Home » Posts tagged 'idolatry'
Tag Archives: idolatry
David Whose Heart Was Perfect With The LORD His God?
David. You look back to Saul, and then back at David. Of course, David. You look forward to Solomon, and then back to David. Of course, David. David. Why? Something is different about David. What is it?
David and Solomon
When you arrive at 1 Kings 11:4, the Lord says:
For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
God was not saying that Solomon’s heart was not with the LORD his God. It was not perfect with the LORD his God. On the other hand, David’s heart was perfect with the LORD his God. What was different about David, that his heart was perfect before the LORD his God, and Solomon’s wasn’t?
David and Jeroboam
Even Compared to Solomon
Then in 1 Kings 11:6, God says:
And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
This puts the condition of Solomon compared to David in a different way: he “went not fully after the LORD.” He also did evil in the sight of the LORD. By the time we get to Jeroboam, he’s worse than Solomon. His heart wasn’t even with the LORD his God. 1 Kings 12:32 says:
And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.
Then 1 Kings 13:33 says:
After this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places.
Judgment on Jeroboam
Because of this, 1 Kings 13:34 says:
And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth.
And then God says to Jeroboam in 1 Kings 14:10:
Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.
In fulfillment of that in 1 Kings 15:29-30 we read:
And it came to pass, when he reigned, that he smote all the house of Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed him, according unto the saying of the LORD, which he spake by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite: Because of the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he made Israel sin, by his provocation wherewith he provoked the LORD God of Israel to anger.
Distinct Paths Taken
Again and again after this, you can read the phrase, “walked in the way of Jeroboam,” very much like there was the phrase, “as David thy father walked.” These are two different paths in the history of Israel. David’s path is very much described by what God warned Solomon in 1 Kings 9:4 (and 11:38):
And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments.
David did not live a life of sinless perfection, but he walked in integrity of heart, uprightness, doing all God commanded him, and keeping God’s statutes and judgments. Fulfilling that is not sinlessness, but it does mean having a perfect heart with the LORD and going fully after Him.
Scripture distinguishes the heart of David from other kings. Some other kings had a heart fully after the LORD in the heritage of David. The way this manifested itself more than any other was in the worship of David. Someone fully after the LORD acknowledges who God is and then offers Him what He wants.
Solomon was an idolater, not to the extent of Jeroboam. But then Jeroboam was an even worse idolater, because he gave himself fully to idolatry. Solomon gave himself partly to the LORD and partly to idols. Solomon set himself part by building the temple and worshiping God there, even though later he partially turned from that and ruined his legacy with God.
Worship Distinguished David
David murdered Uriah. He committed multiple adultery. He was a polygamist. What does this mean in juxtaposition with the good things scripture says about him?
David was a true worshiper of God, who sought after God. He failed, but his direction and his sincere spirit for the Lord characterized him over the flaws in his life. The Bible and myself do not write these things to excuse David, but to elevate the distinction of worship.
Today churches are rampant with idolatry. The church growth movement changed and corrupts the worship of the church. It centers on the audience and not the Lord. The false worship profanes God and shapes a false god, unlike the God of the Bible, in the imagination of the participants. This is akin to the path begun by Solomon and then taken full fledged by Jeroboam. It’s ruining young people, churches everywhere, and the entire United States of America.
Two Approaches to Reality, One of Which Is True: Either Construing or Constructing Reality
Let’s say that I’m on vacation to Turkey. I want to look at Asia Minor and the geographical locations of the Apostle Paul’s churches there. In addition I’m interested in Istanbul and the history of the Eastern Roman Empire. While touring, I’m grabbed, a gunny sack pulled over my head, and thrown into the back of a dark cargo van. The next thing I’m sitting on a metal chair in a crumbling urban brick building with a camera pointed at my face.
Moslem terrorists rip the sack off my head and through very bright light I see several swarthy, angry men each with AK-47s. One of them puts a crumpled paper in my hand with English text, that says I must admit confess that as an American spy I reject the Republican form of government and pledge my allegiance to Allah.
I look up from the script my interrogators gave me and tell them that I can’t read this, because it isn’t true. One of them punches the side of my head with the butt of his rifle and I see a flash of bright lights. I shake out the cobwebs and everything looks blurry. As my brain starts to clear again, I feel a stream of blood down the side of my head. As everything starts to clear, I look at the script and reassess whether I might go ahead and read it.
What’s on the piece of paper isn’t true, even if the audience believes it. The kidnappers constructed a reality. It isn’t true. I don’t believe it. I reject it. Someone else wrote it. Saying it or writing it more doesn’t make it any more true. What they’ve constructed is not reality. The language on the paper means to construct a new reality.
Maybe you’ve heard that perception is reality. A person can create his own reality based on his perception, one which might not be true. A person with perceptions will call it reality, when it isn’t. This is a reality again of his own construction, perhaps based on his misconstruing his own reality. Perception is reality, is not reality. He could perceive reality, but his perception does not make it reality. Very often it is not. Even though it isn’t reality, he forms language to construct a reality as he perceives it.
Construct or Construe
A popular postmodern notion today is that people construct their own realities. Reality is what people want it to be. Therefore, they reject objective reality and/or objective meaning.
For the sake of discussion, I am saying that construing reality is describing reality as it is, as it really is. Constructing reality describes reality as we want it to be. God alone constructs reality outside of our own perception. At most, we construe it. If we truly construe reality, then we describe it as it is. If we don’t like the reality God constructed, out of rebellion against him we might construct our own reality. It still isn’t reality though.
Postmoderns say men constructed the patriarchy, that is, the patriarchy is a social construct. They constructed the patriarchy using language. They say language is powerful. Language constructs reality. Language also changes reality, so using language they construct a new reality, an egalitarian one. Construction of a new, different reality starts with deconstruction of the old. Then using language, they construct a new one.
The patriarchy is reality. People’s job is to construe reality. People might not like the patriarchy but that does not change the reality of patriarchy. Since God constructs reality, reality is objective and, therefore, meaning is objective. Our life only has meaning if it describes reality as it really is. Someone construes reality only when he describes it or understands it as it really is.
Is patriarchy construing reality or constructing reality? It construes reality. It construes what God constructed. Why do people then construct reality? Objective reality, what we should call “the truth,” contradicts people’s lusts. They then construct a reality that conforms to their lust and call it their own reality. Also, they call it their truth. They use language to construct their own reality. This is why language becomes so important in secular institutions. They reject God, leaving themselves to construct their own reality.
The Idolatry of Using Language to Construct a New Reality
In the beginning, God constructed reality out of language. John 1:1-3 read:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The Word made all things. With Him was not anything made that was made. God alone did this or does this. When a man constructs his own reality using language, it is a form of idolatry that proceeds from pride and lust. Therefore, he worships and serves the creature rather than the Creator (cf. Romans 1:25).
Rejecting reality, that is, not describing it as it really is, also rejects God. It is a more subtle and significant way to eliminate God or to dethrone Him. God created everything for pleasure. Man deconstructs reality and constructs his own reality for his own pleasure.
Scripture reveals the reality God constructed, using language. God spoke the world into existence. He upholds all things by the Word of His power. God’s Words construct reality.
Those God created are responsible to construe reality based upon scripture. No one is neutral. When they don’t receive what God said, they will construct a new reality with their own language in defiance of God.
More to Come
The Gnostic History of Images of Jesus Christ
Images of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, should not be made for the reasons explained in the appropriate articles in the studies on ecclesiology here. But did you know that the Gnostics were the first ones to makes images of the Savior? Note the following:
The Gnostics, in their enmity to God the Father, had proscribed his image, but being favourable to the Son, they painted and sculptured the figure of the Saviour, of all dimensions, and under various forms. It … appears … that we are indebted to Gnostics for the earliest portraits of Jesus. “It was for the use of Gnostics, and by the hand of those sectaries, who attempted at various times, and by a thousand different schemes, to effect a monstrous combination of the doctrines of Christianity with Pagan superstitions, that little images of Christ were first fabricated; the original model of these figures they traced back to Pontius Pilate himself, by a hypothetical train of reasoning, which could scarcely deceive even the most ignorant of their initiated disciples. These little statues were made of gold, or silver, or some other substance, and after the pattern of those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other sages of antiquity, which those sectarians were accustomed to exhibit, crowned with flowers in their Conciliabula, and all of which were honoured with the same degree of worship. Such, indeed, is the positive assertion of St. Iræneus,* confirmed, or at least reiterated by St. Epiphanius.† This superstition, which on the same principle permitted painted images of Christ, was peculiarly in vogue amongst the Gnostics of the sects of Carpocrates; and history has preserved the name of a woman, Marcellina, adopted by that sect, for the propagation of which she removed from the farthest East, to Rome; and who in the little Gnostic church, as it may be called, which was under her direction, exposed to the adoration of her followers images of Christ and of St. Paul, of Homer and Pythagoras. This fact, which is supported by the serious evidence of St. Augustine,‡ is, besides, perfectly in accordance with the celebrated anecdote of the Emperor, Alexander Severus, who placed amongst his Lares, between the images of the most revered philosophers and kings, the portraits of Christ, and of Abraham, opposite those of Orpheus and Apollonius of Tyana, and who paid to all a vague kind of divine worship.§ It cannot, therefore, be doubted, that this strange association originated in the bosom of certain schools of the Neo-Platonists, as well as in several Gnostic sects, and we may thence infer, that the existence of images fabricated by Gnostic hands, induced Christians, as soon as the Church relaxed in its primitive aversion to monuments of idolatry, to adopt them for their own use.*”[1]
* St. Irenæus, Advers. Hæres. lib. i., cap. xxv., a. 6, édition de Massuet.
† St. Epiphanius, Hæres. cap. xxvii., a. 6. See on this subject the dissertation of Jablonsky, “de Origine imaginum Christi Domini in Ecclesia Christiana,” s. 10, in his Opuscul. Philol. vol. iii., 394–396.
‡ St. Augustin, de Hæresib. cap. vii.: “Sectæ ipsius (Carpocratis) fuisse traditur socia quædam Marcellina, quæ colebat imagines Jesu et Pauli, et Homeri et Pythagoræ, adorando incensumque ponendo.” (See the dissertation of Fueldner, upon the Carpocratians, in the Dritte Denkschrift der Hist. Theol. Gesellschaft zu Leipzig., p. 267, et seq.)
- Æl. Lamprid. in Alexandr. Sever. cap. xxix. “In larario suo, in quo et divos principes, sed optimos (et) electos et animas sanctiores, in queis et Appollonium, et quantum scriptor suorum temporum dicit. Christum, Abraham et Orpheum, et hujusmodi ceteros, habebat ac majorum effigies, rem divinam faciebat.” Such is the lesson proposed by Heyne for the employment of this text. (See the dissertation of Alexandr. Sever. Imp. religion. miscell. probant., &c., in his Opuscul. Academ. vol. vi., p. 169–281; see also on this subject the dissertation of Jablonsky, De Alexandra Severo, Imperatore Romano, Christianorum sacris per Gnostico initiato, in his Opuscul. Philol. vol. iv., p. 38–79.
* Such, we are told by M. Raoul Rochette, is the inference drawn by the pious and learned Bottari, from the testimony quoted above, Pitture e Sculture Sacre, vol i., p. 196; and that his opinion, formed in the bosom of orthodox Catholicism, has been adopted by all Roman antiquaries.
[1] Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Christian Iconography; Or, the History of Christian Art in the Middle Ages, trans. E. J. Millington and Margaret Stokes, vol. 1 (London: George Bell and Sons, 1886), 243–245.
So if you use images of Jesus Christ to (mis)represent Him in curricula for children’s ministries, or around the 25th of December you make a little image of Jesus and put it in a stable, you are not only violating the Second Commandment by engaging in a form of (likely unintentional) idolatry, but you are following the ancient Gnostics.
Maybe it is time to immediately stop making, using, condoning, promoting, or contributing in any way to the use of images of the Son of God.
–TDR
Recent Comments