Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 38, No. 7.

The Second Commandment

Review and Herald

Aug 1, 1871

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.

AFFLICTION SENT IN MERCY.

How tender is thy hand, O thou most gracious Lord! Afflictions came at thy command, And left us at thy word.
How gentle was the rod That chastened us for sin! How soon we found a smiling God Where deep distress had been!
A Father's hand we felt, A Father's love we knew; 'Mid tears of penitence we knelt, And found his promise true.
Now will we bless the Lord, And in his strength confide; Jehovah ever be adored, There is no God beside.—Sel.

Bible Hygiene.

“Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” 1 Tim. 4: 8.
“God is love.” His revealed will relates to man's well-being in this life, as well as to that which is to come. God does not take pleasure in the miseries of this mortal state. He delights in the happiness of obedient intelligences in this, as well as in the future rapturous joys of the redeemed in the world that is to come. The Bible teaches how to live so as to enjoy that health and happiness in this life, favorable to the securing of eternal life. True godliness does not blindly look over, and stupidly neglect, the laws of our present being, and dimly view only the immortal existence. It is profitable unto all things. It gives promise of the life that now is. It also has promise of that which is to come.
The religion of the Bible was not intended simply as a garment to put on, to cover moral and physical impurities. It was designed to convert the entire man, soul, body, and spirit, that he might be pure within and without. That bogus piety which would give license to consecrated gluttony, devoted lust, and sanctified filthiness, is simply a burlesque upon the religion of the Bible. “Wherefore,” says the apostle, “come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean, and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” 2 Cor. 6: 17, 18; 7: 1. This is Bible religion. This is true godliness. It proposes to elevate in this life, make fallen beings real men, pure without and within here, and glorified saints in the world to come.
The record of man's creation, of his ample provisions, and his glorious surroundings, fully attests the love of God to created intelligences in this life. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food.” Gen. 2: 7-9.
Of all the creatures God made, man was his best work. He was formed in the image of his Creator, to be lord of the work of his hands. Physically considered, Adam must have been very grand. “God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” This was true of the first man, in its highest sense, intellectually and physically. Adam and his sons lived nearly one thousand years. And may we not suppose that the race has fallen off in size and physical strength, in proportion to the period of existence? If this supposition be admissible, it becomes a matter of mathematical calculation. Adam and his first sons lived nine hundred years. Men of this age live seventy-five years, at the weight of about one hundred and fifty pounds. According to the foregoing supposition the first men, even down to the flood, were of a size to weigh, not far from eighteen hundred pounds. Noah lived nine hundred and fifty years. Of necessity for a time he and his sons ate flesh for food, and from that point of time rapidly declined in length of days. The original curse, with all its accumulated weight of transgression and violation of natural law, has bowed down the race, and caused man to dwindle to his present brief period of existence, marked with disease, decrepitude, and imbecility.
With this view of the subject, we see man in Eden standing in the glory of his manhood, a grand specimen of the perfect work of God. Earth has long since forgotten the grandeur, perfection of symmetry, and the beauty of the first man, before there fell upon him the depressing influence and the blight and mildew of the curse. And there is so close a connection between matter and mind, that when we consider him intellectually, we are carried up in contemplation of what an intellect might have been, unbalanced by the extremes incident to the curse, and the depraving and depressing influence of continued transgression, until we are well-nigh lost in conjecture. We behold happy Adam, in holy Eden, walking and talking with God, the great originator of thought, and communing face to face with his Son, and with the holy angels. He is now the companion of the highest order of intelligences. Has man been progressing for six thousand years? Verily, downward, downward!
We have only to look back to our parents as they were in the strength of the noon of life, and to our grandparents, as their still nobler frames were bowed with the weight of years, to be impressed with the fact that each successive generation suffers under greater physical feebleness than the one before it. This is especially true of American women. It has finally come to this, that by reason of artificial habits and in-door life, and consequent feebleness, not one woman in ten in our country is capable of bearing a well-developed offspring.
And while we admit that, in the providence of God, the present is an age of discovery and invention, in many things necessary to the very existence of the present enfeebled generation, we regard the popular idea of the increase of the mental strength of the race at war with sound philosophy and the facts in the case.
“But what will you do with the text,” says some old fogy who has for a quarter of a century been dreaming of the golden age of mental progression, “that declares that every generation grows weaker and wiser?” We reply that the Sacred Scriptures have no such text. This saying can only be found in the chapters of those maxims that are about one half true, and the other half false. Facts compel us to admit the weakness of the present generation, and to seriously question its superior wisdom. Those who have listened to the words of the eloquent Wendell Phillips in his lecture upon the Lost Arts, have been impressed with the fact that wisdom has not been reserved to the present generation.
“A sound mind in a sound body,” is a maxim worthy of a place in the writings of Moses, Solomon, or Paul. Natural and correct habits of life result in health, physical force, mental clearness and mental strength. Artificial and incorrect habits always tend to physical and mental enfeeblement. We call in question the sanity of those writers who blow hot and cold, in first representing that the bad habits of the present generation are ruinous to body and soul, to physical, mental, and moral strength; and then, by way of change in the exercises, strike up the popular, siren song of grand progression!
But we turn from this sad picture to contemplate the first man. God in love created him to enjoy the delights of taste, and to feast the eye with the beautiful. Then his senses were perfect. “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food.” Gen. 2: 9. The God of the Bible is the author of all that is really beautiful; and we please him best when we, in a restricted sense, love that which he has made lovely.
The great God has prepared a feast for the sight, as well as for the taste. We should labor for the proper indulgence of both. The thousands who build large pig-pens, and extensive hen-parks, and grumble over the labor and expense of the sweet adornments of flowers, shrubs, evergreens, and ornamental trees, are hardly in speaking distance of the Christian's beautiful Heaven. But, thank God, we may not only feast the eye with the beauties of nature; but, by returning to more natural habits of eating and drinking, we may educate and restore the appetite in the use of simple yet nutritious diet, so as to enjoy much of the original delights of taste.
With the present enjoyments of sanctified sight and taste, of the good things which God has made for the happiness of men, we look back over six thousand years of transgression of divine and natural law, during which time the curse has been rending the earth, man has been degenerating, and moral darkness, like the pall of death, has enveloped groaning creation, and exclaim, What must have been the delights of Eden before sin entered!
But we call especial attention to Adam's bill of fare, “And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” Gen. 1: 29. The word meat in this passage means simply food. William Smith, Classical Examiner of the University of London, in his Dictionary of the Bible, says of the word:—
“MEAT. It does not appear that the word meat is used in any one instance in the Authorized Version of either the Old or New Testament in the sense which it now almost exclusively bears of animal food. The latter is denoted uniformly by flesh.”
The American Tract Society's Dictionary of the Holy Bible, says:—
“MEATS. ‘Meat’ in the English Bible usually signifies ‘food,’ and not merely ‘flesh.’ Gen. 1: 29, 30; Matt. 15: 37. So in Luke 24: 41: ‘Have ye here any meat?’ literally, anything to eat? The ‘meat offerings’ of the Jews were made of flour and oil, etc. Lev. 2.”
Our good Bible does not record the flesh of animals as constituting an important part of Adam's bill of fare. In fact, it is entirely left out. As true as the book of Genesis, that first venerable gentlemen, who lived nine hundred and thirty years, without either the dyspepsia or the gout, was a vegetarian.—Health Reformer.
Continue reading: Elder Grant’s Injustice toward S. D. Adventists