Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Exodus

[Hopeful]

What constitutes a violation of the "graven images" commandment? Also, does "thou shalt have no other gods" not endorse polytheism?

See https://chomsky.info/1990____/: It’s also worth noting the hypocrisy. The same newspaper stories showed pictures of the Ten Commandments posted on walls of classrooms (a version of them, at least). Apart from the obvious questions of establishing a particular choice of religious doctrine within the public school system, have a look at what children are to be taught to believe — on the (admittedly weak) assumption that anyone is expected to take the words seriously. Thus the self-designated chief of the gods orders them not to worship any of the other gods before him: in this polytheistic system, he is top dog. They are told not to make “graven images” (which means statues, pictures, etc.) — that is, they are taught that all the priests, ministers, teachers, and other authority figures are liars and hypocrites.

There are two questions that arise.

1: Does "thou shalt have no other gods" not endorse polytheism?

[T]he self-designated chief of the gods orders [children] not to worship any of the other gods before him: in this polytheistic system, he is top dog.

2: What constitutes a violation of the "graven images" commandment?

[Children] are told not to make “graven images” (which means statues, pictures, etc.) — that is, they are taught that all the priests, ministers, teachers, and other authority figures are liars and hypocrites.

[jimwalton]

In the ancient Near East, the idol mediated the presence of the god to the people because it contained the divine essence. It also was believed to be the avenue of revelation.

Also in the ANE, the people of the surrounding polytheistic cultures believed that they had to meet the needs of the gods (food, water, etc.)

The gods of the ancient Near East were manifested in the heavenly bodies, the powers of nature, and the images that had been made to house their essence. In Israel, Yahweh is not associated with any image, and he controls the powers of nature but is not manifest in them. This commandment forbids that Yahweh be associated in this way with any created thing.

The command in Exodus 20.4-6 is that no image be used as the mediator of revelation or presence from deity to people, or as the mediator of worship from the people to Deity. The image reduced God in many ways that distorted what He was like: it implied His presence could be mediated through a man-made article, it implied that He had needs, and it implied that this local sculpture held sway over a locality. They are all false teachings about God, and hence the command.

There was to be no local aspect of YHWH who served only a portion of the community, but rather only one aspect of YHWH who holds one covenant over all Israel. The statement is not about sculpture or art. YHWH doesn't mediate his presence through an image. In Yahwism images are meaningless. That is not how YHWH works.

Walton writes, "Israel is known for being aniconic—that is, no crafted cult image served as a receptacle for the divine presence. People are the only image that YHWH tolerates. That means that all of the functions of the cult statue that were so central to temple ideology in the ancient Near East, if retained at all, had to be reassigned in Israel. ... Thus no parallel to the cult image is present in Israelite theology. Aniconism is observable in various ways in other times and places in the ANE, but it is not programmatic as it is in Israel. Total aniconism in the ANE outside Israel is unknown. The significance of this is far-reaching and cannot be overstated. Having images of other deities would, of course, be a violation of the covenant arrangement between YHWH and Israel.

"The role of images in the religious practices of the ANE can be best understood by investigating the way they were manufactured. The making of cult images to be used in the shrines and sanctuaries of the ancient world took place amid complex rituals that provided for the image to be approved by the god with the result that he/she would adopt the image into his/her identification. The material construction of the image (by the most skilled artisans, using the finest materials) was concluded by ritual processes that transformed (if not transubstantiated) the image so that it could take its rightful place in the sanctuary. Its ears, eyes, and nose were ritually opened so that it could function as the deity on earth. Much of its function entailed being able to receive the gifts of the people (food, drink, clothing, housing). In this way the image was central in the functioning of the Great Symbiosis (god meets our needs if we meet his). Through the images, the needs of the gods were met. Given this understanding, it is not surprise that images were forbidden in the worship of YHWH. This was one of the way that the Great Symbiosis was disrupted and rejected.

In other words, Chomsky is WAY off base. The command has nothing to do with posting the Ten Commandments. He is also way off base in assuming that this means no statues or pictures. He doesn't get it. He missed the whole point.

> Does "thou shalt have no other gods" not endorse polytheism?

It basically means that we owe Him preference and obedience. Again I'll quote from Dr. John Walton:

"Therefore the main thrust of this principle (Ex. 20.3) doesn't pertain to priorities, i.e., that Christians should not consider anything else as more important than YHWH. Instead, the preposition before (since its grammatical object is personal) refers to a spatial location, i.e., being in the presence of God. This command should be understood to prohibit the Israelites from positing other deities in the presence of YHWH. ... The idea here is not metaphysics, but rather concerning the God who is making the covenant with them. No other gods are involved in this relationship—the covenant is not being made with a council of gods. In ANE treaties, many gods were called as witnesses of the agreement. Here it is only YHWH. He is giving them their covenant status, and they are going to identify with him, and no other."

In the religious understanding of the ancient world, no entity possessed ultimate power in the cosmos. Polytheism by its very nature withheld ultimate power from any being since power, authority, and jurisdiction had to be shared among the gods. Each god was accountable to the decisions and decrees of the assembly of the gods. In contrast, Yahweh was presented as the ultimate power and authority in the cosmos. This command means that there are no other gods in God's presence. There is no pantheon, no assembly of gods, no sharing of power. He is accountable to no one, and there is nothing over which he does not have jurisdiction. Law comes from him, and there is no knowledge or power outside of him. So, no, it doesn't endorse polytheism.

> What constitutes a violation of the "graven images" commandment?

This command doesn't have a whole lot of applicability to our modern culture except in principle, though it would certainly exclude many Roman Catholic icons that are thought to mediate the presence of God.

Anything object that perverts a proper view of God, that is reductionistic, manipulative, or self-serving, should be repudiated. A proper view of God must be as revealed in the Bible, not anything generated to accommodate the world's standards.

Mostly I think the commandment pertains to our modern mindset, not so much to any physical object. As Walton said, the statement isn't really about sculpture or art. We are not to worship the true God in the wrong way, and we are certainly not to make Him smaller than He is or contort what He is like.