Addendum: Idols

Because of the nature of this work as a “diary” I don’t believe in going back to make retractions or adjustments to previous entries. As a result, these addenda related to diary-specific entries will be for further clarification of previously made points or corrections as I learn and grow in understanding. Today’s addendum is an attempt at clarification.
Some reactions to my entry on Genesis 1:26 have made me realize how emotionally charged the word “idol” is in at least our American expression of Christianity. We take idolatry as a significantly serious offense and rightly so. One of the other things that happen is then any talk around even the word “idol” is automatically put in a special context. I thought I had made my case about God’s intention to make us His “idols” in the proper sensitive way without flinching from the truth of what the scriptures say. The following are points of clarification.
Primo: The word that is used is the word that is used. If this was me going “hey look…we are like God’s idols,” independent of scriptural explicitly then I would happily back down. If we believe, as I do, that the Bible is God’s inspired and inerrant word…then that means that Moses under the influence of the Holy Spirit chose that specific word for a specific reason. Having, at that point, already been through the Ten Commandments, and the Golden Calf incident, then he, therefore, knew what he was doing when he used that specific word. It is incumbent upon us then to wrestle with that word choice whether we “prefer” that word or another one. There is a “why” that deserves analysis especially if God’s word choice bothers us so much that we’d rather use another word.
Secundo: I contend that we put on the word “idol” a context and thought process that wasn’t there in the ancient world. We misunderstand the function of idols in the process of idolatry. Let us take the Greeks for example. Every major city had multiple temples with idols to multiple gods throughout. None of the worshipers of these false deities would have said that a statue of Athena was Athena herself. It was a representation of a deity that lived on Olympus and wandered the world completely independent of her statue or her temple. When one gave sacrifices or prayed toward the idol it was not believed that they were doing this TO the idol but to the deity the idol represented. Some ancient cultures believed that placing an idol in another god’s temple or any location increased that god’s sphere of power and influence. This is one of the reasons the Egyptians were freaked out by the God of the Hebrews because He shouldn’t have had any power in their country at all let alone the power to strike down the firstborn son of a man the people of Egypt believed to be a god himself.
Thirdly: We are in no way to be praised. It is extremely hard for us to separate out the idea of an idol being praised rather than the thing behind it being praised. As with my second point, the idol as an object is only a representation of a far greater thing behind it that it represents. When Peter healed a paralytic did He deserve to be praised? On the contrary, Peter wasn’t even the one who did the healing. He was a conduit, a channel for the blessing of the thing that deserved to be praised. We wouldn’t even say that His shadow did the healing when it landed on people. David wasn’t the one who killed Goliath. The action of obedience was his, but the power behind it was God’s. In this, we are more than just image-bearers.
Fourthly: In the conversations with others there has been a lot of trying to alter the wording that God uses. “Image bearer” comes up a lot, and linguistically that makes some sense. However. In my way of thinking that just means that we look like Him. We bear His image. It is so minor a concept to the idea that we are the hands and feet, that we are being a conduit for His action and blessing, that we have a responsibility in nearly every moment to do His will. I would even accept the terms “vice-regent” or “governor” if we didn’t have such an expectation that such people are hardly the ideal and tend toward the tyrannical and self-serving as a basic function.
Given these four points, I’m stuck coming back around to the notion that, as much as it might displease us and our sensibilities, whether it is the English language that fails us or history, “idol” is the word that God used for His intention in our creation. As such, I can’t let that go or demote what His intention appears to be. And neither should you. We should always wrestle to understand why the original language says things the way it says them.