How do Christians interpret the 2nd commandment?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


My concern here is that some Christians could become confused in considering this topic and in their confusion be led back to observing the law of Moses in the way of those who accept that obeying the law provides them benefits and disobeying the law assures them punishments. To believe such and act on such would contradict a Christian’s necessary belief that we are made righteous through Jesus’ finished work on the cross and not through our own efforts.

Then 2nd Commandment is a simple way to express a complex idea. It isn't just about literally worshiping a physical object instead of God. That's missing the point entirely. It's about allowing your concept of God to become more important to you than God Himself. Your definition of God, your ideas about what he looks like or how he would act, your assumptions about what he would think... these are all completely meaningless. They do not matter. Your job is to worship God, not the ideas and constructs you have built up to keep your beliefs afloat.

Idolatry means confusing what you can see and understand with God, and worshiping the wrong thing. You can't understand God: therefore, if you think you have your beliefs or the Universe or morality or anything "all figured out," then you're guilty of idolatry.

ETA: Basically, confusing the map with the territory.

Originally posted by apsalmist
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

My concern here is that some Christians could become confused in considering this topic and in their confusion be led back to observing the law of Moses in the way of those who accept that obeying the law provides them benefits and disobeying the law assures them punishments. To believe such and act on such would contradict a Christian’s necessary belief that we are made righteous through Jesus’ finished work on the cross and not through our own efforts.

This is why it is important to not just listen to a preacher's words only on sunday, but to actively read the word for themselves and gain understanding.

The first covenant was the covenant of fleshly works for salvation and it failed. The law itself is perfect, but Israel was not perfect, they broke the law before Moses even came down from Mt. Sinai with the law. A perfect law damns an imperfect people and it was designed to show Israel that without God's mercy and grace not just they but all mankind would be doomed. This is what the second covenant covers, it covers our failures so it is as if we never failed. Mankind could not be righteous at all, Jesus had to do it for all of us at the cross, this was what his role was as the Passover Lamb. Only God can keep the law for us, but Jesus being the Living Word, the Torah made flesh, by believing in him he (the Living Word) comes into us and we literally become a part of him and this is what the Body of Christ is and what it means. We become the Law and we become Christ's mercy. Who we forgive he forgives when they transgress against us, our forgiveness of them is him extending them mercy. We are his extensions into this world.

reply to post by adjensen

How is it so clear? Point to anywhere in scripture that says "to NOT depict God", and just saying "well, they never did" isn't a valid response because there are a plethora of reasons that can be applied to that, including the fact that the Bible isn't a comprehensive history of everything that the Israelites did, as you just agreed.

Just because the bible is not a comprehensive history of the Israelites*, doesn't mean we can say Israelites did X or Y.

Such an approach would only backfire on you. For example, one can make a claim...

How do you know the Israelites didn't consider eastern religious figures (Buddha, Krishna etc) as prophets?
After all, the Bible isn't a comprehensive history of everything that the Israelites did, right?

How do you know the Israelites didn't await a prophet named Mohammad to rise from Arabia?
After all, the Bible isn't a comprehensive history of everything that the Israelites did right?

My point is, if you claim the ancient Israelites* made images of their God then YOU need to bring the proof that they did. Just claiming they did so and pointing to the bible not being a comprehensive history of everything that the Israelites did doesn't work.

We easily find images of deities in cultures/religions which were not prohibited by religious law regarding images for worship. A modern day example would be Hinduism.

However, in the case of the Israelites*, you know very well they had a religious law against making images of God... which perfectly explains why we don't have any images of their God.


*The Israelites who worshipped the God of the bible, living by the 10 commandments. Not the local tribes whos religion allowed them to make idols.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

A perfect law damns an imperfect people and it was designed to show Israel that without God's mercy and grace not just they but all mankind would be doomed.

Just where in the bible do you read that?
Wait, let me guess.... Paul wrote something on those lines.

This is what the second covenant covers, it covers our failures so it is as if we never failed. Mankind could not be righteous at all,

Keeping the law has always been equated with righteousness. There are plenty of examples, even in the NT.

Also, when did Jesus ever say the law was done away with?
He never did.... not when he was alive, not when he was crucified and not when he supposedly made appearances after his crucifixion.

The idea that the law is [i

Scorpie, the Jews were liberated under the Persians. Of course, then, there are eastern Indo-European influences on Judaism, especially Zoroastrian ones. Jews writing near the close of their canon would know Krishna (as Dionysus), although the Greeks weren't popular rulers, so that plausibly limited their influence. Buddhism arises out of what appears to have been a pan-Indo-European enlightenment of about Gautama's time (Heraclitus would be the western root). So, it is likely that Jews would have encountered the ideas. Obviously, however, the distinctive material feature of Buddhism, monasticism, did not become a typical feature of Judaism.

There was some backfire somewhere?

Adj's point, as I understood it, was that we cannot conclude from the absence of surviving evidence that some activity did not ever occur, and we surely cannot "explain" the absence of surviving evidence by citing a scriptural injunction which simply isn't there. No burden of proof attaches to simple rebuttal.

My own view is that Jews probably saw representational significance in elements of their worship involving the ephemeral and rising character of sacrificial smoke, which corresponds with their scriptural depictions of God's temporal presence. It is also, by the way, a devotion attested among Indo-European peoples (which practice survives to this day). Israelites also, in black letters, recorded "second class relic" representation, furnishing a material dwelling place for their God - a practice which bluntly emulates ancient Egyptian idolatry.

What they didn't do is worship the smoke or the tent or the temple. That is what the Second Commandment forbade.
-

reply to post by eight bits

Adj's point, as I understood it, was that we cannot conclude from the absence of surviving evidence that some activity did not ever occur,

"we cannot conclude from the absence of surviving evidence that some activity did not ever occur"

Its like saying "we cannot conclude that Israelites didn't do X just because there is an absence of evidence."

This way, anybody can claim anything about the Israelites... and say that the absence of surviving evidence is not a factor in making a conclusion on as to what they did and didn't do.

and we surely cannot "explain" the absence of surviving evidence by citing a scriptural injunction which simply isn't there.

Yes we can.
There is a very direct co-relation between that religious law forbidding images of God and the lack of Israelite artifacts depicting their God in any form. We don't find images of God because the Israelites followed that commandment.

Going by what we have on record (the bible and the archaeology) there is no evidence of Israelites making images of their God. So there is no valid reason to claim they actually did so.


Furthermore, if modern Judaism can be traced back to the ancient Israelites, even artistic representations of God were forbidden.
en.wikipedia.org...

Its like saying "we cannot conclude that Israelites didn't do X just because there is an absence of evidence."

As I have said (and adj has not, so he's not on the hook for this), that there is evidence, from their own writings, that Israelites, Hebrews and Jews did routinely engage in representational practices found among their idolatrous neighbors, both Indo-European and Egyptian. At least occasionally, Solomon, a heroic favorite of God, made images of gods to be worshipped by members of his household, although not by him personally (except in legend).

What we can say with confidence is that Israelites "drew a line" somewhere in emulating the religious imaging practices of other cultures, but that the evidence is insufficient to say just where that line was. Worship of an image is forbidden in black letters, but a lot of involvement with religious images is equally written in black letters.

One thing that complicates fixing the line of practice relative to the literal commandment is that we know that Jewish practice incorporated "margins for error." For example, there is a clear prohibition against punishment of more than 40 lashes. In practice, there was concern to stop at thirty-nine, lest by miscounting, the limit of forty shoud be exceeded.

Thus, it is entirely possible that nobody ever received more than thirty-nine lashes from any Jewish authority. Obviously, archaeology will not be of much help; there wouldn't likely be a survivng record or material remnant of anybody who got their full forty. Nevertheless, even if we knew for a fact that no Jew ever administered more than thirty-nine lashes, we could not conclude, contrary to the black letter of the text, that forty-one wasn't the least count clearly forbidden.

BTW, since you bring up modern, rabbinical judaism, whether Deuteronomy 25:3 allows or forbids forty itself (in which case 39 would not be a margin of error) is disputed among rabbis. I'll think you'll find diversity in modern views of the "artisitic" depiction of God, as well.

What you will find little diversity about is the worship of images. That is what the Second Commandment forbade. Not worshipping images is a defining feature of Judaism. How to relate to images apart from worship was no doubt the subject of much discussion, just as it is today.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

A perfect law damns an imperfect people and it was designed to show Israel that without God's mercy and grace not just they but all mankind would be doomed.

Just where in the bible do you read that?
Wait, let me guess.... Paul wrote something on those lines.

This is what the second covenant covers, it covers our failures so it is as if we never failed. Mankind could not be righteous at all,

Keeping the law has always been equated with righteousness. There are plenty of examples, even in the NT.

Also, when did Jesus ever say the law was done away with?
He never did.... not when he was alive, not when he was crucified and not when he supposedly made appearances after his crucifixion.

The idea that the law is [i

Still not getting who the Law is i see. The Word of God, is the Voice of God, the Voice crying in the Wilderness. The Word of God is also the scriptures made flesh, the Law made Flesh. Starting to get what Jesus is yet? Yeah he is the Law and he is God and the Bread of Life. So, the Law (Jesus) is the Bread of life.

In the ceremony of communion we symbolise taking the unleavened wafer or cracker (the Bread of Life) into ourselves. We take the Law (Jesus) into ourselves and we consume the Word (the Law) and we become one with him. The Law becomes our conscience. The wine during the communion ceremony symbolises Christ's blood spilled for our sins, it sealed the second covenant where the Law becomes one with us. The Bread of Life is the Law and is Jesus, he becomes our Law and his ways become our ways and the Memra will be our God and we will be his people and no more shall one say to the other "know the Lord" for all will know him from the least to the greatest for he will forgive our iniquities.

Israel partakes of the same communion every Passover when they consume the Lamb with the wine, unleavened bread (that symbolises a humble spirit, not a puffed up spirit) and consuming the bitter herbs symbolises the loss of the lamb they loved like their own pet, for the sake of their own sins. This is how close Mosaic Judaism is to christianity. We are the fulfillment of the old testament prophecies, like looking into a mirror and seeing your future self all grown up.

We become one with the Law (Jesus) and Jeremiah's second covenant prophecy becomes fulfilled in us.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Which is also spoken of by... Paul the guy you hate. The law is perfect, but men are not perfect and we cannot be on our own power.

Hebrews 8:7-12

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”


The fault was found with Israel, who kept falling into idolatry. Look into theior past in the old testament, does a perfect people fall into idolatry? The answer is no, a perfect people could follow God's laws without the need for a sin offering to cover the screw-ups.

"The only man who makes no mistakes, is the man who never does anything"-Theodore Roosevelt

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Post facepalm pics all you want....while you are at it, explain those instances in the bible where people who kept the law were equated with being righteous.

The fault was found with Israel, who kept falling into idolatry. Look into theior past in the old testament, does a perfect people fall into idolatry?

YOU assume that all Israel was a "perfect people".
The truth is that those Israelites who kept the law were distinguished as being 'righteous'.
Those who did a bad job of keeping the law were the ones who kept falling into idolatry.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Post facepalm pics all you want....while you are at it, explain those instances in the bible where people who kept the law were equated with being righteous.

The fault was found with Israel, who kept falling into idolatry. Look into theior past in the old testament, does a perfect people fall into idolatry?

YOU assume that all Israel was a "perfect people".
The truth is that those Israelites who kept the law were distinguished as being 'righteous'.
Those who did a bad job of keeping the law were the ones who kept falling into idolatry.

Can't keep the law skorpie, 613 laws is too much to remember, even for them. Not a one of them kept the law flawlessly. They had 603 laws ontop of the Decalogue, let alone gentiles who were not raised from the cradle knowing Torah.

Jesus is our law. Second Covenant, not first covenant. First covenant wasn't given to gentiles. Not one gentile was party to the first covenant God made with Israel and in case you don't remember or choose not to believe the bible, Israel broke the Law before Moses even came down from Mt. Sinai, and it was the Decalogue itself they broke with the golden calf incident. All of Israel was punished by being made to drink gold dust in their water from the ground up golden calf (Exodus 32).

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Can't keep the law skorpie, 613 laws is too much to remember, even for them. Not a one of them kept the law flawlessly. They had 603 laws ontop of the Decalogue, let alone gentiles who were not raised from the cradle knowing Torah.

Israel broke the Law before Moses even came down from Mt. Sinai,

The law being impossible to keep is NOT taught by God. Neither did his prophets or Jesus ever teach that.
I have no idea where you are even getting that from.
You are missing the part where the bible consistently connects keeping the law to being righteous.

Here is ONE example from Ezekiel....

He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign Lord.

Yes, there were Israelites who broke the law on several occasions, but the bible shows that a man is considered "righteous" if he keeps the law. You simply cant discredit those who kept the law by bringing the law-breakers to the equation.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


You can keep the law to the best of your ability but you will fail at some point, because men are not perfect, thats a fact.

Thats what the second covenant was for, to cover our iniquity and negated the need for sin offerings. The purpose of a sin offering was to cover over your mistakes in your walk with God as a sort oof peace offering. Because of the second covenant we have 2 laws, Love God with our hearts mind and strength, and love our enemies and neighbors as we love ourselves.

Mattew 22:34-40

34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Second Covenant = new law. Without the Second Covenant the First Covenant will damn you. Second Covenant is God's Mercy being extended to all mankind. The First Covenant was given at Mt. Sinai to show Israel they can't keep it, as i said before they broke it before Moses even came off the mountain. God wanted them to know that without his mercy they were all dead in their sins. God then gave them another covenant in which he would perform signs for them which would help them believe, but the only sign Jesus gave the adulterous generation was the Son of Man being lifted up.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Can't keep the law skorpie, 613 laws is too much to remember, even for them. Not a one of them kept the law flawlessly. They had 603 laws ontop of the Decalogue, let alone gentiles who were not raised from the cradle knowing Torah.

Israel broke the Law before Moses even came down from Mt. Sinai,

The law being impossible to keep is NOT taught by God. Neither did his prophets or Jesus ever teach that.
I have no idea where you are even getting that from.
You are missing the part where the bible consistently connects keeping the law to being righteous.

Here is ONE example from Ezekiel....

He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign Lord.

Yes, there were Israelites who broke the law on several occasions, but the bible shows that a man is considered "righteous" if he keeps the law. You simply cant discredit those who kept the law by bringing the law-breakers to the equation.

Well, if they broke it they didn't keep it. A man commits one murder and he's a murder, likewise a man breaks one law and he's a lawbreaker.

If you have ever lied, gossiped, disobeyed your parents, had premarital sex, wanted something someone else had, or didn't go to the temple every year on Yom Kippur to make your yearly sin sacrifice then I hope you have a plan B.