Is it sinful to illustrate the smoking fire pot and the flaming torch or the burning bush? At least within their scriptural context anyway (i.e. anyone is permitted to draw a pot, a torch or a burning bush that is not associated with these passages).

__________________
--chRis
Psalm 115:1

Christopher Reeder
Husband to Kara, Father to Abigail (7), Caleb (6), Grace (4 1/2), Zoë (2 1/2), Elijah (1) and Baby Girl due 8/6/08

Member: Pilgrim Presbyterian Church (OPC), Raleigh, NC

Did you read the post?

Sorry..meant to write the pillar and cloud that followed Israel...but my mind was slow to catch up with my fingers.... It was a sign of God's presence after all, but was it a theophany proper?

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

I suppose a case can be made from Deut. 4:15-18 that making such an image would be OK:

"'Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved 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 air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.'"

I think it's fair to say that the burning bush was not a likeness of God, so it can be depicted in art.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

bump

They still have the bush at St. Katherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Image:BurningBush.jpg

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart

I don't see how that would be a problem, FWIW, and I'm one who believes any phonied-up image of Christ, whether for kiddie Bibles or church banners, evangelization films, etc., is unacceptable.

We are visual creatures, though, so the LORD has kindly provided some symbolic visualizations for us, such as the smoking pot and burning bush, or the dove in the NT.

As a side note, the Kimbell museum here in Fort Worth has an exhibition of early Christian art, and I was fascinated to learn that images of Christ were unknown until I'm thinking it was the 4th century, and when they did appear, it was in a negative context. During the earliest time of the Church, the LORD was shown by such visualizations as you mention, or by utilizing OT figures like David and Moses.

It wasn't until after Constantine that images intended to be of Christ began to appear (trying to recall what I learned in early January), often on decorative items for the home for the well-to-do Christian. The papacy - and I forget which pope in particular - was the driving force behind increased use of images, in an attempt to combat one of the prevalent heresies (Arianism, perhaps?).

__________________
Anne Ivy
Christ Chapel Bible Church
Fort Worth, Texas

Married to Don, mother of six, grandmother to an ever-increasing brood.

The Ivy Vine (my blog)

How about painting a slaughtered lamb(or any of the other visions in the Revelation) to represent Jesus?

__________________
Bryan Riddle
1689 London Baptist Confession
Bethel Baptist Church Owasso, Oklahoma

That's interesting - for years I displayed a folk art wreath featuring a cross and a lamb with the inscription "Behold the Lamb" on my front door until recently when I became convicted that it was improper. The wreath is now in the attic.

Obviously, care should be taken in this area, but the general rule I follow is: if it was a symbol in the Bible, even a symbol of God's presence, and not a symbol of God, per se, then depicting it should not be objectionable. Otherwise then we shouldn't try to imagine the tabernacle and temple, and many many other things, which were designed to be seen in those days; and a right understanding of them would rather (I say) encourage us to imagine them ourselves.

If the picture or symbol of a lamb is to put us in mind of the OT lambs, I say "fine;" it is a symbol of a symbol. But if meant to put us in mind of Christ, "this is THE Lamb," then I might be more likely to object, although I prefer to err on the side of charity and not take offense.

A picture of the Angel of the Lord, or the Spirit descending as a dove, the man Christ Jesus, etc., these should be avoided. But I don't feel the same about the burning bush, smoking firepot, pillar of cloud/fire, Sinai wreathed in darkness--all indicative of God's presence, but not forms of God. The latter spoke of God somewhat indirectly, rather than of his essence.

(In worship, there should be no deliberate visuals not directed by God--i.e., nothing besides water, bread and wine.)

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

I agree with Scot here. I think caution is always needful, but, I do agree the burning bush in art really would not be an attempt to actually picture God.

__________________
~etexas~