decalog, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th
What is the second command?
|
לֹֽ֣א תַֽעֲשֶׂ֨ה־לְךָ֥֣ פֶ֣֙סֶל֙׀ וְכָל־תְּמוּנָ֡֔ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר֣ בַּשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙׀ מִמַּ֡֔עַל וַֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר֩ בָּאָ֖֨רֶץ מִתַָּ֑֜חַת וַאֲשֶׁ֥֣ר בַּמַּ֖֣יִם׀ מִתַּ֥֣חַת לָאָֽ֗רֶץ׃ לֹֽא־תִשְׁתַּחְוֶ֥֣ה לָהֶ֖ם֮ וְלֹ֣א תָעָבְדֵ֑ם֒ כִּ֣י אָֽנֹכִ֞י יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ אֵ֣ל קַנָּ֔א פֹּ֠קֵד עֲוֺ֨ן אָבֹ֧ת עַל־בָּנִ֛ים עַל־שִׁלֵּשִׁ֥ים וְעַל־רִבֵּעִ֖ים לְשֹׂנְאָֽ֑י׃ וְעֹ֥֤שֶׂה חֶ֖֙סֶד֙ לַאֲלָפִ֑֔ים לְאֹהֲבַ֖י וּלְשֹׁמְרֵ֥י מִצְוֺתָֽי׃ס |
“You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6) |
For a sermon on the second command, see here.
What does this command mark out as holy?
The second command teaches us to regard God’s worship as holy and sacred. Here is the complete list:
| Command: | Principle: |
| First command: You shall have no other gods before Me. | The sanctity of God Himself |
| Second command: You shall not make for yourself an idol… | The sanctity of God’s worship |
| Third command: You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain | The sanctity of God’s Name |
| Fourth command: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy | The sanctity of God’s day |
| Fifth command: Honor your father and your mother… | The sanctity of authority |
| Sixth command: You shall not murder. | The sanctity of human life |
| Seventh command: You shall not commit adultery. | The sanctity of the sexual relationship |
| Eighth command: You shall not steal. | The sanctity of private property |
| Ninth command: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. | The sanctity of truth |
| Tenth command: You shall not covet … anything that belongs to your neighbor. | The sanctity of our thoughts |
Meaning
What are we taught in this command?
That the worship of God is a sacred and holy thing. Just as the first command taught us who to worship, so this command teaches us how to worship the one, true God.
Why do you say that the worship of God is a sacred and holy thing?
Because God is a holy Being; and thus, He forbids certain practices from being used in worship which would compromise His holiness.
What does God forbid in this command?
He forbids the making of any kind of visual representation of Himself for use in worship.
Why does God forbid this?
The reason is: “…for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
What is meant here by “jealous?”
When God is called jealous in the Bible, it must be understood in the context of His relationship with Israel. God had made a covenant with His people, and He expects their complete and exclusive loyalty just as any person would from their spouse. In fact, we often find in the Bible that the relationship between God and Israel is described as a marriage. This is done in an extended way in the first chapters of Hosea’s prophecy (Hosea 2:16), Jeremiah 3, and Ezekiel 16. Also consider these verses from Isaiah:
“For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth. (Isaiah 54:5)
For as a young man marries a virgin, so your sons will marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so your God will rejoice over you. (Isaiah 62:5)
This means that idolatry is spiritual adultery. It is parallel to a husband or wife having an affair with a person other than their spouse. This helps us understand why God’s anger is so vigorously aroused (Ezekiel 5:13) when He sees His people giving their allegiance to other deities. (Ezekiel 16:38) Consider also the image which Ezekiel sees in the temple courtyard. (Ezekiel 8:3) Israel had setup an image there, and God is thoroughly enraged with His people for this act of unfaithfulness. (Ezekiel 8:6) Ultimately, God drives His people off their land and sends them into exile because of His jealousy. (Psalm 79:5)
But does not this jealousy speak to the first command, not the second?
Yes, the truth is that sins against the second command inevitably lead to sins against the first. The sin against the second command is the reducing of God to a picture or some kind of carved image. The inevitable next step is the worship of this picture and thus full blown idolatry. Clarke writes (p87):
In like manner Christians began to corrupt themselves first with setting up images in their places of religious worship merely as historical memorials. Then they imagined peculiar favors annexed to prayers offered to God in the places where such particular images stood. After this they began to direct Prayers to the saints whom the images represented. And at last in the most stupid manner to the images themselves. Towards saints and angels they expressed first a certain honor or reverence, and then they proceeded to idolize them directly as authoritative mediators in conjunction with Christ. Towards the bread and wine in the sacrament they showed first a certain awful respect as to the memorials of Christ’s death. Then they proceeded to pay a veneration to them as being the real body and blood of Christ. After this they presumed to worship them as Christ’s living person and at last absolutely as God Himself.
Is there a difference between God’s jealousy and human jealousy?
Yes, there is this difference. When God is jealous, His anger burns against His unfaithful people, not the person or thing that is His rival. When humans are jealous, their anger is usually directed against the rival. See this in Hosea and Ezekiel 16.
What is the ground or basis of God’s jealousy?
God’s jealousy is premised on His perfect holiness. (Joshua 24:19; Ezekiel 39:25) The first command forbids idolatry which is elevating any created thing to the place of God. Making a carving or picture of God reduces Him to a created thing and thus brings one into conflict with the first command. True, by doing this, Israel would not be worshiping some other deity in place of the one true God, but they would be worshiping the one, true God in a way that compromises His holiness. Everywhere Israel looked, they saw the nations of the world reducing their deities to something earthly and manageable. The Egyptians, where Israel had lived for so many years, had a complex religious system consisting of hundreds of deities. Paul teaches this in his sermon to the Athenians:
“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ “Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. (Acts 17:24-29)
Why does God say that He will punish the later generations for the second commandment sins of their parents?
These words are God’s promise to punish every subsequent generation that continues to hate Him. See Hengstenberg (p446).
Why can’t these words mean that God punishes the children for the sins of their father?
Because the opposite teaching was well known in these times. Moses gave it out as God’s law:
Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin. You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge. (Deuteronomy 24:16-17)
Consider as well this instance where the Mosaic law was applied to a given situation by king Amaziah.
But the sons of the slayers (2 Chronicles 24:25) he did not put to death, according to what is written in the book of the Law of Moses, as the LORD commanded, saying, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the sons, nor the sons be put to death for the fathers; but each shall be put to death for his own sin.” (2 Kings 14:6 cf 2 Chronicles 25:4)
We also find Abraham articulating this idea as something assumed to be true:
Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Genesis 18:24-25)
Furthermore, consider the word of God to Ezekiel. All of Ezekiel 18 is dedicated to the point that the God does not punish someone for the sin which another person committed.
Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:19-20)
What does the Larger Catechism way with regards to this command?
Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.
Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.
Q. 110. What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it?
A. The reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it, contained in these words, 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 shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments; are, besides God’s sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, his fervent zeal for his own worship, and his revengeful indignation against all false worship, as being a spiritual whoredom; accounting the breakers of this commandment such as hate him, and threatening to punish them unto divers generations; and esteeming the observers of it such as love him and keep his commandments, and promising mercy to them unto many generations.
Application
How do we apply this command to our own lives today?
We understand from this command just how seriously we are to take God’s worship. It is something that God regards as holy and so should we.
How did God regulate the worship of His Old Testament people?
God regulated nearly every detail of their approach to Him. Israel was not allowed to be creative in their worship but only to follow the directions which God laid out for them. An example of this is seen in the dreadful story of Nadab and Abihu.
What happened to Nadab and Abihu?
These two were the sons of Aaron (Exodus 6:23) and were made priests (Exodus 24:1; 28:1) to assist in the administration of tabernacle worship. One day, they decided to offer up incense to God; but in doing this, they failed to follow the directions YHWH had given them. This took place just after God had shown them something of His awesome power. (Leviticus 9:24)
Which directions did they disregard?
Consider the following:
- They decided to offer incense up to God, but God had not commanded them to do this. They did it on their own initiative.
- It appears that they did not use the utensils which had been sanctified for this purpose. (Leviticus 8:11) Moses notes that they took their firepans. (Leviticus 10:1)
- Moses notes that they used strange or unauthorized fire. (Leviticus 10:1) The fire was supposed to come from the altar of burnt offering. (Leviticus 16:12)
- Finally, did they use the prescribed recipe for the incense? (Exodus 30:9, 34–36)
Was not Uzzah struck down by God for similar reasons as Nadab and Abihu?
Yes, Uzzah held out his hand to steady the ark (2 Samuel 6:6) and was immediately struck dead by God (2 Samuel 6:7) for his disobedience. (Numbers 7:9)
How does God regulate the worship of His people under the new covenant?
In the New Testament, we do not find detailed lists of directions as we do in the Old. God accords much more liberty to His people in their worship than was true of His people under the old covenant. Nevertheless, we are not to conclude from this, that God provides no regulations at all.
How does God regulate our worship today?
God expects us to worship Him in such a way as is in keeping with the principles laid out for us throughout the entire Scripture.
Where does the Bible teach this?
We see this in the teaching of Jesus who condemned the Pharisees for teaching that their own human traditions were the commandments of God. (Mark 7:13)
Sometimes the term “Regulative Principle of Worship” is used. What does this mean?
This is a term which comes out of the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers rejected the idea that churches should worship God in any way which was not forbidden. On the contrary, the Reformers insisted that God’s people were to worship Him only in those ways which God had commanded. Thus the Regulative Principle of Worship affirms that Christians should worship God in those ways which He has commanded. Some press this principle to far; others dispense with it entirely.
Who press this principle too far?
Those who look to the Bible for an exact prescription of what should be done in a worship service. They refuse to do anything in their service for which they cannot find an explicit command or example.
Who dispense with this idea entirely?
Those who simply write off certain New Testament practices simply because they are culturally unacceptable in our day. For example, those people who treat Paul’s head-covering command or the command to greet one another with a kiss as if these had nothing whatever to speak to us today. They pass over such verses as though they were of historical value only. Roman Catholics also violate the regulative principle of worship by doing things in their worship service which directly contradict the spirit and teachings of the Bible.
How should Christians worship then?
A helpful distinction is made between elements and circumstances. The elements are the bare minimum that must be present our worship such as prayer, preaching, singing, and the sacraments.
Why are these things called elements and not circumstances?
Because an element of worship is something which God directly commands us to do. The circumstances are all the other details which surround our worship such as where, when, who will lead the music and how, who will preach and how, etc.
Where does the Bible teach that prayer should be a part of our worship services?
We are taught this by Paul in two passages where Paul is commenting on the public worship services.
- The first is not a direct command but clearly Paul assumes that both men and women are praying in the services. (1 Corinthians 11:4-5)
- To Timothy, Paul commands that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone, especially for kings and all those in authority. (1 Timothy 2:1)
How do you know that Paul is commanding prayers to be made in the public worship services? Might he not be referring to the private devotions of Christians?
In his letters to Timothy, Paul is giving instructions as it pertains to the public worship of the church in Ephesus, not private devotions. Wallace writes: “Three broad areas of concern must be addressed if the church at Ephesus is to be repaired. First, the conduct of the church needed to be restored (2:1–3:16). This involved two aspects: worship and leadership.”
Where does the Bible teach that preaching should be a part of our worship services?
We see this in 2 Timothy 4:2 where Paul gives Timothy the command to “preach the word” as well as the endless examples of the apostles who preached the gospel at every possible opportunity. Paul talks about preaching at length in 2 Corinthians 2:12 – 6:10.
What does Paul say about preaching in 2 Corinthians 2:12-6:10?
First, Paul speaks of preaching as the “fragrance of Christ” which is to the perishing an awful smell of death and doom. To those who are being saved, however, it is a wonderful fragrance of new life.
But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things? For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 2:14-17)
Second, he contrasts the glory of the new covenant with the glory of the old covenant. The old covenant was glorious, but it pales in comparison to the glory of the new. Furthermore, one aspect of the old covenant was actually intended by God to bring death and condemnation to Israel. (cf Galatians 3:19) The new covenant, however, brings life and justification, and it is this covenant which God called Paul to preach and to proclaim to the ends of the earth. In this sense, Paul is a slave of the new covenant.
Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. (2 Corinthians 3:4-11)
Paul also compares preachers to ambassadors. From God, they have received a “word of reconciliation” which is the good news of what Christ has done for lost sinners. Because of Christ’s work of reconciliation on the cross, God’s ambassadors may proclaim and announce to all men that they should lay down their enmity against God and be reconciled to Him.
Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:16-21)
The real thrust of these chapters is to show Paul’s great enthusiasm for the good news which he preaches. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we have the same enthusiasm for the preaching of the gospel.
Where does the Bible teach that the sacraments should be a part of our worship services?
This is taught in the places where the sacraments are instituted. Jesus commanded us to baptize those who profess faith in His name.
- Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)
- And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:25)
Why did the Reformers insist on the regulative principle of worship as you explained it previously?
Because the Roman Catholic churches of the time were introducing strange forms of worship into the services that contradicted biblical principles of worship.
Give an example.
The mass was the primary example where the Roman Catholic church taught that Jesus was sacrificed again and again, each time the mass was observed. Protestants knew this to be directly contrary to the Bible which taught that the sacrifice of Jesus was once for all. (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:10; 1 Timothy 2:5) There were many other such practices in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic church.
But do not protestants also use many forms of worship that are not commanded in the Bible?
Indeed they do. The question isn’t whether all the circumstances of our worship are directly commanded us in the Bible but whether these circumstances, traditions, customs, practices are consistent with the principles of worship given us in the Bible or whether they contradict these principles.
Are there some worship practices given us in the New Testament which we no longer practice?
In one sense, there should not be any directive given us in the New Testament which we just dismiss. Practices like the holy kiss (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14), the head covering (1 Corinthians 11:5), and the anointing with oil (James 5:14) are not practiced as they were in the times of the New Testament. Still, some culturally appropriate form which accomplishes the same thing should be instituted.
So how are Christians to determine which forms of worship are consistent with biblical principles of worship and which are not?
First, we have to understand what these principles are and then work to apply them to our own services of worship.
Images of God and Jesus
What does the catechism mean by making any representation of God or of the three Persons?
This means making a statue (three dimensional) or picture (two dimensional) of God the Father, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.
Why did God command the Israelites not to make pictures of Him?
Because He is a God so transcendent and beyond us that to represent Him in a picture would be to profane Him. It would reduce God to the level of a created thing.
That pictures should not be made of God the Father is clear. Why can’t pictures be made of Jesus who clearly did have a body? Or of the Holy Spirit who took on the form of a dove at the baptism of Jesus?
Many writers have cautiously allowed pictures of Jesus for the above reason. Nevertheless, the temptation to venerate in some way the picture or statue of Jesus would be almost impossible to resist. As a result, Reformed and Presbyterian churches generally maintain the old protestant practice of having no pictures or representations of any of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.
The wording of the second command, however, seems to forbid only the making of carved statues. Are pictures of God permitted?
The Hebrew word here is pesel פֶּסֶל which means a carved statue of some kind. The words which follow, however, carry the prohibition beyond statues. “…or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” The NET Bible translators write:
The word תְּמוּנָה (témunah) refers to the mental pattern from which the פֶּסֶל (pesel) is constructed; it is a real or imagined resemblance. If this is to stand as a second object to the verb, then the verb itself takes a slightly different nuance here. It would convey “you shall not make an image, neither shall you conceive a form” for worship.
What is the Roman Catholic teaching on this?
The Roman Catholic position is given in the Baltimore catechism‘s teaching on the first command (recall that Roman Catholics merge the first and second command):
Q1211. Does the first Commandment forbid the making of images?
Answer: The first Commandment does forbid the making of images if they are made to be adored as gods, but it does not forbid the making of them to put us in mind of Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, and the saints.
Q1212. How do we show that it is only the worship and not the making of images that is forbidden by the first commandment?
Answer: We show that it is only the worship and not the making of images that is forbidden by the first commandment, (1) Because no one thinks it sinful to carve statues or make photographs or paintings of relatives or friends; (2) because God Himself commanded the making of images for the temple after He had given the first commandment, and God never contradicts Himself.
Q1213. Is it right to show respect to the pictures and images of Christ and His saints?
Answer: It is right to show respect to the pictures and images of Christ and His saints, because they are the representations and memorials of them.
Q1214. Have we in this country any civil custom similar to that of honoring the pictures and images of saints?
Answer: We have, in this country, a civil custom similar to that of honoring pictures and images of saints, for, on Decoration or Memorial Day, patriotic citizens place flowers, flags, or emblems about the statues of our deceased civil heroes, to honor the persons these statues represent; for just as we can dishonor a man by abusing his image, so we can honor him by treating it with respect and reverence.
Q1215. Is it allowed to pray to the crucifix or to the images and relics of the saints?
Answer: It is not allowed to pray to the crucifix or images and relics of the saints, for they have no life, nor power to help us, nor sense to hear us.
Q1216. Why do we pray before the crucifix and the images and relics of the saints?
Answer: We pray before the crucifix and the images and relics of the saints because they enliven our devotion by exciting pious affections and desires, and by reminding us of Christ and of the saints, that we may imitate their virtues.
Roman Catholics carefully distinguish between the worship that is given to God and the honor that is given to created things. Consider this catechism:
Q. May we also honor the sacred images of Jesus Christ and of the Saints?
A. Yes, because the honor we give the sacred images of Jesus Christ and of the Saints is referred to their very persons.
Q. May the relics of the Saints be honored?
A. Yes, we should honor the relics of the Saints, because their bodies were living members of Jesus Christ and temples of the Holy Ghost, and will rise gloriously to eternal life.
Q. What is the difference between the honor we give to God and the honor we give to the Saints?
A. Between the honor we give to God and the honor we give to the Saints there is this difference, that we adore God because of his infinite excellence, whereas we do not adore the Saints, but honor and venerate them as God’s friends and our intercessors with Him.
-
- The honor we give to God is called Latria, that is, the worship of adoration;
- the honor we give to the Saints is called Dulia, that is, the veneration of the servants of God;
- while the special honor we give to the Blessed Virgin is called Hyperdulia, that is, a special veneration of the Mother of God.
What is the Eastern Orthodox teaching on this command?
Their teaching is not much different than that of the Roman Catholics except that they do not allow 3d images or statues. Mogila writes in his catechism (p152):
Q55: What are we to think of the Images which the Church worshippeth and reverenceth?
Answer: There is a very great Difference between Images and Idols. An Idol is a mere Fiction and Invention of Men, as the Apostle testifieth (1 Cor. 8:4), An Idol is nothing in the World. But an Image is a Representation showing forth a real Thing that is actually being in the World, as the Image of our Savior Christ, of the holy Virgin Mary, and of all other Saints. Besides, the Heathens worshipped their Idols as God, and offered Sacrifices unto them, thinking Gold and Silver to be true Deities, as of old did Nebuchadnezzar. Whereas we, in worshipping and reverencing Images, do not adore the Painting or the Wood, but we respect the Saints who are thereby represented, and worship them with that kind of Worship which is called Dulia, placing them, by the Representation, before our Eyes as if they were in our Sight and we really beheld them; as, for instance, whilst we worship a Crucifix, we thereby set Christ himself before our Mind hanging upon the Cross of our Salvation; and unto him, with religious Gratitude, do we bend our Knee and bow down our Heads. So, in like manner, when we reverence the Image of the Virgin Mary, we ascend in our Minds unto the most holy Mother of God; to her it is that we bow down our Heads, to her we bend our Knees, and it is her that, with the Archangel Gabriel, we proclaim the most blessed of all Men and Women. It is evident, therefore, that the Worship of holy Images, which is received into the orthodox Church, is not contrary to this Commandment, as it is neither the same with that which is given to God, nor is it addressed unto the Work of Art—that is, the Picture—but unto the Persons of those Saints whom the Images represent unto us. Furthermore, as the Cherubim that overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant represented those real Cherubs who serve God and stand before his Face in Heaven, and the Israelites worshipped and reverenced them without breaking this Commandment of God; and, in like manner, as the Jews sinned not, nor broke this Command of the Decalog, but rather honored God with more Glory, when they worshipped the Ark of the Covenant, and received it with Honor and Respect (2 Sam. 6:13); So neither do we transgress this Command of the Decalogue by reverencing holy Images, but rather more highly praise God, who is wonderful in his holy Places (Psalm 68:35). Nevertheless we must take Care that every Image has the Name of the Saint it representeth inscribed on it, that thereby it may the more readily answer the Intention and Design of the Worshipper.
What is wrong with this teaching?
First, the distinction between adoration and veneration is certainly true and important, but Roman Catholics do not follow it. They teach that it is sinful to make images if they are to be adored as God but that it is not sinful to use them to bring to mind Jesus, Mary, or the saints. This, however, is not what Roman Catholics do with their images. They bow before these images, pray to them, and perform all kinds of actions which every human understands to be worship. They do not observe the very important distinction which they articulate so clearly.
Second, the Baltimore catechism goes on to state, “no one thinks it sinful to carve statues or make photographs or paintings of relatives or friends.” This is certainly true. The drawing of a picture or carving a statue is not forbidden by God. Neither is it forbidden to show respect and honor to the pictures and statues of our loved ones or our national heroes. Do note, however, that this is what real veneration is. Protestants would not think of bowing before such a picture or statues, or praying to it. The reason is simple; bowing and praying are acts of worship. When one bows to something or prays to it, he has moved out of veneration and into worship.
Finally, the catechism claims that God Himself commanded the making of images for the temple after He had given the first commandment, and God never contradicts Himself.
What about the cherubim and the bronze snake which God commanded Israel to make?
Note that neither of these were set up to be used in any part of Israel’s worship. Summers writes (p268) that the cherubim were not objects of worship but symbols, probably of angelic power. They were not made to be worshiped or even looked upon as is clear from their being in the Most Holy Place where no one ever saw them except the high-priest and that only once a year. The same is true of the bronze serpent which was a symbol of God’s punishment on Israel for their sin. Even this, however, became an idol over time, and finally Hezekiah had to destroy it. (2 Kings 18:4) This ought to show us just how real God’s anger is towards anyone who uses a created thing as an object through which he can worship God.
Where does the Bible teach this?
Consider what Moses teaches us in his further explanation of the second command:
The LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might perform them in the land where you are going over to possess it. So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth. And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, from Egypt, to be a people for His own possession, as today. Now the LORD was angry with me on your account, and swore that I would not cross the Jordan, and that I would not enter the good land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. For I will die in this land, I shall not cross the Jordan, but you shall cross and take possession of this good land. So watch yourselves, that you do not forget the covenant of the LORD your God which He made with you, and make for yourselves a graven image in the form of anything against which the LORD your God has commanded you. For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. (Deuteronomy 4:14-24)
Here the meaning is clearly that since Israel “did not see any form” or physical representation of God, they were not allowed to worship Him in any way that involved such a physical representation of God whether it was a male, female, animal, winged bird, or any other created thing. This condemns two dimensional pictures as well as three dimensional statues. This is also how the Jews understood it as we can see from their practice.
What do we know about Jewish practice?
Scudamore writes (p813):
From the time of the Maccabees the second commandment was generally understood by the Jews to forbid not only the worship of the likeness of any living thing, but even the making of it. It is probable that they were led to this view by their abhorrence of the acts of Antiochus Epiphanes, and his agents. Among other outrages these had set up “chapels of idols” in the cities of Judah (1 Macc. 1:47), and even “sought to paint the likeness of their images” in the book of the law (1 Macc. 3:48). Hence Josephus (Antiq. viii. c. 7, § 5) condemns Solomon for making the twelve oxen on which the molten sea was set in the temple (1 Kings 7:25; comp. 29), and the lions that were about his throne (Ibid. c. 10:19, 20), though no degree of reverence was paid to either of them. In the days of Herod the Great, a sedition was nearly caused in Jerusalem by his exhibition of trophies, such as the Romans display after their victories, the Jews supposing that the armor was put on the effigy of a man. They declared that they would never “endure images of men in the city, for it was not their country’s custom” (Jos. Antiq. xv. c. 8, §§ 1, 2). In the same spirit a band of zealots destroyed a golden eagle which Herod had put over the great gate of the temple (De Bello Jud. i. c. 33, §§ 2, 3). When Vitellius was marching through Judaea to meet Aretas, the inhabitants entreated him to take another route on account of the figures which they observed on his standards (Antiq. xviii. c. 6, § 3). Origen, 230ad, even asserts of the Jews in general that “there was no maker of images among their citizens; neither painter nor sculptor was in their state” (C. Cels. iv. § 31).
How do Roman Catholics defend their practice of image worship?
First, they insist on the following distinctions:
- The honor we give to God is called Latria, that is, the worship of adoration;
- the honor we give to the Saints is called Dulia, that is, the veneration of the servants of God;
- while the special honor we give to the Blessed Virgin is called Hyperdulia, that is, a special veneration of the Mother of God.
The Council of Trent, for instance, writes (p256):
The images of Christ, and of His Virgin Mother, and of other Saints, are to be used and retained, especially in churches, and due honor and veneration is to be given them; not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them, for which they are to be honored, or that anything is to be asked of them, or that any confidence is to be placed in images, as was done by the heathen of old who placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the originals which they represent; so that by the images we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads, and fall down, we adore Christ and venerate His Saints, whose likeness they represent.
Aren’t the distinctions between adoration and veneration important distinctions?
They are critical distinctions but, as was noted previously, the veneration of the Roman Catholics is indistinguishable from adoration. This is the main protestant objection. To bow and pray to something is not veneration, but adoration or worship. This is the very action forbidden by the second command: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them… [לֹא־תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם] (Exodus 20:5) See the word for “bow” here. A similar command is given here:
You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 26:1)
The physical act of bowing to any created thing is what God condemns as an act of worship and thus idolatry.
What else can be said about this distinction?
The first to make this distinction was Jerome, then Augustine, and finally John of Damascene. The fathers before these men did not make this distinction.
Every Roman Catholic recognizes that the image itself is not being worshipped. God is being worshipped through the image.
As was stated earlier, the peoples of the ANE knew this (see above), and God still gave His people the second command.
What about the Roman Catholic appeal to tradition?
This claim will be examined in the following section. For now, note that the second council of Nicaea pronounced (p550):
We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honorable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honorable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), not indeed that true worship of faith (λατρείαν) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honor which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all thy heart. The Lord hath taken away from thee the oppression of thy adversaries; thou art redeemed from the hand of thine enemies. The Lord is a King in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any more, and peace be unto thee forever.”
Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received (e.g., the Book of the Gospels, or the image of the cross, or the pictorial icons, or the holy reliques of a martyr), or evilly and sharply to devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church or to turn to common uses the sacred vessels or the venerable monasteries, if they be Bishops or Clerics, we command that they be deposed; if religious or laics, that they be cut off from communion.
History of Image Worship
What about the church fathers; did they use images in their worship? How did this practice get started?
This was a controversy that slowly grew in intensity from the close of the age of the church fathers until it blew up in the 8th century. Mosheim writes (footnote on p38),
It is certain, and even the impartial Catholics themselves admit it, that in the first three centuries, and also in the beginning of the fourth, pictures were very rarely to be found among Christians. Indeed there were Christian writers on morals, who disapproved of a Christian’s pursuing the trade of a painter or statuary.
He writes (p37): “Of the controversies that disquieted this age [700-800ad], the greatest and most pernicious related to the worship of sacred images.”
It was during this century, that the worship of images was formally recognized and blessed by the second council of Nicaea. This council went on (p534) to curse and damn to hell anyone who spoke against image worship or fellowshipped with those who did. In the Roman Catholic and Eastern orthodox churches, this council is regarded as infallible.
How do you know they damned to hell all those who reject image worship?
Because of their use of the word anathema which means eternal damnation. The Catholic dictionary states (p25):
Neither St. Paul nor the Church of God ever wished a soul to be damned. In pronouncing anathema against willful heretics, the Church does but declare that they are excluded from her communion, and that they must, if they continue obstinate, perish eternally.
Bishop Terasios, who presided over the sessions of the second council of Nicaea, wrote:
An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven, carrying them off into the outer darkness.” Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, p89.
Did the church fathers use images in their worship?
The early church vigorously rejected the use of images in worship and based this on the second command. For instance, Clement of Alexandria (150-215) understood (p47 & p237) the second command as forbidding image worship.
What about Tertullian?
Tertullian (155-220) forbad (see chp4, p62) even the making of images and based (chp 5 p64) this on the second command. He was the most vigorous of all the fathers against image worship. Scudamore writes (p814):
Tertullian, 192ad, even thought it wrong to make such masks as actors wore; for, if God forbade the likeness of any thing, “how much more of His own image?” (De Spect. c. 23). He thought painting a sin in Hermogenes (Adv. Herm. c. 1); and he teaches that “the law of God, in order to eradicate the material of idolatry, proclaims, Thou shalt not make an idol; adding also, Nor the likeness of any thing … Over the whole world hath it forbidden such arts to the servants of God” (De Idololatr. c. iv.).
What about Origen?
Origen repeats (p485) many of these same ideas. Scudamore writes (p814):
Origen says that painting and sculpture were disallowed among the Jews, lest the effect on senseless men should be to “draw the eyes of the soul off God on to the earth” (C. Cels. iv. § 31); a reason, which, if valid, ought to debar Christians from the exercise of them also.
Didn’t Gregory the Great allow images?
Gregory the Great rebuked (p23) a bishop for destroying images and pictures. His agreed that the worship of images was sinful but thought they could be used as helpful teaching tools for those who were not able to read. Mosheim writes (footnote on p38):
Even in the time of the seventh general council, 787ad, the use of statues was not yet introduced into churches; as appears from the seventh article of that council. Still less did the ancient Christians think of giving worship to images. The occasion of introducing images into churches, was in great measure the ignorance of the people, which rendered pictures a help to them; whence they have been called the people’s Bible. On this ground it was, that Gregory the Great censured Serenus, bishop of Marseilles; who had removed the pictures out of the churches, on account of the misuse the people made of them.
What does Jerome say about image worship?
Jerome (347-420) translated a letter from Epiphanius, the Bishop of Salamis, which he wrote to John, the Bishop of Jerusalem. The story is this (§9, p88):
Moreover, I [Epiphanius] have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha, and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort—opposed as they are to our religion—shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge.
What else does Jerome say about image worship?
Jerome is the first to make (p418) the distinction between the worship given to God and the respect paid to the saints:
Madman, who in the world ever adored the martyrs? who ever thought man was God? Did not Paul and Barnabas, when the people of Lycaonia thought them to be Jupiter and Mercury, and would have offered sacrifices to them, rend their clothes and declare they were men? Not that they were not better than Jupiter and Mercury, who were but men long ago dead, but because, under the mistaken ideas of the Gentiles, the honor due to God was being paid to them. And we read the same respecting Peter, who, when Cornelius wished to adore him, raised him by the hand, and said, “Stand up, for I also am a man.” And have you the audacity to speak of “the mysterious something or other which you carry about in a little vessel and worship?” I want to know what it is that you call “something or other.” Tell us more clearly (that there may be no restraint on your blasphemy) what you mean by the phrase “a bit of powder wrapped up in a costly cloth in a tiny vessel.” It is nothing less than the relics of the martyrs which he is vexed to see covered with a costly veil, and not bound up with rags or hair-cloth, or thrown on the midden, so that Vigilantius alone in his drunken slumber may be worshipped. Are we, therefore, guilty of sacrilege when we enter the basilicas of the Apostles? Was the Emperor Constantius I guilty of sacrilege when he transferred the sacred relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to Constantinople? In their presence the demons cry out, and the devils who dwell in Vigilantius confess that they feel the influence of the saints. And at the present day is the Emperor Arcadius guilty of sacrilege, who after so long a time has conveyed the bones of the blessed Samuel from Judea to Thrace? Are all the bishops to be considered not only sacrilegious, but silly into the bargain, because they carried that most worthless thing, dust and ashes, wrapped in silk in golden vessel? Are the people of all the Churches fools, because they went to meet the sacred relics, and welcomed them with as much joy as if they beheld a living prophet in the midst of them, so that there was one great swarm of people from Palestine to Chalcedon with one voice re-echoing the praises of Christ? They were forsooth, adoring Samuel and not Christ, whose Levite and prophet Samuel was. You Show mistrust because you think only of the dead body, and therefore blaspheme. Read he Gospel—“The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob: He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” If then they are alive, they are not, to use your expression, kept in honorable confinement.
What about Augustine?
Augustine (354–430ad) also makes (p383) the distinction between worship and veneration:
For this is the worship which is due to the Divinity, or, to speak more accurately, to the Deity; and, to express this worship in a single word as there does not occur to me any Latin term sufficiently exact, I shall avail myself, whenever necessary, of a Greek word. Λατρεία, whenever it occurs in Scripture, is rendered by the word service. But that service which is due to men, and in reference to which the apostle writes that servants must be subject to their own masters, is usually designated by another word in Greek, whereas the service which is paid to God alone by worship, is always, or almost always, called λατρεία in the usage of those who wrote from the divine oracles. This cannot so well be called simply “cultus,” for in that case it would not seem to be due exclusively to God; for the same word is applied to the respect we pay either to the memory or the living presence of men. From it, too, we derive the words agriculture, colonist, and others. And the heathen call their gods “cœlicolæ,” not because they worship heaven, but because they dwell in it, and as it were colonize it,—not in the sense in which we call those colonists who are attached to their native soil to cultivate it under the rule of the owners, but in the sense in which the great master of the Latin language says, “There was an ancient city inhabited by Tyrian colonists.” He called them colonists, not because they cultivated the soil, but because they inhabited the city. So, too, cities that have hived off from larger cities are called colonies. Consequently, while it is quite true that, using the word in a special sense, “cult” can be rendered to none but God, yet, as the word is applied to other things besides, the cult due to God cannot in Latin be expressed by this word alone.
and again (p262):
It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs. No one officiating at the altar in the saints’ burying-place ever says, We bring an offering to thee, O Peter! or O Paul! or O Cyprian! The offering is made to God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it is in memory of those thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations of the place, and love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel. There is more devotion in our feeling towards the martyrs, because we know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with greater confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those still combating here. What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution. For holy beings themselves, whether saints or angels, refuse to accept what they know to be due to God alone. We see this in Paul and Barnabas, when the men of Lycaonia wished to sacrifice to them as gods, on account of the miracles they performed. They rent their clothes, and restrained the people, crying out to them, and persuading them that they were not gods. We see it also in the angels, as we read in the Apocalypse that an angel would not allow himself to be worshipped, and said to his worshipper, “I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethen.” Those who claim this worship are proud spirits, the devil and his angels, as we see in all the temples and rites of the Gentiles. Some proud men, too, have copied their example; as is related of some kings of Babylon. Thus the holy Daniel was accused and persecuted, because when the king made a decree that no petition should be made to any god, but only to the king, he was found worshipping and praying to his own God, that is, the one true God. As for those who drink to excess at the feasts of the martyrs, we of course condemn their conduct; for to do so even in their own houses would be contrary to sound doctrine. But we must try to amend what is bad as well as prescribe what is good, and must of necessity bear for a time with some things that are not according to our teaching. The rules of Christian conduct are not to be taken from the indulgences of the intemperate or the infirmities of the weak. Still, even in this, the guilt of intemperance is much less than that of impiety. To sacrifice to the martyrs, even fasting, is worse than to go home intoxicated from their feast: to sacrifice to the martyrs, I say, which is a different thing from sacrificing to God in memory of the martyrs, as we do constantly, in the manner required since the revelation of the New Testament, for this belongs to the worship or latria which is due to God alone. But it is vain to try to make these heretics understand the full meaning of these words of the Psalmist: “He that offereth the sacrifice of praise glorifieth me, and in this way will I show him my salvation.” Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament. Between the sacrifices of the Pagans and of the Hebrews there is all the difference that there is between a false imitation and a typical anticipation. We do not despise or denounce the virginity of holy women because there were vestal virgins. And, in the same way, it is no reproach to the sacrifices of our fathers that the Gentiles also had sacrifices. The difference between the Christian and vestal virginity is great, yet it consists wholly in the being to whom the vow is made and paid; and so the difference in the being to whom the sacrifices of the Pagans and Hebrews are made and offered makes a wide difference between them. In the one case they are offered to devils, who presumptuously make this claim in order to be held as gods, because sacrifice is a divine honor. In the other case they are offered to the one true God, as a type of the true sacrifice, which also was to be offered to Him in the passion of the body and blood of Christ.
Who was Arnobius and what did he teach about image worship?
Arnobius of Sicca died in 330ad, about 24 years before Augustine was born. He was known as Arnobius the Elder. He was a Christian apologist who lived in North Africa during the reign of the infamous Diocletian. Scudamore writes (p814):
Arnobius 303ad, after ridiculing the images of the heathen, says, “So far are we from attributing corporeal features to God, that we even fear to ascribe to so great a being the ornaments of minds and the virtues themselves in which excellence has been hardly ascribed to a few. For who would say that God was brave, constant,” &c. (Adv. Gent. iii.).
What first led people then to adopt the use of images and statues in worship?
Mosheim points (footnote on p38) to the superstitious people and monks:
…the superstition of the people and the monks; who were influenced very much by sensible objects, and who began, as early as the close of the sixth century, to ascribe to the images miracles of various kinds. They now began to kiss the images, to burn incense to them, to kneel before them, to light up wax candles for them, to expect wonders to be wrought by them, to place infants in their arms, at baptisms, as if they were godfathers and godmothers; to carry them with them in their military expeditions, to secure a victory, and give confidence to the soldiers; and in taking an oath, to lay their hand on them, just as upon the cross, and upon the Gospels. Indeed, nearly the whole of religion, in this century, consisted in the worship of images. In particular, the superstitious worship of images proceeded so far among the Greeks, that the rich, at Constantinople, used to send their bread to the churches, and have it held up before an image previously to eating it.
See also Fisher p117; Hase p155; Neander p197; Kurtz p364.
How do Roman Catholics interpret this history?
They dismiss all this testimony by claiming that these fathers opposed the adoration of images, not the veneration. Pohle writes (p165):
The true Tradition is attested by all those Fathers who were quoted by the iconoclasts of the eighth and sixteenth centuries against the veneration of images. For in matter of fact, those Fathers did no more than oppose the adoration of images, in doing which they were in perfect harmony with the invariable teaching of the Church.
What about the quote from Basil?
The second council of Nicaea makes (p550) much of a quote from Basil (329-379ad) where he says that the honor given to the image passes through the image to what the image represents (see the underlined):
For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honorable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), not indeed that true worship of faith (λατρείαν) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honor which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented.
The actual quote (p28) from Basil shows how the council misunderstood him. Basil was not speaking at all about image worship.
For we do not count by way of addition, gradually making increase from unity to multitude, and saying one, two, and three,—nor yet first, second, and third. For “I,” God, “am the first, and I am the last.” And hitherto we have never, even at the present time, heard of a second God. Worshipping as we do God of God, we both confess the distinction of the Persons, and at the same time abide by the Monarchy. We do not fritter away the theology in a divided plurality, because one Form, so to say, united in the invariableness of the Godhead, is beheld in God the Father, and in God the Only begotten. For the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; since such as is the latter, such is the former, and such as is the former, such is the latter; and herein is the Unity. So that according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the community of Nature, one. How, then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us is not plural but one; because the honor paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case or the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead. One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity. Of Him the intimate relationship to the Father and the Son is sufficiently declared by the fact of His not being ranked in the plurality of the creation, but being spoken of singly; for he is not one of many, but One. For as there is one Father and one Son, so is there one Holy Ghost. He is consequently as far removed from created Nature as reason requires the singular to be removed from compound and plural bodies; and He is in such wise united to the Father and to the Son as unit has affinity with unit.
In this paragraph, Basil is showing that worshipping Jesus does not involve worshipping two Gods. After all, the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father; and therefore, there is a special unity in these two persons. Then Basil makes the comparison between a King (the Father) and the King’s Image (the Son). When the King’s Image is worshipped, the worship passed through Jesus to the Father, and so there is no two Gods.