The Ten Commandments -- What Is The Meaning Of Each?

[add]

I know what you mean.  How would I get by without my computer.. my microwave oven -- my dish washer?  TV, cinemas,  my car..........

 

do you really  idolize your microwave and dishwasher :notworthy:

[Pliny]

doesn't "graven image" mean an object (such as a statue) that is worshipped as a god or in place of a god. What does the material have to do with anything?

Graven just means that it was carved or sculpted.

[add]

Graven just means that it was carved or sculpted.

It can also mean idol worship. Edited February 10, 2014 by add

[Pliny]

No, the term "graven image" has nothing to do with idol worship.  We have graven images everywhere including in our churches.

 

We must not make graven images and then worship them.

[add]

No, the term "graven image" has nothing to do with idol worship. We have graven images everywhere including in our churches.

We must not make graven images and then worship them.

That's nonsense
Catholic s don't worship statues Obviously you are uninformed about such matters Edited February 10, 2014 by add

[Pliny]

That's nonsense
Catholic s don't worship statues Obviously you are uninformed about such matters

Your misunderstanding is that you think it necessarily follows that a graven image is worshipped. All statues are graven images. Paintings could also be considered graven images.

There are many graven images in most Catholic churches. "Graven" does not have anything to do with being "grave" or serious but rather with having been sculpted or shaped.

[KnightofChrist]

According to Websters Dictionary graven image is defined as
 

: an object (such as a statue) that is worshipped as a god or in place of a god

or according to Websters Learners Dictionary it is defined as
 
an object (such as a statue) that is worshipped as a god or in place of a god

Edited February 10, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Pliny]

It's unfortunate that your version of Webster's would define it that way since the statue of Mary in our church is most definitely a graven image, by definition.

 

Here's something a little deeper:

 

Now I know your friend will quote the Ten Commandments and claim they forbid the making of graven images, but let's look to see what they really say:

Exodus 20:3-5  "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
Deut. 5: "Thou shalt have none other gods before me.  Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto 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,"

The whole point here is that we can't make statues to worship them as "gods" not that we cannot make a statue of anything or even use statues in worship.  A photograph is a graven image.  Any carving is a graven image.  People who oppose statues for use in worship have pictures of their mothers or spouses.  These same people make statues to honor presidents, generals, etc.--almost everybody but the saints in heaven.  They even even have images of dead politicians on their money.  How do we know this interpretation is correct?  Because God cannot contradict Himself and just five short chapters after God first gives the 10 Commandments to Moses He commands Moses to make two huge statues on angels to put on the mercy seat of the Ark, which is the center of their worship.  Angels certainly were a "likeness of that which is heaven above."

 

http://www.biblicaltruth.org/statues.htm
 

 

 

 "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image", were not understood absolutely and literally. It may be that the Hebrew translated "graven image" had a technical sense that meant more than a statue, and included the idea of "idol"; though this does not explain the difficulty of the next phrase. In any case it is certain that there were "likenesses of that which is in the sky above and on earth below and in the waters" in the orthodox Jewish cult. Whatever one may understand the mysterious ephod andtheraphim to have been, there was the brazen serpent (Numbers 21:9), not destroyed till Ezechias did so (2 Kings 18:4), there were carved and moulded garlands of fruit and flowers and trees (Numbers 8:4; 1 Kings 6:18; 7:36); the king's throne rested on carved lions (1 Kings 10:19-20), Iions and bullssupported the basins in the temple (1 Kings 7:25, 29). 

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

 

 

 

grav·en   [grey-vuhn]  Show IPA

verb

1.

a past participle of grave3 .

adjective

2.

deeply impressed; firmly fixed.

3.

carved; sculptured: a graven idol.

 

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

The principles of image-worship

Lastly something must be said about Catholic principles concerning the worship of sacred images. The Latin Cultus sacrarum imaginummay quite well be translated (as it always was in the past) "worship of holy images", and "image-worshipper" is a convenient term forcultor imaginum — eikonodoulos, as opposed to eikonoklastes (image-breaker). Worship by no means implies only the supreme adorationthat may be given only to God. It is a general word denoting some more or less high degree of reverence and honour, an acknowledgment of worth, like the German Verehrung ("with my body I thee worship") in the marriage service; English city companies are "worshipful", a magistrate is "Your worship", and so on. We need not then hesitate to speak of our worship of images; though no doubt we shall often be called upon to explain the term.

We note in the first place that the First Commandment (except inasmuch as it forbids adoration and service of images) does not affect us at all. The Old Law â€” including the ten commandments â€” as far as it only promulgates natural law is of course eternal. No possible circumstances can ever abrogate, for instance the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Commandments. On the other hand, as far as it is positivelaw, it was once for all abrogated by the promulgation of the Gospel (Romans 8:1-2; Galatians 3:23-5, etc.; Acts 15:28-9). Christians are not bound to circumcise, to abstain from levitically unclean food and so on. The Third Commandment that ordered the Jews to keepSaturday holy is a typical case of a positive law abrogated and replaced by another by the Christian Church. So in the First Commandmentwe must distinguish the clauses — "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me", "Thou shall not adore them nor serve them" — which are eternal natural law (prohibitum quia malum), from the clause: "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image", etc. In whatever sense the archaeologist may understand this, it is clearly not natural law, nor can anyone prove the inherent wickedness of making a graven thing; therefore it is Divine positive law (malum quia prohibitum) of the Old Dispensation that no more applies to Christians than the law of marrying one's brother's widow.

Since there is no Divine positive law in the New Testament on the subject, Christians are bound firstly by the natural law that forbids us to give to any creature the honour due to God alone, and forbids the obvious absurdity of addressing prayers or any sort of absoluteworship to a manufactured image; secondly, by whatever ecclesiastical laws may have been made on this subject by the authority of theChurch The situation was defined quite clearly by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. In its seventh session the Fathers drew up theessential decision (horos) of the synod. In this, after repeating the Nicene Creed and the condemnation of former heretics, they come to the burning question of the treatment of holy images. They speak of real adoration, supreme worship paid to a being for its own sake only, acknowledgment of absolute dependence on some one who can grant favours without reference to any one else. This is what they mean by latreia and they declare emphatically that this kind of worship must be given to God only. It is sheer idolatry to pay latreia to any creature at all. In Latin, adoratio is generally (though not always; see e.g. in the Vulgate, 2 Samuel 1:2, etc.) used in this sense. Since the council especially there is a tendency to restrict it to this sense only, so that adorare sanctos certainly now sounds scandalous. So inEnglish by adoration we now always understand the latreia of the Fathers of the Second Nicaean Council. From this adoration the councildistinguishes respect and honourable reverence (aspasmos kaitimetike proskynesis) such as may be paid to any venerable or great person-the emperor, patriarch, and so on. A fortiori may and should such reverence be paid to the saints who reign with God. The wordsproskynesis (as distinct from latreia) and douleia became the technical ones for this inferior honour. Proskynesis (which oddly enough means etymologically the same thing as adoratio — ad + os, kynein, to kiss) corresponds in Christian use to the Latin veneratio; douleiawould generally be translated cultus. In English we use veneration, reverence, cult, worship for these ideas.

This reverence will be expressed in signs determined by custom and etiquette. It must be noted that all outward marks of respect are only arbitrary signs, like words, and that signs have no inherent necessary connotation. They mean what it is agreed and understood that they shall mean. It is always impossible to maintain that any sign or word must necessarily signify some one idea. Like flags these things have come to mean what the people who use them intend them to mean. Kneeling in itself means no more than sitting. In regard then togenuflections, kisses, incense and such signs paid to any object or person the only reasonable standard is the understood intention of the people who use them. Their greater or less abundance is a matter of etiquette that may well differ in different countries. Kneelingespecially by no means always connotes supreme adoration. People for a long time knelt to kings. The Fathers of Nicaea II further distinguish between absolute and relative worship. Absolute worship is paid to any person for his own sake. Relative worship is paid to a sign, not at all for its own sake, but for the sake of the thing signified. The sign in itself is nothing, but it shares the honour of its prototype. An insult to the sign (a flag or statue) is an insult to the thing of which it is a sign; so also we honour the prototype by honouring the sign. In this case all the outward marks of reverence, visibly directed towards the sign, turn in intention towards the real object of our reverence â€” the thing signified. The sign is only put UP as a visible direction for our reverence, because the real thing is not physically present. Every one knows the use of such signs in ordinary life. People salute flags, bow to empty thrones, uncover to statuesand so on, nor does any one think that this reverence is directed to coloured bunting or wood and stone.

It is this relative worship that is to be paid to the cross, images of Christ and the saints, while the intention directs it all really to thepersons these things represent. The text then of the decision of the seventh session of Nicaea II is: "We define (orizomen with allcertainty and care that both the figure of the sacred and lifegiving Cross, as also the venerable and holy images, whether made in colours or mosaic or other materials, are to be placed suitably in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, on walls and pictures, in houses and by roads; that is to say, the images of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our immaculate Lady the holy Mother of God, of the honourable angels and all saints and holy men. For as often as they are seen in their pictorial representations, people who look at them are ardently lifted up to the memory and love of the originals and induced to give them respect and worshipfulhonour (aspasmon kaitimetiken proskynesin but not real adoration (alethinen latreian) which according to our faith is due only to the Divine Nature. So that offerings of incense and lights are to be given to these as to the figure of the sacred and lifegiving Cross, to theholy Gospel-books and other sacred objects in order to do them honour, as was the pious custom of ancient times. For honour paid to an image passes on to its prototype; he who worships (ho proskynon) an image worships the reality of him who is painted in it" (Mansi, XIII, pp. 378-9; Harduin, IV, pp. 453-6).

That is still the standpoint of the Catholic Church. The question was settled for us by the Seventh Å’cumenical Council; nothing has since been added to that definition. The customs by which we show our "respect and worshipful honour" for holy images naturally vary in different countries and at different times. Only the authority of the Church has occasionally stepped in, sometimes to prevent a spasmodic return to Iconoclasm, more often to forbid excesses of such signs of reverence as would be misunderstood and give scandal.

The Schoolmen discussed the whole question at length. St. Thomas declares what idolatry is in the "Summa Theologica", II-II:94, and explains the use of images in the Catholic Church (II-II:94:2, ad 1Um). He distinguishes between latria and dulia (II-II:103). The twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent (Dec., 1543) repeats faithfully the principles of Nicaea II:

[The holy Synod commands] that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honour and reverence (debitum honorem et venerationem) are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshipped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images, as was done by the heathen who put their trust in their idols [Psalm 134:15 sqq.], but because the honour shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honour the saints whose likeness they bear (Denzinger, no. 986).

As an example of contemporary Catholic teaching on this subject one could hardly quote anything better expressed than the "Catechism of Christian Doctrine" used in England by command of the Catholic bishops. In four points, this book sums up the whole Catholic position exactly:

• "It is forbidden to give divine honour or worship to the angels and saints for this belongs to God alone."
• "We should pay to the angels and saints an inferior honour or worship, for this is due to them as the servants and special friends ofGod."
• "We should give to relics, crucifixes and holy pictures a relative honour, as they relate to Christ and his saints and are memorials of them."
• "We do not pray to relics or images, for they can neither see nor hear nor help us."

 

 

Fortescue, A. (1910). Veneration of Images. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved February 9, 2014 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

•  

[add]

Some men worship or idolize Gold, Themselves, and Material Possessions 

Earthly things... 

 

beware for they will not enter the heavenly  kingdom

Edited February 10, 2014 by add

[add]

Would you call THE PIETA BY MICHELANGELO a graven image , I think not
Nor is the statue worshiped as a false god

Edited February 11, 2014 by add

[Pliny]

Would you call THE PIETA BY MICHELANGELO a graven image , I think not
Nor is the statue worshiped as a false god

Of course I would. It's a graven image. Likewise the statue of Lincoln in Washington. Likewise the little head I made out of Silly Putty.

Once again, a graven image is not necessarily an object of worship. You'll be able to understand what I'm saying if you look up the word "graven."

[add]

Of course I would. It's a graven image. Likewise the statue of Lincoln in Washington. Likewise the little head I made out of Silly Putty.

Once again, a graven image is not necessarily an object of worship. You'll be able to understand what I'm saying if you look up the word "graven."

 

 

look up "dumbass"
 

[Pliny]

A dumbass would continue attempting to reason with the unreasonable, so on that note I leave you in your ignorance.

[add]

thank you

[southern california guy]

I have to admit that I am confused by the first Commandment.

 

(Exodus 20:4-6)

 â€œYou 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, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

 

Is it the "image" that is being worshipped??  Or is it the god that the image represents?  It sounds to me like it really means bowing down to and serving anything other than God.

 

The Catholic church is famous for weeping statues, bleeding statues, etc.  But the statues don't really represent other gods.  Maybe the strongest argument might be praying to Mary.  But still Mary is only an intermediary between men and God.  She is not a separate god.

 

I have to admit that I am starting to agree with the Catholic interpretation.

Edited February 12, 2014 by southern california guy

[add]

I have to admit that I am confused by the first Commandment.

(Exodus 20:4-6)
“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, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Is it the "image" that is being worshipped?? Or is it the god that the image represents? It sounds to me like it really means bowing down to and serving anything other than God.
The Catholic church is famous for weeping statues, bleeding statues, etc. But the statues don't really represent other gods. Maybe the strongest argument might be praying to Mary. But still Mary is only an intermediary between men and God. She is not a separate god.

I have to admit that I am starting to agree with the Catholic interpretation.

So, THE PIETA BY MICHELANGELO is not bad?

[add]

So, THE PIETA BY MICHELANGELO is not bad?

 

according to the ten commandments.   i think it really is a lovely piece of artwork

[southern california guy]

How about we move on to the second Commandment "Thou shall not take the Lord's name in vain."

I've heard the protestants argue that it just means that you should not use the word "God" as a cuss word. But I think it means much more than that.

I don't think it means just irreverent use of the "name" (What name? There are over 25 names for God -- or the gods-- in the Old Testament), I think it means swearing something to God. Like you do when you take an oath or a vow.

[add]

Hillbilly 10

1. Ain’t but One God.

2. Honor yer Ma and Pa.

3. No tellin’ tales or gossipin’.

4. Git yer hide ta Sunday meetin’.

5. Ain’t notin’ come before the Lord.

6. No foolin’ with another fellers gal.

7. No killin’, sept fer critters.

8. Quit yer foul mouthin.

9. No swipin’ yer kin folks stuff.

10. Don’t be hankerin’ fer it neither.