p. 1 | The Second Commandment by John Nevins Andrews

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 1, 1871

The Second Commandment.

By John Nevins Andrews

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.

“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. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; 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 showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” Ex. 20:4–6.

Before commenting upon this precept, let us read it carefully as given in other places in the Scriptures:

Lev. 26:1: “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it; for I am the Lord your God.”

Deut. 4:15–19: “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire; lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of anything that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth; and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.”

Deut. 5:8–10: This text is a repetition of Ex. 20:4–6, and is identical with it.

Deut. 16:22: “Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the Lord thy God hateth.”

Deut. 27:15: “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.”

Ex. 34:17: “Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.”

Lev. 19:4: “Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods; I am the Lord your God.”

Deut. 4:23, 24: “Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the Lord your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the Lord thy God hath forbidden thee. For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.”

Ps. 97:7: “Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols; worship him all ye gods.”

Isa. 44:9, 10: “They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?”

These texts are all of one class. The sin forbidden is the same in each. And it does not seem to be difficult to get at their real meaning, or to discover what that evil thing is which they so pointedly condemn. We inquire, then, What is the real meaning of the second commandment? Are there in it two distinct precepts, one of which forbids the making of any copy, pattern, likeness, picture or image of anything whatever, though no adoration be intended or even thought of; and the other of which either forbids our worshiping them when made, or else the worshiping of beings or things which they represent? Or is it true that we have in the second commandment only one precept, and that one the prohibition of making an image or likeness to bow down before in adoration? If we compare together all these texts, there does not seem to be any ground for a reasonable doubt that this commandment is designed expressly to forbid the formation of images for purposes of worship. But it may be well to see if the commandment will bear to be considered in the light of a prohibition of all images, likenesses, copies, pictures, or representations, though made for purposes that have not the slightest connection with idolatry. Were this only used to bear against the photograph, or likeness business, we should have less interest to object; for, to speak within bounds, nine tenths of that business is an utterly inexcusable expenditure of means that should be used for the honor of God, or the well-being of man, instead of being made to minister to the extravagance and pride of those who must one day render account for it all.

But it is never best to use, as arguments against any evil, texts which do not bear upon that wrong. And we are never reduced to that necessity. All those Scriptures that bear upon extravagance, wastefulness, vanity, and folly; all of those also that set forth our stewardship, and the account that we must render for the use we make of our means; all those texts which command us to help in every good work, whether in relieving the distressed, or in sending the gospel to those who perish for it; all these texts, the number of which is very great, and many others which might be referred to, look us in the face when we go into the picture business, and if our consciences are quick to feel, their force will certainly be sufficient to keep us from using means in this way, except to a very limited extent. If we do not, therefore, on examination decide that the second command bears directly upon the photograph business, it will not be understood that we have no objection to this business as entered into by many who know the truth.

But if this commandment forbids all pictures, copies, representations, images, likenesses, and everything of this sort, though made for purposes in no way connected with adoration, we should be constrained to regard it as to some extent justifying our no-law friends in teaching that the ten commandments are a yoke which they cannot bear. For it forbids (if the explanatory, limiting clause be omitted, which confines the prohibition to images and likenesses to be adored) the making of any likeness of anything, not merely in the heaven above, but in the earth beneath. Yet no business of life could be carried forward without sin were this the true interpretation of the commandment. For all implements of every trade are but images of others; all articles of furniture, and, finally, almost all human structures are in substance simply copies of others. Writing is but the act of copying the proper models of letters. Our prophetic chart is a representation of things, some of which at least have an actual existence upon the earth, and others of them have had such. No sooner had Moses received the ten commandments, of which this precept was one, than he copied into a book for the benefit of the people that law which God had written with his finger upon stone.

But we cannot treat this text as prohibiting such acts. There can be no moral wrong in copying or imitating things in nature, when this is done with right objects in view. It cannot be wrong to make artificial limbs for those who have lost their natural limbs; and yet these are designed to be as nearly as possible the very image or likeness of the true. It cannot be wrong to make maps of countries, charts of coasts, and globes, to represent the shape of our earth. Nor can it be wrong to teach children natural history by the use of pictures that correctly represent the various living creatures that God has made. Nor do we see how any moral wrong is necessarily committed by securing from friends, that we may never see again, or may otherwise never see at all in this life, a modest and inexpensive picture or likeness of their features.

But let us consider the place which is occupied by this commandment. It is the second in the code. The first one prohibits all other gods before the true. And the entire first table, i. e., the first four precepts, relates expressly to our duty to God. At least this is so unless this second commandment is an exception. To treat it as an exception is to involve the subject in great absurdity; for if the second precept consists of two distinct commandments, one forbidding our copying anything, and the other forbidding our worship, not of the copies, but of the things forbidden to be copied, there is no propriety in counting this the second commandment. If allowed to retain its place and be treated as two commandments, it must be counted the second and the third. But that which in that case would be called the second ought to go upon the second table, and not stand in the table with our duty towards God; and that which constitutes the last of the two precepts into which the second is thus divided, should not be considered another precept in distinction from the first, as like that one it would simply be a prohibition of false gods.

There must be in this precept the prohibition of a great moral wrong; for it stands on that table which relates exclusively to our duty toward God, and between two precepts, the first of which forbids other gods, and the other relates to our use of the name of God. This precept must have one of two meanings: 1. Either it means that the construction of all copies, or patterns or imitations of things existing in nature or in art, is a moral wrong, and as such is here forbidden; or, 2. It means that the making of such things for the purpose of adoring them, is that moral wrong which God thought of sufficient consequence to prohibit in the second precept of the first table.

But we have already seen that the first view cannot be correct. For if the limiting clause that these should not be made to be adored is disconnected from the prohibition to make them, then we have an unlimited precept forbidding the copying of any object in the heaven above, or upon the face of the earth beneath. But our minds are incapable of discerning any moral wrong in the act of copying or patterning which enters into all the business of life; and there is no light given in the Scriptures to show why such an act should in itself be an immoral act. We cannot therefore recognize it as such. And we are compelled to connect the prohibition of images and likenesses with the clause which limits and applies this prohibition to whatever is made to be adored. And certainly those who take the pains carefully to compare the several texts quoted in this article, in which the subject of graven images is mentioned, cannot fail to see that in almost every one of them the act is so defined that the sin of idolatry is shown to be that wicked thing which is the occasion of the prohibition.

We now inquire, Wherein does the second commandment differ from the first? And why are not the Romanists correct who teach that it is only an appendix to that precept, and not another commandment?

The first commandment forbids men to have other gods before the Lord. This precept cuts off the worship of any other being besides the one living and true God. It cuts off the worship of every false god, whether Baal, or Moloch, or Dagon, or Jupiter, or the sun, the fire, the ocean, the river Nile, the river Ganges, or any being or thing which men have worshiped. Now if the second commandment, instead of being a prohibition of the making of images to worship, is (1.) a prohibition of all acts of copying existing objects though done without any reference to worship, and (2.) is a prohibition of the worship of the things copied, rather than of the copies or images that are made; the second of the two is only a repetition of the first commandment; while the first of the two prohibits no moral wrong which our minds are capable of discerning, and certainly has not the slightest connection with the other things embodied in the first table of the law.

The case then stands thus: The first commandment forbids all false gods. The second commandment forbids the making of any representations or copies of any thing; and also forbids the worship of false gods. So that all there is to the second commandment not found in the first is this prohibition of making anything like any other already existing object. Such an interpretation of the law of God will never do.

But it may be asked, If we concede that the two parts of the second commandment are inseparably connected, and that they constitute but one precept, the substance of which is that we should not make an image, or representation of any object in heaven or earth for adoration, is not this the proper relation of the two commandments: The first commandment forbids all false gods; and the second one forbids such gods as men make with their own hands? But if this be the true view of the case, we should be compelled to say that the second commandment was wholly included in the first precept, and was in no wise to be considered as a separate commandment. For the prohibition of a certain kind of false gods, viz., such as are made with men's hands, must come under the first precept which has no limitation and which forbids all false gods whatsoever.

What then is the proper distinction between the first commandment and the second? for we have no doubt that they are two distinct precepts, each having its own field and each holding that field in its own right, and in undisputed possession. The following statements present, as we think, the proper distinction between the two commandments:—

The first commandment forbids the worship of every false god of every kind in the universe.

The second commandment forbids all representations of that God which we are commanded alone to worship in the first precept.

These two fields are wholly distinct from each other; and each is in the highest degree necessary to be guarded. The first commandment sweeps away all false gods. But if there were no second commandment, what could hinder any one who chose to do so from making a representation of the one living and true God, and showing it respect out of regard to the God of Heaven who was represented by it? We could not clearly convict such a man under the first commandment. He could say in his defense: “I have no God but the great Creator. But out of respect to him I have formed a statue to represent him, the most fitting in its kind of which I can conceive, and, though I show to it some degree of adoration, it is only out of respect to the one true God which it was made to represent.”

That this is the true sense of the second commandment, is manifest from Deut. 4:12, 15, 16: “And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire. Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. . . . Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest ye corrupt yourselves and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,” etc.

What does the man of God assign as a reason why the people did not see any manner of similitude on the occasion that the ten commandments were spoken? It was lest they should do the very thing which the second commandment forbids; that is, lest they should under some kind of figure make a representation of the One who spoke this law to them.

If we refer to the events of Jewish history, we shall find the distinction between the sins forbidden in the first and second commandments, very plainly marked. We read in 1 Kings 11 and 12 how that the ten tribes were sent out of the house of Solomon’s son, and given to Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. And the prophet told him that if he would walk before God as did David, that the Lord would do for him as he had promised to do for David. But Jeroboam, when he had taken the throne of Israel, said that if the people continued to go up to the temple at Jerusalem, they would slay him and return to their allegiance to the house of David. “Whereupon the king took counsel and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin; for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.” 1 Kings 12:28–30.

Jeroboam was a believer in the true God. The use of the term, “thy gods,” is no proof that he believed in more gods than one; for the Hebrew word for God is often plural in form, and, as in Gen. 1:1; 3:5, is sometimes rendered God and sometimes gods. Jeroboam did not design to turn away Israel from the true God; but he did mean to obviate the necessity of their going up to Jerusalem to the temple to worship. And so he formed a representation of the true God, and bade the people worship before that. This was the sin of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat that is so many times mentioned in the books of Kings. It was of the same kind as that of Aaron and the people who made the golden calf in the wilderness. Ex. 32:4, 5, 8. All the subsequent kings of Israel cleaved to this sin of Jeroboam for the very same reasons that caused him to enter upon this course of transgression at the first. He did not mean to turn Israel away from that God which brought them up out of Egypt, and to introduce another god. Far from this; but he did mean that they should not go up to Jerusalem to worship, and so he called their attention to a very costly representation of the true God.

But when Ahab came to the throne, he thought the sin of Jeroboam a small matter. And instead of merely violating the second commandment by professing to worship the true God under the representation of a graven image, he boldly set the first commandment at defiance, by substituting Baal for Jehovah. 1 Kings 16:31–33.

When the time came that God’s indignation could no longer withhold the merited punishment, he raised up Jehu to destroy the house of Ahab. 2 Kings 9. And when he had done this, he proceeded to root out the worship of Baal from the nation. 1 Kings 10. Yet he did not depart from the sin of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. But because of what he had done respecting Baal, the Lord promised that his family should hold the throne for four generations. It is manifest, therefore, that while the sin of Ahab did openly set aside the true God by giving his place to Baal in contemptuous defiance of the first commandment, the sin of Jeroboam was that of breaking the second by introducing images to represent the true God.

In the cases of Jeroboam and of Ahab, we may see how that the violation of the second commandment prepares the way for that of the first. Such was undoubtedly the origin of false gods: first, representations of the true God, which of itself was an insult to his majesty; and then these representations were taken for gods themselves, so that Jehovah was in the end wholly forsaken. Such is the teaching of Paul in Rom. 1:21–25, respecting the origin of heathenism, and such the purport of the solemn warning in the second commandment respecting the sins of the parents being visited upon the children. The nations now worshiping as real gods their idols of wood and stone, do it because that many generations in the past their ancestors willfully departed from God in making representations of his form as something to be used in his worship.