to preach some more. What I am wondering about is what they meant by the loaves and fishes. Anybody have a clue?
It is so clear, so simple that many can't see it. Surely it can't be that simple! But it is.
Loaves and fishes? Good one. It was about sharing :-). It was about a lot more than that, mainly to meet a need at the time, they were multiplied and not created out of nothing, and I don't understand what the baskets left over means, if anything. Maybe Jesus and the apostles ate last? Dunno.
I don’t know what the loaves and fishes meant, but I suspect it was the loaves meant examples or teachings from the OT and the fishes meant teachings from the NT, or what was to become the NT since the NT hadn’t been written at that point.
Yes, indeed. It was every bit as epochal as creating the Internet.
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.