Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water." (See also Lev. 26:1, Deut. 27:15)

A clear enough command, the skeptics say -- so why these?

It's time for another installment of, "Get The Point." Our contestant, Joe Skeptic, believes that the latter two verses indicate violation of the command given in the first. (Actually, since the last verse is an account of what Solomon did, we could easily point out that he simply violated the command. But we don't need to go there.)

Question: WHY were the Israelites commanded not to make graven images?

Answer: Graven images were the standard method of pagan worship. They were representations of false gods.

Now that being the case, it is fairly obvious that an "image" NOT made for worship is acceptable. In fact, we should not really call things like the cherubims "images" at all -- an "image" in ancient thought is not merely something that has an appearance, like a statue or a picture, but something that serves as a focal point for the presence and power of a deity. Thus for example ancient rulers in Egypt, Babylon, and elsewhere were referred to as the "image" of a certain deity, not because they looked like the deity, but because the deity's power and authority was thought to operate through them. Barker is simply making the same erroneous interpretation that much of Jewish culture made. (Though I credit that to Jewish culture as an instance of erring on the side of caution, rather than a full-fledged error. It has been noted that Jewish excellence in poetry and music may be attributed partially to the above commands. For more on the use of the word "image", see Chapter 1 of my book, The Mormon Defenders.)

Solomon's bulls and stuff were (as far as we can tell) not for worship and do not fit the definition of an "image" we have described. The cherubim on the Ark were not for worship and also do not fit the ancient definition. So, the command was not violated in either case.

I'm sorry, Joe Skeptic, you've Missed the Point. Better not choose the "Bible Knowledge" category next time! But we do have some nice parting gifts for you, including a year's supply of "Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat!" See you next time on, "Get the Point!"

Another skeptic didn't win the Rice a Roni either -- here are some replies from the Ebon website:

I'm not sure if Mr. Holding misunderstood me or if he simply made a typing error. In either case, his sarcastic "maturated" seems to be all the response he thinks my commentary on this episode is worthy of. Which is a pity, because I think there's a legitimate issue here. If Jehovah wanted to end the plague he sent, why didn't he use his Super-God-Magic and put a stop to it instantly? Why did he go through this tedious and unnecessary voodoo of having Moses create a brass sculpture to cure the sick?

That is indeed what response it is worthy of, and the further childish "Super-God-Magic" and "voodoo" is more of the same. Ebon clearly is an ethnocentrist with no understanding of how the symbolism of the act was of such importance for an ancient person, who would not find it "tedious and unnecessary" -- Ebon has no right to impose his modernistic values on others.

Ebon once said:

Numerous apologetics sources, for example this one, have made the claim that the commandment in Exodus 20:4 is only intended to prevent the worship of idols, and that images not made for worship are acceptable. Maybe that was the intent, but it does not say that. It doesn't say it's OK to make graven images or likenesses as long as you don't worship them - it says no images, no likenesses. Period. What part of "Thou shalt not" do apologists like J.P. Holding find so difficult to understand?

We replied:

My reply is, "What part of the definition of 'image' does Ebon not understand?" As I quite clearly stated (and explored in detail in The Mormon Defenders), "an 'image' in ancient thought is not merely something that has an appearance, like a statue or a picture, but something that serves as a focal point for the presence and power of a deity." This isn't answered at all; Ebon merely restates the original skeptical argument using the assumed definition of "image" as "anything like a statue or picture." This is the sort of accident that happens when skeptics try to deal with Ancient Near Eastern culture as though it were the same as the one they find down at the Cumberland Farms store. At any rate, Ebon clearly does not have the resources or the ability to provide a coherent reply, which is probably why he returns to the old objection form.

And Ebon bounces back:

There's more to this issue than Mr. Holding wants to admit. It is true that God bars his people from creating "images" (Hebrew pecel) a word which does indeed have the meaning Mr. Holding attributes to it. But images are not the only things God prohibits his people from creating. In the same commandment, he also forbids the manufacture of "likenesses" (Hebrew tmunah). This word does not have the same specialized meaning of "idol" - if it did, why would God repeat himself? Instead, it has a meaning close to what the word has in English, namely (guess what?) "anything like a statue or picture".

This is a place where Ebon's substantial lack of education shows through quite painfully. The Hebrew words for "image" and "likeness" are synonyms (as shown both by their interchangeable use in the OT, and by the interchangeable use of the equivalent words in pagan literature of the period), and a "likeness" is also therefore a focal point for the presence and power of a deity, just like an image. The best Ebon can do beyond this is more childish "why didn't God anticipate idolatry of images not made for worship, and not let them be made" complaining. God did anticipate such things -- that is why He gave commands against idolatry. Next Ebon will complain that God should have anticipated the prevelance of cult leaders today receiving worship, and should have therefore not created people. This is the lament of someone yet grown up and therefore unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.

You may be a fundamentalist atheist if --- you believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.