Are our artistic interpretations of angels accurate?

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by steve53

Satan started out as an Angel, right?

So they have cloven feet, horns, and a tail, as well as wings.

Pretty scary.

And who said Satan actually looks like that red (or black, or what-have-you) bat-winged Pan-like horned guy wielding a pitchfork?

[JCnMe]

Angels do have wings- but when taking on human form to intercede the wings are not visible...there are different kinds of angels and all have different characteristics..your guardian angel when in full glory looks the most like the beautiful angels depicted-and yet when working around the ill or while you are sleeping may just be the glimpse of a shadow or a flash of light-the beauty is stunning and instead most work very inconspicuously in shadow until it is time to show themselves ...an Archangel is more regal and very tall-each is very distinct..the visions in revelations are more symbolic to the message than literal..of course it's up to you if you believe me or not

[Eire]

As already stated, Angels are pure spirits and have no need of wings. They can appear anywhere in an instant and can assume any form they wish.

[ThirstforTruth]

As for angels appearance and much more try reading Peter Kreeft on Angels and Demons It will give you lots of the info you are searching for...and more.

[domandcarols]

This is an interesting topic. I've always wondered about this.

[Just a fellah]

Can someone explain to me, without it sounding like a rationalisation, why there are artistic representations of angels or anything religious when it it plainly forbidden by the second commandment.
"Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
Or if you prefer;
"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."
Thank you.

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Just a fellah

Can someone explain to me, without it sounding like a rationalisation, why there are artistic representations of angels or anything religious when it it plainly forbidden by the second commandment.
"Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
Or if you prefer;
"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."
Thank you.

Well, explain to me then why God said this to Moses. "You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be." And why in Solomon's Temple you had these:

In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high. [...] Around all the walls of the house he carved engraved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms. [...] He covered the two doors of olivewood with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. [...] On [the entrance to the nave] he carved cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, and he overlaid them with gold evenly applied on the carved work. [...] This was the construction of the stands: they had panels, and the panels were set in the frames, and on the panels that were set in the frames were lions, oxen, and cherubim. [...] And on the surfaces of its stays and on its panels, he carved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around.

How dare God break His own law and slack on punishing those who violated it - instead blessing them!

And when the priests came out of the Holy Place, a cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD.

[Just a fellah]

Originally Posted by patrick457

Well, explain to me then why God said this to Moses. "You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be." And why in Solomon's Temple you had these:

In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high. [...] Around all the walls of the house he carved engraved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms. [...] He covered the two doors of olivewood with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. [...] On [the entrance to the nave] he carved cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, and he overlaid them with gold evenly applied on the carved work. [...] This was the construction of the stands: they had panels, and the panels were set in the frames, and on the panels that were set in the frames were lions, oxen, and cherubim. [...] And on the surfaces of its stays and on its panels, he carved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around.

How dare God break His own law and slack on punishing those who violated it - instead blessing them!

And when the priests came out of the Holy Place, a cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD.

I don't know why God told Moses to go make some Cherubim because I DON'T PRESUME TO KNOW WHY GOD DOES ANYTHING. Maybe that's what the 2nd Commandment is all about, curtailing the arrogance of man's presumtuous interpritation of God's intent, I DON'T KNOW, I WAS JUST ASKING A QUESTION.
And as far as God breaking his own laws - These laws were meant for man NOT HIM!!! God cannot break a law that doesn't apply to Him. A father can forbid his child to cross a busy road. This does not mean the father is forbidden to cross the same road!!!
Also rolling your eyes when all I've done is ask a question is the height of rudeness!!!!

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Just a fellah

I don't know why God told Moses to go make some Cherubim because I DON'T PRESUME TO KNOW WHY GOD DOES ANYTHING. Maybe that's what the 2nd Commandment is all about, curtailing the arrogance of man's presumtuous interpritation of God's intent, I DON'T KNOW, I WAS JUST ASKING A QUESTION.
And as far as God breaking his own laws - These laws were meant for man NOT HIM!!! God cannot break a law that doesn't apply to Him. A father can forbid his child to cross a busy road. This does not mean the father is forbidden to cross the same road!!! Also rolling your eyes when all I've done is ask a question is the height of rudeness!!!!

Three words: chill down, mate. Sorry if I came across as being too sharp.

But to get back to the 'graven image' question: the point of the commandment is not so much to ban the making of images by itself, but the worship of idols. And oh, who said that we Catholics worship the icons or the statues?

[patrick457]

Not exactly relevant to the subtopic at hand, but a little in the way of historical context.

Compared to their neighbors, the Israelites contributed little in the way of originality to arts and crafts. Borrowers for the most part, they mostly produced works hardly indistinguishable from that of other cultures of the time. The proscription in Exodus against making pesel (also cf. Deuteronomy 5:8), may have discouraged creativity in this area. Nonetheless, images did exist throughout the history of Israel until the postexilic period, a practice which the Bible does attest to. For example, Gideon fashions an ephod of gold (Judges 8:27) and Micah’s mother contributed silver for the making of an idol (pesel) in Judges 17:3. The Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon themselves were, on the face of it, a direct contravention of the literal understanding of the commandment, yet the authors did not denounce them.

Pesel, which is derived from the verb pasal, "to hew [into shape]", "fashion by cutting" or "to carve" in Biblical usage would suggest a sort of image hewn from stone or cut from wood (later, the usage would extend to those cast from metal). If we take the wording literally here, the injunction would not include painted images. In most occurrences of the noun in the OT it generally means a sort of "cultic image" (i.e., an idol) and occurs almost exclusively in the context of references to imagery - apparently the word was so strongly colored by the contexts in which it is used. This usage is in contrast to other attested usages of cognates in Northwest Semitic languages, where the root psl still had the main meaning of "to hew" or "to carve". In Ugaritic for example psl designates craftsmen who work on stones and wood. The occurrences of psl in Punic and Nabataean inscriptions are also associated with stone- or wood-work. The Syriac (psl) and Aramaic (psl/psylh, pslh) cognates, as well as extrabiblical Hebrew usages of the word also fall along the same lines.

The prohibition was not so much against the act of making of images themselves but against idolatry (i.e. making an image in the purpose of worshipping it) to which the art could lead. The Israelites did, in fact, fashion images, which the prophets regarded, in a concept unique to Israel, as “idols” (cf. Isaiah 30:22; Hosea 13:2).

We now need to qualify this prohibition against images. Obviously, cherubim, serpents, lions, oxen and other images of ‘nature’ and ‘mythology’ were at times exempt from the ban. What seems to be forbidden is more often than not the depiction of the Deity Himself. We have as possible extant examples of such both the winged sun-disc symbol above the bull-calf on the top tier of the Ta’anach cult stand and the winged disc/beetle symbol on the lmlk seal impressions on the handles of royal Judahite storage jars.

Here we come to one of the unique features of ancient Israelite worship of YHWH – its aniconic character. For example, in one of the most important artifacts of Israelite religion, the Ark of the Covenant, a direct representation of YHWH is absent: His invisible presence is only indicated by His heavenly steeds/mounts, the two cherubim.

The absence of images of the deity and the concomitant prohibition against the representation of the divine in any form is anomalous in the ANE. The creation and use of images in the cultus was at that time commonplace for the religions of that time and place. For the most part in Israel, they were not present and were officially inveighed against.

The close tie between the command against pesalim and the prior ban against worshipping other gods in the Decalogue suggests that the veto of images was directed toward any image that may be construed as an idol or cult artifact of another deity. The elaboration of this command in Deuteronomy 4:16-19 confirms that the commandment had in mind the ‘other gods’ of the previous one as at least the eventual understanding of this prohibition. Indeed the comprehensiveness of these formulations tended to make any kind of image, whether for purposes of worship or not, questionable.

[Just a fellah]

Originally Posted by patrick457

Three words: chill down, mate. Sorry if I came across as being too sharp.

But to get back to the 'graven image' question: the point of the commandment is not so much to ban the making of images by itself, but the worship of idols. And oh, who said that we Catholics worship the icons or the statues?

Yep, got a bit carried away there, I am suitably calmed and also sorry that my response was enflamed but I am so very frustrated with this issue. I have been brushed off so many times with this question, it's as if people can't see the actual, clearly articulated words in the 2nd Commandment.

Firstly the worship of Idols is covered in the 1st commandment "...You shall have no other gods before me". The 1st Commandment deals with who we pray to, the 2nd Commandment deals with how we pray.
The 2nd Commandment uses clear unambiguous language and specificaly bans the making of Divine likenesses and images - It states - "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above" It forebids us making a likeness of anything Divine. All art works; paintings, statues, etc are an artists personal interpretation of a subject, an expression of what the artists believes is a truth about that subject. The 2nd Commandment forbids this interpretation, it forbids kneeling down and praying to The Divine through a graven image or painting, these are all tainted by a third party, the artist. There is only one way to get to God:
Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Except through Him; not a statue of Him, not a painting of Him...Him!

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Just a fellah

Yep, got a bit carried away there, I am suitably calmed and also sorry that my response was enflamed but I am so very frustrated with this issue. I have been brushed off so many times with this question, it's as if people can't see the actual, clearly articulated words in the 2nd Commandment.

Firstly the worship of Idols is covered in the 1st commandment "...You shall have no other gods before me". The 1st Commandment deals with who we pray to, the 2nd Commandment deals with how we pray.
The 2nd Commandment uses clear unambiguous language and specificaly bans the making of Divine likenesses and images - It states - "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above" It forebids us making a likeness of anything Divine. All art works; paintings, statues, etc are an artists personal interpretation of a subject, an expression of what the artists believes is a truth about that subject. The 2nd Commandment forbids this interpretation, it forbids kneeling down and praying to The Divine through a graven image or painting, these are all tainted by a third party, the artist. There is only one way to get to God:
Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Except through Him; not a statue of Him, not a painting of Him...Him!

Just a little food for thought: since you claim to be Catholic, why not get familiar with John of Damascus and his Apologia against those who decry Holy Images? Read through his arguments first, then point out exactly where you disagree. Then we can get the discussion moving further. And I expect other posters would also chime in with their two cents in the meantime.

[You]

Originally Posted by Just a fellah

Can someone explain to me, without it sounding like a rationalisation, why there are artistic representations of angels or anything religious when it it plainly forbidden by the second commandment.
"Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
Or if you prefer;
"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."
Thank you.

One partial reason is that Moses lived very early in the history of mans interaction with God. God would not even tell Moses His name, I am who I am, nor would He appear in any form, His voice, or the angel of the Lord spoke from a burning bush.
But about, maybe, a thousand years after this God finally showed people why He had not told them His name or appeared to them. It is at this point that God takes a name, Jesus and an image, that of a man.
This then is Gods name and His image. For the first time in history people can see an image of God and hear His name. This then must have been the reason for the prohibition against the people of Moses making an image of God. God had already chosen His time to appear to men and He had chosen the form of the image of Himself to appear in.
Since that time, the time God appeared to people as an image, there could be no prohibition against looking at an image of God, as He walked amongst men. The images of God or the Saints we make are just the images we would have seen had we been alive then.

[Just a fellah]

Originally Posted by You

One partial reason is that Moses lived very early in the history of mans interaction with God. God would not even tell Moses His name, I am who I am, nor would He appear in any form, His voice, or the angel of the Lord spoke from a burning bush.
But about, maybe, a thousand years after this God finally showed people why He had not told them His name or appeared to them. It is at this point that God takes a name, Jesus and an image, that of a man.
This then is Gods name and His image. For the first time in history people can see an image of God and hear His name. This then must have been the reason for the prohibition against the people of Moses making an image of God. God had already chosen His time to appear to men and He had chosen the form of the image of Himself to appear in.
Since that time, the time God appeared to people as an image, there could be no prohibition against looking at an image of God, as He walked amongst men. The images of God or the Saints we make are just the images we would have seen had we been alive then.

Thanks for this opinion; it's an interesting point. I agree that we must take into account God's ongoing, ever evolving relationship with Man as time goes by. But the burning bush and the appearance of Jesus as the manifestation of God are all God's doing, God is the only artist here, if you will. He is the only one with the Authority to depict the Divine. The 2nd Commandment forbids any copying, rendering or facsimiles of this original. They are, at the very least, distilled and open to corruption from everything from the artists ego, greed or political motives. Case in point; in Botticelli's "Adoration of the Magi" the artist not alone portrays specific members of the Medici family in the retinue of the Wise men who come to adore the Baby Jesus in an effort to court political favour and a lucrative commission but also depicts himself in the painting as well; ego, greed and ambition. The 2nd Commandment preaches humility and the danger inherent in attempting to emulate the Divine.

[Just a fellah]

Originally Posted by patrick457

Just a little food for thought: since you claim to be Catholic, why not get familiar with John of Damascus and his Apologia against those who decry Holy Images? Read through his arguments first, then point out exactly where you disagree. Then we can get the discussion moving further. And I expect other posters would also chime in with their two cents in the meantime.

I tried to read the Apologia but it contains nearly 30,000 words and I felt quite lost ater the first few pages; I am a Catholic not an academic and, thankfully, this is a forum for discussion not a lecture room to hand out reading assignments and ask for reports.
You are obviously a very learned individual and, I assume, have read the Apologia; I would love to hear your opinion on this subject. What, in your view, is the main point(s) raised by John to justify what is, to my all too simple mind, a complete reversal of one of God's Commandments?