Deuteronomy 16:22

Or, image

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Neither shalt thou set thee up any image--erroneously rendered so for "pillar"; pillars of various kinds, and materials of wood or stone were erected in the neighborhood of altars. Sometimes they were conical or oblong, at other times they served as pedestals for the statues of idols. A superstitious reverence was attached to them, and hence they were forbidden.

Next: Deuteronomy Chapter 17

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(22) Image.—Explained by Rashi of a single stone, whether statue or pillar.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER XVI.

Statue. Hebrew matseba, means also a pillar, monument, heap of stones, image, title, &c., Genesis xxviii. --- Hateth, when they are designed for superstitious purposes. On other occasions, statues and pictures may be very instructive and commendable. (Haydock) --- The patriarchs set up pillars, altars, &c., as did also the Israelites, (Josue xxii. 10.) Samuel, &c., even after this prohibition, and without any offence. The Rabbins allow, that the proselytes of justice do well in erecting such monuments of religion, provided they be not intended for false worship. (Selden, Jur. ii. 6.) (Calmet) --- How blind then must be our dissenting brethren, who cannot make this easy and obvious distinction, but indiscriminately condemn all Catholics as guilty of idolatry, because they make and keep in their chapels, and bow down before images of the saints. This trifling objection is pressed with great vigour by J. Wesley, the founder of the Methodists. "The Papists," says he, "set up their idols in their churches---they worship the picture of the Queen of heaven---they idolize a dead man or woman." To whom Dr. Parker, a Protestant bishop, replies: (Disc. for the Abrog. of the Test.) "Yet, after all, we have no other ground for the bold conceit, than some crude and rash assertions of some popular divines, who have no other measures of truth and zeal, but their hatred to popery....As to the use of images in the worship of God, I cannot but admire at the confidence of these men, to make so bold a charge against them in general, when the images of the cherubim were commanded by God himself, Exodus xxv. 22. They were the most solemn and sacred part of the Jewish religion, and therefore, though images, so far from idolatry, that God made them the seat of his presence, and from between them delivered his oracles. This instance is so plain and obvious to every reader,....that it is a much greater wonder to me that those men, who advance the objection of idolatry so groundlessly, (against the greater part of Christendom, as he observed before) can so slightly rid themselves of so pregnant a proof against it." See an answer to the Rev. J. Wesley’s Misrepresentations, &c., by the Rev. N. G. published at Whitby, 1811, where some of the variations in doctrine of the pillars of Methodism, are also briefly noticed, as well as the absurdity of a man setting up for a reformer of religion, who at the time did not believe in Christ, (Journal ii. p. 102-3,) and for forty-two years afterwards preached a doctrine either Popish (Jour. for 1739) or Antinomian, than which, to use the words of his own recantation, "nothing could be more false." (Minutes of a conference, 1770.) It may not be improper to observe, that in the last great deluge of error, the Methodist Society began, 1st May, 1738, at London, though it had a more obscure beginning at Oxford, 1729, and another at Havannah, 1736. Yet even when this third grand attempt was made to spread it wider, and to rectify former mistakes, the author acknowledges that he was not converted, no not till many days afterwards, when, being in a Lutheran society! (26th May) "an assurance, says he, was given me, that Christ had taken away my sins, even mine;" (Journal) and still, in the year 1770, he had to "review the whole affair." Such is the man who has deluded so many thousands! Out of thy own mouth will I condemn thee. Surely those who wilfully follow such blind guides, deserve to fall into the ditch. What confidence now can the Methodists have in the interpretations which Wesley has given them of the Scriptures, since he stumbled in broad daylight; and even preached for above thirty years together, that the observance of God’s law is not only unnecessary, but sinful, an error to which he was forced, at last, to open his eyes by the scandalous immoralities of several of his deluded admirers, whom he had been all along foolishly flattering with the assurance that faith alone would insure their salvation. Strange it may appear, that he should not be put on his guard by the fall of Luther, who split against the same rock, and scrupled not to condemn the Epistle of St. James as not worth a straw, stramineam epistolam, an expression for which he is said afterwards to have been sorry, as Wesley was for the doctrine which he had been delivering for so many years. But the evil was then done. Multitudes had been deceived by these arch impostors. Their surviving followers might, however, if they would, derive this lesson from their tardy repentance and recantation, to examine with more caution their other doctrines, which they have delivered with the like confidence; and as they have reason to fear the yielding of an implicit belief to such innovators, so they may be induced to flee to the ark, the true Catholic Church, that they may be protected from the contradiction of tongues, Psalm xxx. 21. (St. Augustine, ibid.) "After Christ and the gospel, we have no farther inquiry to make." (Tertullian) --- We know that novelty in religion is a sure mark of falsehood, as no one can place any other foundation besides that which has been fixed by the beginner and finisher of our faith. From the written and unwritten Word of God, we learn what He has taught, and among the rest, we are authorized to keep holy pictures with respect. This is not an attempt against the worship of God, but designed to promote it. We do not make them to ourselves, without a divine authority. The same things which we are not allowed to adore, we must not make. Yet Methodists have and make pictures. We have God’s will clearly expressed to us by his Church, which he has commanded us to hear and obey. If we be led astray by so doing, we may at least plead that we did, to the best of our judgment, as we were ordered by God; which those, who choose for themselves, cannot do. If this Church, so strongly recommended to us in Scripture, be capable of deceiving us in an affair of so great consequence as in that of idolatry, to what article of the Christian revelation can we yield our assent with safety? So, on the other hand, if Luther and Wesley have grossly imposed on their followers, by teaching them to believe that Catholics are idolaters, and that faith alone is necessary for salvation, as they are self-convicted in the latter point, how can their disciples forget the old proverb, "A liar is not believed even when he speaks the truth;" and consequently, how can they take up their faith on their bare word, though they may pretend to ground their doctrine on the word of God? They confessedly misapplied that sacred word, with respect to faith alone, and they shut their eyes to the obvious meaning of the texts which forbid graven things. Ought not, therefore, the unlearned and the unstable to dread lest they may have wrested the other Scriptures to their own perdition? (2 Peter iii. 16.) See Exodus xx. This subject is of such vast importance, the accusation of idolatry is of so black a nature, that it deserves to be accurately and frequently refuted. It is not an accusation brought only by a few obscure individuals, who have not the power to do any great harm to it; the most exalted dignitaries of the Protestant church, such as Dr. Shute, of Durham, in two charges to his clergy, the most famous modern reformers, like Wesley, &c., have not scrupled to repeat the calumny; and the Legislature has, for many years, been actuated by what they perhaps have thought a pious zeal, to exterminate the imitators of the Chanaanites! They may have listened too attentively to the intolerant institutor of the love-feasts, (who seems, nevertheless, to threaten the overthrow of the established church) and who, in the excess of his zeal, exclaims, "I insist upon it that no government, not Roman Catholic, ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion." (Letter written 1780, a short time before the riots.) They must then be murdered, banished, or forced into the church, that little society which began in the evening of the 1st of May, 1738, in Fetter-lane; (Journal i.) for Methodists assert, that the God of this world has hitherto triumphed over every revival of true religion, (Dedic. prefixed to the Life of J. Wesley, by Drs. Coke and Moore) and consequently over the reformed Church of England; so that they can hardly insist, that we should embrace her doctrine, and thus increase the triumph of the devil. We have therefore no alternative left, but either to abandon our country or our religion. These are the apostles, worthy of Mahomet, who would have us believe that they are inspired by the Holy Ghost, and divinely commissioned to raise another holy temple out of the scattered lively stones of that once beautiful building, which was erected by Jesus Christ, against which they say (Ibid.) the gates of hell have never wholly prevailed. These are the teachers whom they have heaped up to themselves, having itching ears, 2 Timothy iv. 3. These are the interpreters of the sacred oracles. Both Wesley and Coke have, at least, acquired great celebrity with their adherents, by their labours in this way; but how much their explication may be depended upon, we may form some judgment from the preceding remarks. The character of bishop, which Dr. Coke extorted from the hands of his great master, 10th of Sept. 1784, at Bristol, will not give us any higher idea of the sagacity of either. It disgusted all thinking men, as a similar action of Luther, a fallen priest, consecrating a bishop had done long before. Mr. Charles Wesley upon hearing of his brother having ordained a bishop, being but a presbyter himself, is said to have exclaimed, "So easily are bishops made, by man’s or woman’s whim;

Wesley his hands on Coke has laid---but who laid hands on him?

See Nightingale, &c., for further information on Methodism, which now makes such a noise, though its novelty, variations, acknowledged mistakes, calumnies, spirit of persecution, want of lawful pastors, &c., here briefly instanced, might suffice to put people upon their guard. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Heb. statue, whether with a picture or representation, or without it, as the idolaters used to worship smoothed and polished stones or pillars without any image upon them.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. Neither… set up any image — The Hebrew word means a pillar or obelisk set up in honour of some deity. In some passages it is applied to a statue of Baal. 2Ki_3:2. In Gen_28:18, the term is used for the stone which Jacob set up as a pillar.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Any image; any pillar, etc. The Hebrew word (hbxem, mazzebah) denotes generally any pillar or stone that is set up, whether as a memorial, (Gen_28:18) or as a sign (Exo_24:4; Isa_19:19) or for purposes of utility or ornament. (Jer_43:13) Here, as in other passages, it is a pillar or statue set up as an object of worship (2Ki_3:2 2Ki_10:26; Hos_10:1; Mic_5:12)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They were also to abstain from setting up any mazzebah, i.e., any memorial stone, or stone pillar dedicated to Baal (see at Exo 23:24).

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

ולא תקים לך מצבה NEITHER SHALT THOU RAISE ANY MONUMENT — i.e. a monument of one stone (cf. Rashi on Deuteronomy 12:3), not even in order to sacrifice on it to Heaven (to God).

אשר שנא WHICH [THE LORD THY GOD] HATETH — An altar of stones and an altar of earth He has commanded you to make; this, however, He hates, because it was a religious ordinance amongst the Canaanites. And although it was pleasing to Him in the days of our Patriarchs (cf. Genesis 28:18), now He hates it because these (Canaanites) made it an ordinance of an idolatrous character (cf. Sifrei Devarim 146).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

NEITHER SHALT THOU SET THEE UP A PILLAR — “a pillar of one stone, even for the purpose of sacrificing to Heaven upon it. WHICH THE ETERNAL THY G-D HATETH. An altar of earth and an altar of stones, Verse 22. has He commanded you to make, but He hates this [one-stone pillar] because it was an ordinance of the Canaanites [for idol-worship]. Although it was pleasing to Him at the time of the patriarchs, He hates it now, because these [Canaanites] have made it an ordinance in the worship of the idols.” This is Rashi’s language. If so, Scripture prohibited [the planting of] an asheirah [anywhere], it enjoined against planting [trees] on the Temple mount although the intent be to Heaven, and it prohibited a pillar [erected] for Heaven — both [prohibitions, against trees and against pillars,] on account of the ordinances of the Canaanites. But I have not understood this ordinance, for the Canaanites used altars as well as pillars since Scripture states, And ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars; for ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars and similarly in all places; [hence all altars should have been prohibited even for the worship of G-d]! Perhaps we may say that the Canaanites were primarily devoted to pillars, and they had no idolatrous temple without a pillar upon which to sacrifice and pour oil upon its top, similar to what is stated with reference to Baal, And they brought forth the pillars that were in the house of Baal. However, only a few of their temples also had altars upon which to sacrifice [hence Scripture did not prohibit altars built to be used for Heaven].It appears to me that the Canaanites, who were engrossed in idolatry, used to make in all temples of their gods an altar on which to bring sacrifices, erected a large stone at the entrance of the temple for the priests to stand upon, and planted a tree outside it to point the way for those who come there. They still do so to this day. Now the Glorious Name hates and despises all their deeds and He prohibited the pillar and the asheirah. He left only the altar because it is a necessity for the offerings concerning which He commanded. They were a source of pleasure before Him — because He ordained them and His Will was done — even prior to the existence of idol-worship on earth.

WHICH THE ETERNAL THY G-D HATETH. The purport thereof is that he is explaining that G-d had commanded, an altar of earth shalt thou make unto Me, And if thou make Me an altar of stones, Verse 22. and so, Moses explained, He desires these [altars] excluding the pillar. He hates it because, all their deeds being detestable before Him, He commanded Israel not to copy their deeds. In the days of Jacob, however, the prohibition Neither shall ye walk in their statutes had not yet been ordained and he, therefore, used the pillar in worshipping G-d as was the custom of those who worshipped [the True G-d in the days of Jacob]. This commandment is thus understood as proceeding from the verse, And if thou make Me an altar of stones., Verse 22. But what He said in the Torah, Neither shall ye erect a graven image, or a pillar, 26:1. refers to a graven image and a pillar in order to place the graven image upon the pedestal for idol-worship, for there Scripture is speaking of idol-worship. He says [there], however, Neither shall ye place any figured stone in your Land to bow down unto it, 26:1. — even to Heaven, because he would appear to worship the mosaics themselves, for the same reason that an asheirah [is prohibited], because it is among the [idolatrous] statutes of the peoples.Know that an altar is a high structure of stones having four horns, a base, and a circuit above its base, and offerings are burnt between its horns. A pillar is a single large stone which they raise up upon which to burn [incense] or bring offerings, or for the priests to stand upon. A bamah (a high place) is like a mountain — they make it of assembled earth and, upon it, an altar is built upon which to sacrifice. Everything which is lofty and high is so named: I will ascend above ‘bamathei’ (the heights of) the clouds; upon ‘bamathei’ (the high places of) the earth. The back of a human being is also called bamah, as it is said, upon ‘bamatheimo’ thou shalt tread., 33:29. See in Megillah 16a where this verse is used when Mordecai stepped upon Haman in order to mount the king’s horse. Similarly Scripture states, And the king [Solomon] went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great ‘bamah’ (high place); a thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon offer upon that altar. is distinguished from an altar, for, as explained above, an altar was erected on “the high place (bamah).”

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.