|
Retrieval Data |
|
| Search Term: | IMAGE |
| Current Page | 1 |
| Total Pages Retrieved: | 2 |
| Total Citations Retrieved: | 12 |
| 1 | 2 |
| Topic: CALF IMAGE | Source: EN |
| Subtopic: Also See: IMAGES Next Topic: CALF, GOLDEN Previous Topic: CALF |
|
| Topic: CHAMBERS OF IMAGERY | Source: EN |
| Subtopic: im'-aj-ri, im'-a-jer-i (maskith): The reference (Ezek 8:12) is to chambers in the temple where the elders of Israel were wont to assemble and practice rites of an idolatrous character. What the imagery consisted of, we may gather from 8:10: symbolic representations of beasts and reptiles and "detestable things. " It is thought that these symbols were of a zodiacal character. The worship of the planets was in vogue at the time of the prophet among the degenerate Israelites. Next Topic: CHAMELEON Previous Topic: CHAMBERS IN THE SOUTH |
|
|
References Collection: ; Ezekiel 8:12 ; |
| Topic: GOD, IMAGE OF | Source: EN |
| Subtopic: In Gen 1:26,27, the truth is declared that God created man in His own "image" (tselem), after His "likeness" (demuth). The two ideas denote the same thing--resemblance to God. The like conception of man, tacit or avowed, underlies all revelation. It is given in Gen 9:6 as the ground of the prohibition of the shedding of man's blood; is echoed in Ps 8; is reiterated frequently in the New Testament (1 Cor 11:7; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; Isa 3:9). The nature of this image of God in man is discussed in other articles--see especially ANTHROPOLOGY . It lies in the nature of the case that the "image" does not consist in bodily form; it can only reside in spiritual qualities, in man's mental and moral attributes as a self-conscious, rational, personal agent, capable of self-determination and obedience to moral law. This gives man his position of lordship in creation, and invests his being with the sanctity of personality. The image of God, defaced, but not entirely lost through sin, is restored in yet more perfect form in the redemption of Christ. See the full discussion in the writer's work, God's Image in Man and Its Defacement; see also Dr. J. Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man. Contributor: James Orr Next Topic: GOD, NAMES OF Previous Topic: GOD, CHILDREN OF |
|
|
References Collection: ; 1Cor. 11:7 ; Eph. 4:24 ; Col. 3:10 ; Isaiah 3:9 ; |
| Topic: IMAGE | Source: EN |
| Subtopic: I. Man as Made in the Divine Image. [GoTo] 1. In the Old Testament: [GoTo] 2. In the New Testament: [GoTo] II. Christ the Image of God. [GoTo] 1. The Terms: [GoTo] 2. Meaning as Applied to Christ: [GoTo] 3. To What State Does It Refer?: [GoTo] 4. Theological Implications: [GoTo] 5. Relation to Pre-Christian Thought: [GoTo] im'-aj (tselem; eikon): Its usage falls under 3 main heads. (1) "Image" as object of idolatrous worship (translations about a dozen words, including maccekhah, "molten image" (Dt 9:12, etc.); matstsebhah, in the King James Version translated "image" or "pillar," in the Revised Version (British and American) always "pillar" (Ex 23:24, etc.); pecel, "graven image" (Ex 20:4, etc.); tselem, "image" (2 Ki 11:18, etc.); eikon, "image" (e.g. Rev 14:9)); (2) of man as made in the image of God; (3) of Christ as the image of God. Here we are concerned with the last two usages. For "image" in connection with idolatrous practices, see IDOLATRY ;IMAGES ;PILLAR ;TERAPHIM , etc. I. Man as Made in the Divine Image. [Top] 1. In the Old Testament: [Top] To define man's fundamental relation to God, the priestly writer in Gen uses two words: "image" (tselem) and "likeness" (demuth); once employing both together (Gen 1:26; compare 5:3), but elsewhere one without the other, "image" only in Gen 1:27; 9:6, and "likeness" only in 5:1. The priestly writer alone in the Old Testament uses this expression to describe the nature of man, though the general meaning of the passage Gen 1:26 f is echoed in Ps 8:5-8, and the term itself reappears in Apocrypha (Sirach 17:3; The Wisdom of Solomon 2:23) and in the New Testament (see below).The idea is important in relation to the Biblical doctrine of man, and has figured prominently in theological discussion. The following are some of the questions that arise:(1) Is there any distinction to be understood between "image" and "likeness"? Most of the Fathers, and some later theologians, attempt to distinguish between them. (a) Some have referred "image" to man's bodily form, and "likeness" to his spiritual nature (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus). (b) Others, especially the Alexandrian Fathers, understood by the "image" the mental and moral endowments native to man, and by the "likeness" the Divine perfections which man can only gradually acquire by free development and moral conflict (Clement of Alexandria and Origen), or which is conferred on man as a gift of grace. (c) This became the basis of the later Roman Catholic distinction between the natural gifts of rationality and freedom (= the image), and the supernatural endowments of grace which God bestowed on man after He had created him (the likeness = donum superadditum). The former remained after the Fall, though in an enfeebled state; the latter was lost through sin, but restored by Christ. The early Protestants rejected this distinction, maintaining that supernatural righteousness was part of the true nature and idea of man, i.e. was included in the "image," and not merely externally superadded. Whatever truth these distinctions may or may not contain theologically, they cannot be exegetically inferred from Gen 1:26, where (as is now generally admitted) no real difference is intended.We have here simply a "duplication of synonyms" (Driver) for the sake of emphasis. The two terms are elsewhere used interchangeably.(2) What, then, is to be understood by the Divine image? Various answers have been given. (a) Some of the Fathers (influenced by Philo) supposed that the "image" here = the Logos (called "the image of the invisible God" in Col 1:15), on the pattern of whom man was created. But to read the Logos doctrine into the creation narrative is to ignore the historic order of doctrinal development. (b) That it connotes physical resemblance to God (see (1), (a) above; so in the main Skinner,ICC , in the place cited.). It may be admitted that there is a secondary reference to the Divine dignity of the human body; but this does not touch the essence of the matter, inasmuch as God is not represented as having physical form. (c) That it consists of dominion over the creatures (Socinian view; so also Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, etc.). This would involve an unwarranted narrowing of the idea. It is true that such "dominion" is closely associated with the image in Gen 1:26 (compare Ps 8:6-8). But the "image of God" must denote primarily man's relation to his Creator, rather than his relation to the creation. Man's lordship over Nature is not identical with the image, but is an effect of it. (d) It is best to take the term as referring to the whole dignity of man, in virtue of his fundamental affinity to God. It implies the possession by man of a free, self-conscious, rational and moral personality, like unto that of God--a nature capable of distinguishing right and wrong, of choosing the right and rejecting the wrong, and of ascending to the heights of spiritual attainment and communion with God. This involves a separation of man from the beast, and his supremacy as the culmination of the creative process.(3) Does the term imply man's original perfection, lost through sin? The old Protestant divines maintained that the first man, before the Fall, possessed original righteousness, not only in germ but in developed form, and that this Divine image was destroyed by the Fall. Exegetically considered, this is certainly not taught by the priestly writer, who makes no mention of the Fall, assumes that the image was transmitted from father to son (compare Gen 5:1 with 5:3), and naively speaks of post-diluvian men as created in the image of God (Gen 9:6; compare 1 Cor 11:7; Jas 3:9). Theologically considered, the idea of the perfect holiness of primitive man is based on an abstract conception of God's work in creation, which precludes the idea of development, ignores the progressive method of the Divine government and the essential place of effort and growth in human character. It is more in harmony with modern conceptions (a) to regard man as originally endowed with the power of right choice, rather than with a complete character given from the first; and (b) to think of the Divine image (though seriously defaced) as continuing even in the sinful state, as man's inalienable capacity for goodness and his true destination. If the Divine image in man is a self-conscious, rational and ethical personality, it cannot be a merely accidental or transitory attribute, but is an essential constituent of his being. 2. In the New Testament: [Top] Two features may be distinguished in the New Testament doctrine of the Divine image in man: (1) man's first creation in Adam, (2) his second or new creation in Christ. As to (1), the doctrine of the Old Testament is assumed in the New Testament. Paul makes a special application of it to the question of the relation of husband and wife, which is a relation of subordination on the part of the wife, based on the fact that man alone was created immediately after the Divine image (1 Cor 11:7). Thus Paul, for the special purpose of his argument, confines the meaning of the image to man's lordly authority, though to infer that he regards this as exhausting its significance would be quite unwarranted. Man's affinity to God is implied, though the term "image" is not used, in Paul's sermon to the Athenians (Acts 17:28 f, man the "offspring" of God). See also Jas 3:9 (it is wrong to curse men, for they are "made after the likeness of God").(2) More characteristic of the New Testament is the doctrine of the new creation. (a) The redeemed man is said to be in the image of God (the Father). He is "renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him" (Col 3:10), i.e. of God the Creator, not here of Christ or the Logos (as some) (compare Eph 4:24, "after God"). Though there is here an evident reference to Gen 1:26 f, this does not imply that the new creation in Christ is identical with the original creation, but only that the two are analogous. To Paul, the spiritual man in Christ is on a higher level than the natural ("psychical") man as found in Adam (compare especially 1 Cor 15:44-49), in whom the Divine image consisted (as we have seen) in potential goodness, rather than in full perfection. Redemption is infinitely more than the restoration of man's primitive state. (b) The Christian is further said to be gradually transformed into the image of the Son of God. This progressive metamorphosis involves not only moral and spiritual likeness to Christ, but also ultimately the Christian's future glory, including the glorified body, the "passing through a gradual assimilation of mind and character to an ultimate assimilation of His doxa, the absorption of the splendor of His presence" (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 218; see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18; and compare Phil 3:21; 1 Jn 3:2). II. Christ the Image of God. [Top] In 3 important passages in English Versions of the Bible, the term "image" defines the relation of Christ to God the Father; twice in Paul: "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor 4:4); "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15); and once in He: "who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance" (Col 1:3). These statements, taken in their contexts, register the highest reach of the Christology of the Epistles. 1. The Terms: [Top] In the two Pauline passages, the word used is eikon, which was generally the Septuagint rendering of tselem (Vulgate: imago); it is derived from eiko, eoika, "to be like," "resemble," and means that which resembles an object and represents it, as a copy represents the original. In Heb 1:3 the word used is charakter, which is found here only in the New Testament, and is translated in Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) figura, the King James Version "express image," the Revised Version (British and American) "very image," the Revised Version, margin "impress." It is derived from charasso, "to engrave," and has passed through the following meanings: (1) an engraving instrument (active sense); (2) the engraved stamp or mark on the instrument (passive sense); (3) the impress made by the instrument on wax or other object; (4) hence, generally, the exact image or expression of any person or thing as corresponding to the original, the distinguishing feature, or traits by which a person or thing is known (hence, English words "character," "characteristic"). The word conveys practically the same meaning as eikon; but Westcott distinguishes them by saying that the latter "gives a complete representation, under conditions of earth, of that which it figures," while charakter "conveys representative traits only" (Westcott on Heb 1:3). 2. Meaning as Applied to Christ: [Top] The idea here expressed is closely akin to that of the Logos doctrine in Jn (1:1-18). Like the Logos, the Image in Paul and in He is the Son of God, and is the agent of creation as well as the medium of revelation. "What a word (logos) is to the ear, namely a revelation of what is within, an image is to the eye; and thus in the expression there is only a translation, as it were, of the same fact from one sense to another" (Dorner, System of Ch. D., English translation, III, 178). As Image, Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of the invisible God, the objective expression of the Divine nature, the face of God turned as it were toward the world, the exact likeness of the Father in all things except being the Father. Thus we receive "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 4:6). He is the facsimile of God. 3. To What State Does It Refer?: [Top] Is Christ described as the Image of God in His preincarnate, His incarnate, or else His exalted state? It is best to say that different passages refer to different states, but that if we take the whole trend of New Testament teaching, Christ is seen to be essentially, and in every state, the Image of God. (a) In Heb 1:3 the reference seems to be to the eternal, preincarnate Son, who is inherently and essentially the expression of the Divine substance. So Paul declares that He subsisted originally in the form of God (en morphe theou huparchon, Phil 2:6). (b) In Jn 1:18; 12:45; 14:9, though the term image is not used, we have the idea of the historical Jesus as a perfect revelation of the character and glory of God. (c) In the two Pauline passages (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15), the reference is probably to the glorified, exalted Christ; not to His pre-existent Divine nature, nor to His temporal manifestation, but to His "whole Person, in the divine-human state of His present heavenly existence" (Meyer). These passages in their cumulative impressions convey the idea that the Image is an inalienable property of His personality, not to be limited to any stage of His existence. 4. Theological Implications: [Top] Does this involve identity of essence of Father and Son, as in the Homoousion formula of the Nicene Creed? Not necessarily, for man also bears the image of God, even in his sinful state (see I above), a fact which the Arians sought to turn to their advantage. Yet in the light of the context, we must affirm of Christ an absolutely unique kinship with God. In the Col passage, not only are vast cosmic and redemptive functions assigned to Him, but there is said to dwell in Him "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (1:19; 2:9). In He not only is the Son the final revelation of God to men, the upholder of the universe, and the very image of the Divine nature, but also the effulgence (apaugasma) of God's glory, and therefore of one nature with Him as the ray is of one essence with the sun (1:1-3). The superiority of the Son is thus not merely one of function but of nature. On the other hand, the figure of the "image" certainly guards against any Sabellian identification of Father and Son, as if they were but modes of the one Person; for we cannot identify the pattern with its copy, nor speak of anyone as an image of himself. And, finally, we must not overlook the affinity of the Logos with man; both are the image of God, though the former in a unique sense. The Logos is at once the prototype of humanity within the Godhead, and the immanent Divine principle within humanity. 5. Relation to Pre-Christian Thought: [Top] Both in Paul and in He we have an echo of the Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, and of Philo's doctrine of the Logos. In the Alexandrine Book of Wisdom, written probably under Stoic influence, Divine Wisdom is pictorially represented as "an effulgence (apaugasma) from everlasting light, and an unspotted mirror of the working of God, and an image (eikon) of His goodness" (7 26). Philo repeatedly calls the Logos or Divine world-principle the image (eikon, charakter) of God, and also describes it as an effulgence of God. But this use of current Alexandrian terminology and the superficial resemblance of ideas are no proof of conscious borrowing on the part of the apostles. There is this fundamental distinction, that Philo's Logos is not a self-conscious personality, still less a historical individual, but an allegorical hypostatizing of an abstract idea; whereas in Paul and He, as in John, the Divine archetype is actually realized in a historical person, Jesus Christ, the Son and Revealer of God. Contributor: D. Miall Edwards Next Topic: IMAGE OF GOD Previous Topic: ILLYRICUM |
|
|
References Collection: ; Deut. 9:12, ; Exodus 23:24, ; Exodus 20:4, ; 2Kings 11:18, ; Genesis 1:26 ; 5:3 ; Genesis 9:6 ; 1Cor. 11:7 ; James 3:9 ; 1Cor. 11:7 ; Acts 17:28 ; Col. 3:10 ; 2Cor. 4:4 ; Col. 1:15 ; Col. 1:3 ; 2Cor. 4:6 ; 2Cor. 4:4 ; Col. 1:15 ; |
| Topic: IMAGE OF GOD | Source: EN |
| Subtopic: Also See: GOD, IMAGE OF Next Topic: IMAGERY Previous Topic: IMAGE |
|
| Topic: IMAGERY | Source: EN |
| Subtopic: im'-aj-ri (maskith, "carved figure"): Only in Ezek 8:12, "every man in his chambers of imagery," i.e. dark chambers on whose walls were pictures in relief representing all kinds of reptiles and vermin, worshipped by elders of Israel. Some maintain that the cult was of foreign origin, either Egyptian (Bertholet, Commentary on Ezekiel), or Babylonian (Redpath, Westminster Commentary on Ezekiel); others that it was the revival of ancient superstitions of a totemistic kind which had survived in obscure circles in Israel (W.R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, revised edition, 357). The word here rendered "imagery" is elsewhere in the King James Version translated "image" (of stone) (Lev 26:1, the Revised Version (British and American) "figured stone"), "pictures" (Nu 33:52, the Revised Version (British and American) "figured stones"; Prov 25:11, the Revised Version (British and American) "network"); twice it means imagination, conceit, i.e. a mental picture (Ps 73:20; Prov 18:11). "Imagery" occurs once in Apocrypha (Sirach 38:27 the King James Version, eis homoiosai zographian, the Revised Version (British and American) "to preserve likeness in his portraiture"). Contributor: D. Miall Edwards Next Topic: IMAGES Previous Topic: IMAGE OF GOD |
|
|
References Collection: ; Leviticus 26:1, ; Numbers 33:52, ; Psalm 73:20 ; Proverbs 18:11 ; |
| Topic: IMAGES | Source: EN |
| Subtopic: 1. Definition: [GoTo] 2. Origin: [GoTo] 3. Historical Beginnings and Early Development: [GoTo] 4. Bible References and Palestinian Customs: [GoTo] 5. Most Important Technical Terms: [GoTo] 6. Obscure Bible References: [GoTo] im'-aj-iz (tselem; eikon): 1. Definition: [Top] Images, as used here, are visible representations of supposedly supernatural or divine beings or powers. They may be (1) themselves objects of worship, (2) pictures, embodiments or dwelling-places (temple, ark, pillar, priests) of deities worshipped, (3) empowered instruments (amulets, charms, etc.) of object or objects worshipped, (4) pictures or symbols of deities reverenced though not worshipped. These images may be shapeless blocks, or symmetrically carved figures, or objects of Nature, such as animals, sun, moon, stars, etc. These visible objects may sometimes be considered, especially by the uninstructed, as deities, while by others in the small community they are thought of as instruments or symbolizations of deity. Even when they are thought of as deities, this does not exclude a sense and apprehension of a spiritual godhead, since visible corporeal beings may have invisible souls and spiritual attributes, and even the stars may be thought of as "seats of celestial spirits." An idol is usually considered as either the deity itself or his permanent tenement; a fetish is an object which has been given a magical or divine power, either because of its having been the temporary home of the deity, or because it has been formed or handled or otherwise spiritually influenced by such deity. The idol is generally communal, the fetish private; the idol is protective, the fetish is usually not for the common good. (See Jevons, Idea of Cod in Early Religions, 1910.) Relics and symbolic figures do not become "images" in the objectionable sense until reverence changes to worship. Until comparatively recent times, the Hebrews seem to have offered no religious objection to "artistic" images, as is proved not only from the description of Solomon's temple, but also from the discoveries of the highly decorated temple of Yahweh at Syene dating from the 6th century BC, and from ruins of synagogues dating from the pre-Christian and early Christian periods (PEF, January, 1908; The Expositor, December, 1907; Expository Times, January and February, 1908). The Second Commandment was not an attack upon artists and sculptors but upon idolaters. Decoration by means of graven figures was not in ancient times condemned, though, as Josephus shows, by the time of the Seleucids all plastic art was regarded with suspicion. The brazen serpent was probably destroyed in Hezekiah's time because it had ceased to be an ancient artistic relic and had become an object of worship (see below). So the destruction of the ark and altar and temple, which for so long a time had been the means of holy worship, became at last a prophetic hope (Isa 6:7; Jer 3:6; Am 5:25; Hos 6:6; compare Zec 14:20). While the temple is not naturally thought of as an "image," it was as truly so as any Bethel. An idol was the temple in miniature--a dwelling-place of the god. When an image became the object of worship or a means by which a false god was worshipped, it became antagonistic to the First and Second Commandments respectively. 2. Origin: [Top] The learned author of the article on "Image Worship" in the Encyclopedia Biblica (11th edition) disposes too easily of this question when he suggests that image-worship is "a continuance by adults of their childish games with dolls. .... Idolatrous cults repose largely on make-believe."Compare the similar statement made from a very different standpoint by the author of Great Is Diana of the Ephesians, or the Original of Idolatry (1695): "All Superstitions are to the People but like several sports to children, which varying in their several seasons yield them pretty entertainment," etc.No universal institution or custom is founded wholly on superstition. If it does not answer to some real human need, and "if its foundations are not laid broad and deep in the nature of things, it must perish" (J.G. Fraser, Psyche's Task, 1909, 103; compare Salomon Reinach, Revue des etudes grecques, 1906, 324). Image-worship is too widespread and too natural to humanity, as is proved in modern centuries as well as in the cruder earlier times, to have its basis and source in any mere external and accidental circumstances. All modern research tends to corroborate our belief that this is psychological rather than ecclesiastical in its origin. It is not imposed externally; it comes from within, and naturally accompanies the organic unfoldment of the human animal in his struggle toward self-expression. This is now generally acknowledged to be true of religious feeling and instinct (see especially Rudolf Eueken, Christianity and the New Idealism, 1909, chapter i; I. King, The Development of Religion, 1910); it ought to be counted equally true of religious expression. Neither can the origin of image-worship or even of magical rites be fully explained, as Fraser thinks, by the ordinary laws of association. These associations only become significant because the devoted worshipper already has a body of beliefs and generalizations which make him attentive to the associations which seem to him religiously or magically important. (Jastrow, Aspects of Rel. Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria; compare James H. Leuba, Psychological Origin and Nature of Religion, 1909; Study of Religions, 1911). So animism must be regarded as a philosophy rather than as an original religious faith, since it is based on an "explanation of phenomena rather than an attitude of mind toward the cause of these phenomena" (EB, 11th edition, article "Animism," and compare Hoffding, Philosophy of Religion, 1906, 138). In whatever ways the various image-worshipping cults arose historically--whether from a primitive demonology or from the apotheosis of natural objects, or from symbolism, or a false connection of cause with effect--in any case it had some human need behind it and human nature beneath it. The presence of the image testifies to faith in the supernatural being represented by the image and to a desire to keep the object of worship near. Prayer is easier when the worshipper can see his god or some sacred thing the god has honored (compare M. L'abbe E. Van Drival, De l'origine et des sources de l'idolatrie, Paris, 1860). 3. Historical Beginnings and Early Development: [Top] The first man was not born with a totem-pole in his fist, nor did the earliest historic men possess images. They lacked temples and altars and ephods and idols, as they lacked the fire-stick and potter's wheel. Religion, which showed itself so strong in the next stage of human life, must have had very firm beginnings in the prehistoric period; but what were its external expressions we do not yet certainly know, except in the methods of burying and caring for the dead. It seems probable that primitive historic man saw in everything that moved an active soul, and that he saw in every extraordinary thing in earth or heaven the expression of a supernatural power. Yet reflective thinking began earlier than Tylor and all the older scientific anthropologists supposed. Those earlier investigators were without extended chronological data, and although ingenuity was exercised in systematizing the beliefs and customs of modern savages, it was necessarily impossible always to determine in this way which were the most primitive cults. Excavations in Babylonia, Egypt and elsewhere have enabled us for the first time to trace with some chronological certainty the religious expressions of earliest historic man. That primitive man was so stupid that he could not tell the difference between men and things, and that therefore totemism or fetishism or a low form of animism was necessarily the first expression of religious thought is a theory which can no longer be held very buoyantly in the face of the new and striking knowledge, material and religious, which is now seen to be incorporated in some of the most ancient myths of mankind. (See e.g. Winekler, Die jungsten Kampfe wider den Panbabylonismus, 1907; Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, 2 volumes, 1911.) The pan-Bab theory, which makes so much use of these texts, is not certain, but the facts upon which theory depends are clear. It is a suggestive fact that among the earliest known deities or symbols of deities mentioned in the most ancient inscriptions are to be found the sun, moon, stars and other great forces of Nature. Out of these conceptions and the mystery of life--which seems to have affected early mankind even more powerfully than ourselves--sprang the earliest known religious language, the myth, which antedated by eons our oldest written texts, since some of these myths appear fully formed in the oldest texts. Rough figures of these solar and stellar deities are found from very early times in Babylonia. So in the earliest Egyptian texts the sun appears as divine and the moon as "the bull among the stars," and rough figures of the gods were carved in human or animal form, or these are represented pictorially by diadems or horns or ostrich feathers, as far back as the IInd Dynasty, while even earlier than this stakes and pillars and heaps of stones are sacred. (See further,HDB , 5th vol, 176 ff; Erman,A Handbook of Egyptian Rel.; Steindorf, Rel. of the Ancient Egyptians, 1905.) These rude and unshaped objects do not testify, as was once supposed, to a lower form of religious development than when sculptured images are found. The shapeless fetish, which not long ago was generally accepted as the earliest form of image, really represents a more advanced stage and higher form of religious expression than the worship of a beautifully or horribly carved image. It has been generally conceded since the days of Robertson Smith that it takes at least as much imagination and reflection to see an expression of deity in imageless matter as in the carved forms. Rude objects untouched by human hand, even in the most highly developed worships, have been most prized. The earliest images were probably natural objects which, because of their peculiar shapes or functions, were thought of either as divine or as made sacred by the touch of deity. Multiplied copies of these objects would naturally be made when worshippers increased or migrations occurred. While images may have been used in the most early cults, yet the highest development of image-worship has occurred among the most civilized peoples. Both deities and idols are less numerous in the early than in the later days of a religion. This is true in India, Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt, as all experts now agree. Idols are not found among uncivilized peoples, such as the Bushmen, Fuegians, Eskimos, etc. (See e.g. Allen Menzies, History of Rel., 1895.) Images of the gods presuppose a power of discrimination that could only be the result of reflection. The earliest idols known among the Semites were rude stone pillars or unshapen blocks. These, as the fetish, were probably adored, not for themselves, but for the spirit that was supposed to be in them or to have touched them. Deities and idols are multiplied easily, not only by philological, geographical and social causes, but through intertribal and international associations. One thing absolutely proved by recent excavations has been the extent to which the representations of local deities have been modified by the symbolic art of surrounding nations. Babylonia, for example, was influenced by the Syro-Hittite religious art at least as much as by that of Egypt (William Hayes Ward, Cylinders and Other Ancient Oriental Seals, 1909; Clay, Amurru, 1910). Even in adjacent localities the same deity varied greatly in its pictorial representation. See PALESTINE EXPLORATION , and Revue biblique,XIV , 315-48. With the possible exception of one reign in Egypt, during which Ikhnaton refused to allow any deities to be worshipped except the sun discovered and himself, idolatry outside of the Hebrew kingdom was never made a crime against the state until the days of Constantine. Theodosius (392 AD) not only placed sacrifices and divination among the capital crimes, but placed a penalty upon anyone who entered a heathen temple. 4. Bible References and Palestinian Customs: [Top] The dignity of the image in common thought in Bible times may be seen from the fact that man is said to have been made in God's image (tselem; compare 1 Sam 6:5; Nu 33:52), and Christ is said to be "the image of the invisible God" (eikon; compare Col 1:15 with Rom 1:23). The heathen thought of the sun and stars and idols as being images of the gods, but the Hebrews, though Yahweh's temple was imageless, thought of normal humanity as in some true sense possessing a sacred resemblance to Deity, though early Christians taught that only Christ was the Father s "image" in unique and absolute perfection. See IMAGE . The ordinary words for "image" by a slight change came to mean vermin, carrion, false gods, no gods, carcasses, dung, etc. Heathen gods were undoubtedly accounted real beings by the early Hebrews, and the images of these enemies of Yahweh were doubtless looked upon as possessing an evil associated (?) power. In the earlier Old Testament era, images, idols, and false gods are synonymous; but as early as the 8th century BC Hebrew prophets begin to reach the lofty conception that heathen gods are non-existent, or at least practically so, when compared with the ever-living Yahweh, while the idols are "worthless things" or "non-entities" (Isa 2:8,18,20; 10:10,11; 19:1; 31:7; compare Jer 14:14; Ezek 30:13; note the satiric term 'elilim, as contrasted with the powerful 'elohim). The many ordinary terms used by the Hebrews for an idol or image mean "copy," simulacrum, "likeness," "representation." These are often, however, so compounded as technically to express a particular form, as "graven" or "carved" image (e.g. Ex 20:4; 2 Ch 33:7) of wood or stone, i.e. one cut into shape by a tool; "molten image" (e.g. Ex 32:4; Lev 19:4), i.e. one cast out of melted metal (standing image) (Lev 26:1 the King James Version, and see below), etc. However, a few of the Old Testament terms and modes of worship are unusual, or have a more difficult technical meaning, or have been given a new interest by new discoveries, and such deserve a more extended notice. 5. Most Important Technical Terms: [Top] (1) Matstsebhah ("pillar"):matstsebhah: These were upright stone pillars, often mentioned in the Old Testament, sometimes as abodes (Bethels) or symbols of deity--especially as used by the heathen--but also as votive offerings, memorial and grave stones (Gen 28:18; 31:45; 35:14,20; Josh 24:26; 1 Sam 7:12). The reverence for these stones is closely connected with that found among all Semitic peoples for obelisks (Gen 33:20; 35:7), cairns (Gen 28:18; Josh 4:6), and circles (Josh 4:3,5,20). Rough stone pillars from time immemorial were used in Semitic worship (Kittel, Hist of the Hebrews, II, 84). They were thought of primitively as dwelling-places of deity, and the stones and the spots where they stood were therefore accounted sacred. From very early times the mystery of life pressed itself upon human attention, and these stones were viewed as phallic images. These images were at first rough and undifferentiated, but became later well defined as male organs. At Tell Zakariyah the end of one is sculptured to represent a human face. Some sort of phallicism underlies all early Semitic religion, the form of which is determined by the attention paid to the date palm, to the breeding of flocks, to astrology, and to social life. This phallicism did not always represent coarse thought, but sometimes a very profound spiritual conception; compare GOLDEN CALF , and note Wiedemann's statement, inHDB , V, 180 that in Egypt the gods Hu, "Taste," and Sa, "Perception," were created from the blood of the sun-god's phallus. These images of fertility and reproduction were naturally connected in Canaan with the worship of the Baals or "lords" of each locality, upon whose favor as possessor of the land fertility depended. They were also naturally associated with the cult of Astarte, the female counterpart of all the Baals (see ASTARTE ). In the Old Testament the Baalim and Asherim are almost invariably classed together, although the latter were wooden posts dedicated to a particular goddess, while "Baal" was merely a title which could be given to any male Semitic deity, and sometimes even to his female associate. The matstsebhoth were set up in a "high place" (which see), attracting reverence because of its "elevation, isolation and mystery" (Vincent). Originally these pillars were not considered as idols, but were naturally erected to Yahweh (Gen 28:18; 31:45; 35:14; Ex 24:4), and even Isaiah (19:19) and Hosea (3:4) approve them, though pillars dedicated to idols must of course be destroyed (Ex 23:24; 34:13; Jer 43:13; Ezek 26:11). Only in late times or by very far-sighted law-givers were the matstsebhoth erected to Yahweh condemned; but after the centralization of the Yahweh-worship in Jerusalem, these pillars were condemned, even when set up in the name of Yahweh, and the older places of worship with their indiscriminate rituals and necessary heathen affiliations were also wisely discarded (Lev 26:1; Dt 16:22; see also GOLDEN CALF ).(2) 'Asherah ("grove"):asherah: Perhaps a goddess (see ASHERAH ), but as ordinarily used in the Old Testament, a sacred tree or stump of a tree planted in the earth (Dt 16:21) or a pole made of wood and set up near the altar (Jdg 6:26; 1 Ki 16:33; Isa 17:8).It has been supposed that these were primarily symbols of a goddess Asherah or Ashtoreth (Kuenen, Baethgen), and they were certainly in primitive thought connected with the tree cult and the sacred groves so universally honored by the Semites (see especially W.R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, 169, 437; Stade, Geschichte, 160 ff; Fraser, Golden Bough, II, 56-117; John O'Neill, Night of the Gods, II, 57); but the tree of life is closely connected in texts and pictures with the human organ of generation, and there can be no doubt that there is a phallic meaning connected with this sacred stake or pole, as with the matstsebhoth described above. See references inHDB under "Asherah," and compare Transactions of the Victoria Institute,XXXIX , 234; Winckler, Keilinschriftliches Textbuch zumAT . As these wooden posts from earliest times represented the ideas of fertility and were connected with the mystery of life, they naturally became the signs and symbols in many lands of the local gods and goddesses of fertility.Astarte was by far the most popular deity of ancient Palestine. See ASHTORETH . The figures of Astarte from the 12th to the 9th century BC, as found at Gezer, have large hips, disclosing an exaggerated idea of fecundity. In close connection with the Astarte sanctuaries in Palestine were found numberless bodies of little children, none over a week old, undoubtedly representing the sacrifice of the firstborn by these Canaanites (R.A.S. Macalister, Excavation of Gezer, 3 vols). These Asherim were erected at the most sacred Hebrew sanctuaries, at Samaria (2 Ki 13:6), Bethel (2 Ki 23:15), and even in the Temple of Jerusalem (2 Ki 23:6). The crowning act of King Josiah's reformation was to break down these images (2 Ki 23:14). As the astrological symbol of Baal was the sun, Astarte is often thought of as the moon-goddess, but her symbol was really Venus. She was, however, sometimes called "Queen of Heaven" (Jer 7:18; 44:17,19; but see Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,VI , 123-30). (3) Chamman ("sun-image"):chamman, the King James Version "images," "idols"; the Revised Version (British and American) "sun-images" (Lev 26:30; 2 Ch 14:5; 34:4,7; Isa 17:8; 27:9; Ezek 6:4,6): This worship may originally have come from Babylonia, but the reverence of the sun under the name Baal-hamman had long been common in Palestine before Joshua and the Israelites entered the country. These sun-images were probably obelisks or pillars connected with the worship of some local Baal. The chariot and horses of the sun, mentioned (2 Ki 23:11) as having an honored place at the western entrance of the Jerusalem Temple, represented not a local but a foreign cult. In Babylonian temples, sacrifices were made to the sun-chariot, which seems to have had a special significance in time of war (Pinches, HDB, IV, 629; see also CHARIOTS OF THE SUN ). 6. Obscure Bible References: [Top] (1) Golden Calf and Jeroboam's Calves: Also See: GOLDEN CALF Also See: NEHUSHTAN Also See: IDOLATRY Also See: CALF, GOLDEN LITERATURESee especially W.R. Smith, Religion of the Semites; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture; J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough (3 vols); Baethgen, Beitrage zur sem. Rel.-Gesch.; Kittel, Hist of the Hebrews; Nowack, Hebrew Arch., II; Baudissin, Studien z. sem. Rel.-Gesch. For recent excavations, L.P.H. Vincent, Canaan d'apres l'expl. recente, 1907; R.A.S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer (1912); William Hayes Ward, Cylinders and Other Ancient Oriental Seals, 1909. Contributor: Camden M. Cobern Next Topic: IMAGINATION Previous Topic: IMAGERY |
|
|
References Collection: ; Isaiah 6:7 ; Jeremiah 3:6 ; Amos 5:25 ; Hosea 6:6 ; Zech. 14:20 ; Isaiah 2:8,18,20 ; 10:10,11 ; 19:1 ; 31:7 ; Jeremiah 14:14 ; Ezekiel 30:13 ; Leviticus 26:1 ; Genesis 28:18 ; 31:45 ; 35:14,20 ; Joshua 24:26 ; 1Samuel 7:12 ; Genesis 33:20 ; 35:7 ; Genesis 28:18 ; Joshua 4:6 ; Joshua 4:3,5,20 ; Genesis 28:18 ; 31:45 ; 35:14 ; Exodus 24:4 ; Exodus 23:24 ; 34:13 ; Jeremiah 43:13 ; Ezekiel 26:11 ; Leviticus 26:1 ; Deut. 16:22 ; Deut. 16:21 ; Judges 6:26 ; 1Kings 16:33 ; Isaiah 17:8 ; 2Kings 13:6 ; 2Kings 23:15 ; 2Kings 23:6 ; 2Kings 23:14 ; Jeremiah 7:18 ; 44:17,19 ; Leviticus 26:30 ; 2Chronicles 14:5 ; 34:4,7 ; Isaiah 17:8 ; 27:9 ; Ezekiel 6:4,6 ; 2Kings 23:11 ; Numbers 21:4-9 ; 2Kings 4 ; 2Kings 18:4 ; 1Samuel 6:4 ; 1Samuel 19:13,16 ; Judges 17:5 ; 18:14 ; Genesis 31:30 ; Ezekiel 21:21 ; 2Kings 23:24 ; Ezekiel 21:21 ; Zech. 10:2 ; Hosea 3:4 ; Genesis 31:34 ; 1Samuel 19:13 ; Judges 17:5 ; 18:14 ; 2Kings 23:24 ; Ezekiel 8:3 ; 2Kings 21:7 ; 23:6 ; Ezekiel 8:11,12 ; Ezekiel 8:10 ; Ezekiel 8:13,14 ; 1Samuel 2:18 ; 22:18 ; 2Samuel 6:14 ; Exodus 28:6,30 ; 29:5 ; 39:2-5 ; Leviticus 8:28 ; 1Samuel 23:6,9 ; 30:7, ; Judges 8:27 ; Hosea 3:4 ; |
| Topic: JEALOUSY, IMAGE OF | Source: EN |
| Subtopic: Also See: IMAGES Next Topic: JEALOUSY, WATER OF Previous Topic: JEALOUSY |
|
| Topic: MOLTEN, IMAGE | Source: EN |
| Subtopic: mol'-t'-n. Also See: IMAGES Next Topic: MOMDIS Previous Topic: MOLTEN SEA |
|