I have often said that one should read the Bible before the devil reads it for you. Obviously, reading the Bible without any bias what so ever is impossible, but studying it with the intention of discovering what it says - also known as "exegesis" - provides a fantastic shield against "proof texts" used by false teachers, as long as that shield is raised fast enough. But if you don't study the Bible, such false teachers are free to interpret it for you, and you won't have an adequate defence.
Not surprisingly, false teachers tend to discourage testing them against Scripture (thereby immediately failing the Biblical test). No organisation exemplifies this more than the Roman Catholic Church. While Catholics tend to encourage what they call "private interpretations" when it suits them, it is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that their organisation, and they alone, have the authority to tell you what it says. This is to the extent that they actually used to ban the laity from possessing it.
Of course, this didn't sit well with God, and so the Reformation happened, closely followed by the Scientific Revolution. With the Roman Catholic Church neutered, and technology allowing the word of God to freely reach literate people around the world without even requiring a drop of ink, Catholic apologists are forced to resort to the same tactics as the cults. Now that force isn't an option, their main tactic is gaslighting. What Scripture says, they frame as a novelty invented during, or even after, the Reformation, whereas what their Church teaches, they claim the Church taught unanimously for the first 1500 years.
An excellent example can be seen in the header image. In it, you see a meme produced by a Roman Catholic, in which they list 5 things "Anti-Catholics" say on one side, and several things God's word allegedly says on the other. Attached to each Catholic claim is a list of verses the Catholic hopes you won't look up. But of course, an anti-Catholic, a Bible-believing Christian, and even a diligent truth seeker, will look up the verses, and in the rest of this article, I fully intend to do so, not only to refute the false claims of the meme, but also to illustrate how to read the Bible properly - not with the "authority" of any Church, person, or even online preacher, but based on the actual words. Words which, as the Catholic admits (and official Catholic doctrine teaches), come from none other than God Himself. In other words, they ought to be taken a lot more seriously than this wonky meme.
Can we call men "Father"?
In the header image, I already demonstrated the concept by actually quoting the relevant verse. In Matthew 23:9, Jesus does, in fact, say "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." This is a command, recorded by one of the Apostles Catholics claim to respect (not to mention, as we will see later, base their claims to authority on), directly from the mouth of Jesus. What that means is that we are, if Christ's words mean anything, not to call anyone on Earth our Father. Jesus even explains His motivations for the command: "One is your Father, He who is in heaven."
Of course, this is a somewhat confusing command. After all, there are other commands in Scripture to honor our mothers and fathers, and nothing could be more disonorable to a father than to strip him of his very title as the paternal figure. No doubt Jesus would have called Joseph His father, just as Mary did in Luke 2:48.
The result of this confusion is that the meme is able to effectively straw man the Christian position, specifying "Literally call no man "Father". Thus, if we can call anyone "Father" for any reason, the position is immediately refuted. However, because Matthew 23:9 exists, it is insufficient to say "this isn't what it means". One must also explain what it actually does mean.
Obviously, the Catholic is right to say it doesn't mean literally "Do not call anyone on earth your father". But merely saying this does not erase the fact that there is obviously some context in which the title "father" is erroneously transferred from God to man. So what happens when we expand our reading? When we look at it from before and after verse 9, we see that the greater context of Matthew 23 is a rebuke of the Pharisees, which is effectively the Jewish pre-cursor to the modern Catholic Church. Specifically, Jesus rebukes the titles the Pharisees gave themselves in an effort to puff themselves up - "Rabbi", "teacher", and... "Father".
While there are, of course, times the Bible allows us to use the title "Father" for other than The Holy Father, this obviously does not allow us to throw the term around so loosely as to call the Pope - a role nowhere seen in the Bible, or indeed anywhere in the first few centuries of the faith - "Holy Father", a unique title that emphasises his special role as a religious leader. How a Roman Catholic, or indeed anyone, can read Matthew 23:9 and not immediately see the Pope as a blasphemous usurper is beyond me.
What's even worse is the two verses this meme cites as examples to the contrary. I could almost understand if, as some Catholics do, the meme pointed to Paul's relationships with Timothy and Titus, but instead, it points to 1 Corinthians 4:15, and 1 John 2:13.
1 Corinthians 4:15 states "For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." The greatest irony here is that it only serves to refute the Catholic's position. While it's possible he may be trying to pick up on Paul's claim to have begotten the Corinthian Church in Christ Jesus, connecting this to the mere word "father", note how the verse actually says "you do not have many fathers".
Now, the Roman Catholic Church is, or at least rather recently was complaining about a global shortage in priests (1). Nevertheless, with over 400,000 priests and more than 5,000 bishops all claiming the same title "Father" (not to mention the one man claiming the title "Holy Father"), that's an awful lot of supposed fathers - far more than the 10,000 Paul mentions. And supposedly, these are our instructors in Christ, so much so that if I was to test them against Scripture, they would rebuke me for daring to "make myself Pope".
But maybe 1 John 2:13 will be a little stronger? In reality, no. In fact, when I read it, I couldn't help announcing aloud "well, that's just embarrassing". So, what does it say? "I write to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, Because you have overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father."
Of course, if you have let the devil read your Bible before you, this might be convincing. But speaking as both a man who read the Bible 3 times over before studying Catholicism in any depth, and as a man who has a deep, personal connection with the book of 1 John (owing to a time it shook me to repentance and restored me on my walk of faith while reading it), I have never once read this book and thought it must be referring to the modern Roman Catholic practice of referring to priests as "Father".
Here's why you shouldn't either. To begin with, let's consider that the next verse says almost the same thing. Verse 14 reads "I have written to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the wicked one." In spite of this, the meme only cites verse 13. Now, perhaps this isn't deliberate trickery on the part of the meme maker. After all, there are four instances (out of 19 cited Scriptures) where more than one verse is mentioned. But it seems odd to me that the one time expanding the reading might actually gain bonus points for the Catholic is the one time the Catholic doesn't encourage you to expand your reading.
This might be because John doesn't actually start with "fathers". In fact, verse 12 says "I write to you, little children, Because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake." But how often do we ascribe titles such as "little children", or "young men", to our religious leaders? Clearly, John isn't referring to anyone by any religious titles here. They are terms that apply more broadly, and ironically, this collection of verses shows that John's letter is not the exclusive property of the Magisterium. Anyone is allowed to read, and, in Christ, personally apply, this letter.
But as I pointed out, it is insufficient to merely show what this doesn't mean. Instead, I must show what it actually means. As it happens, there is another place in Scripture where the word "father" is used in curious fashion. In 1 Timothy 5:1, Paul tells Timothy "Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers,". This is made all the more interesting by the fact that Timothy is actually the pastor of his congregation, yet it is he who must apparently yield the role of "father" to older men.
I contend that the word is used in similar manners in both cases. It is a relational term, not a literal title. Just as Paul is not demanding Timothy refer to any older man as "Father", John is not anachronistically applying the title "Fathers" to priests, who, in his time, did not even claim such a title, as we will see later. Rather, both speak to the mixture of maturity that should exist in any congregation. The Christian faith, especially in its early days, added to its numbers on a regular basis. There are old men, and young men. There are mature believers, and novices in the faith. There are Jews, and there are Gentiles. And while we are all equal in the Lord, there must be some form of hierarchy of status. Age is not a factor in many things. As Job 32:9 tells us, "Great men are not always wise, Nor do the aged always understand justice." Nevertheless, age does command a certain level of respect. Thus, older men, in some way, may be seen as "fathers".
In all of this, we see that there really is no way to defend the Roman Catholic practice of referring to religious leaders as "Father", much less to the Pope as "Holy Father". When Jesus says "Do not call anyone on earth your father", that is not a creative suggestion, nor is it such a meaningless statement that it may as well be a drunken Tweet. If Matthew 23:9 means anything, it can be seen as a stern rebuke of Roman Catholicism.
Can anyone but Christ forgive sins?
Continuing the theme of the priesthood, the meme claims that anti-Catholics say only Jesus can forgive sins, whereas God's word allegedly says Jesus gave the Apostles and their successors (Catholic priests) the power to forgive sins. Furthermore, we should confess our sins.
Much like the meme as a whole, this is a case of the elephant hurling fallacy. The elephant hurling fallacy, in short, is the accumulation of large amounts of supporting claims in quick succession, usually to the extent of being unreasonable to respond to in the same discussion. In an article such as this one, I have the luxury of time, whereas in a Facebook debate, such as the one in which the original meme was found, no anti-Catholic would have the time, nor the patience, to respond.
The problem here is that aside from two misquoted verses, the point also makes three entirely separate claims: That Catholic priests are the successors of the Apostles, that Jesus gave them the power to forgive sins, and that we should confess our sins (with the implication being we should specifically confess our sins to them, but I'm getting ahead of myself).
It is worth noting that though three claims were made, only two verses were cited in their defence. This is because Apostolic Succession is very difficult to find in Scripture, even for the most dedicated of heretics. It is, however, found in history, but not in the way Roman Catholics desire. Instead, early defenders of the faith, such as Irenaeus, believed "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." (2). He also wasn't a huge fan of heretics who asserted, as Catholics do, that the Scriptures "...are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."
The Scriptures, which Irenaeus believed serve as the ground and pillar of our faith following the death of the Apostles who handed them down, contain no hints of the concept of Apostolic succession. They do, however, warn us quite sternly that false teachers would spring up from within the Church itself (Acts 20:30; 2 Peter 2:1). In Revelation 2, Christ Himself even praises the Church in Ephesus because "...you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars..." (v3).
Interestingly, one of the Biblical ways Roman Catholics attempt to salvage Apostolic succession is to point to Matthias, supposedly the successor of Judas. But this event shows us one particular way to test Apostles. Let's read the whole account in Acts 1, starting at verse 15:
"And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.” (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:
‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’ “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
The first thing to note here is that this has nothing to do with Apostolic succession. Rather, using the Scriptures, the Apostles note that God wants someone to replace Judas for his treachery. This is not succession, but rather, with Judas gone, someone else needed to take his office to bear witness with the Apostles of the resurrection. How did they select who would take Judas' office? From among those who accompanied them the whole time. Paul would later use a similar criteria to establish that he was no less an Apostle than the others: "Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 1:9).
So, if we were to test the alleged successors of the Apostles, as Christ praises the church in Ephesus for doing to other claimed Apostles, how might we do that? A simple question might be "hey, have you seen the risen Lord?" Well, 2,000 years later, this question becomes a little easier to answer. Even more so (for Christ, being risen, can still appear to men as He pleases), did you accompany the Apostles all the time from the baptism of John up to the Ascension? Matthias, and his competitor Barsabas Justus, could both make that claim. Not even Barsabas, however, could claim to be an Apostle, simply because he wasn't chosen. This is because Matthias occupied a genuinely Apostolic office. That's a "succession" rate of 1:1. But as previously stated, there are more than 400,000 priests today. That's not succession, that's multiplication!
So already the claim of Apostolic succession doesn't exist at all, much less are Catholic priests legitimate contenders for that role. They much better fit the role of "...from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves" (Acts 20:30) and "...there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies..." (2 Peter 2:1). But maybe there is some merit to the idea that someone other than Christ can forgive sins? After all, the meme does claim that John 20:22 supports the power of priests to forgive sins. What does this actually say?
"And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."
Now, let's be generous and assume that such a sloppy meme maker who is too lazy to read the Bible is also too lazy to properly cite it. It would be too easy to just ask what they were thinking here and move on. However, verse 23 goes on to say "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”"
This is definitely one of the more powerful proof texts in Roman Catholic apologetics, so much so that I can definitely see why someone with prior exposure to Roman Catholicism may be fooled by this verse. So, the first thing I'm going to do is remind you that Apostolic Succession has already been taken off the board. If this verse was truly transferring Jesus' unique authority to forgive sins to the Apostles, it would be for them only.
But as much as this is what appears, to the untrained eye, to be going on here, it really isn't. In fact, temporarily setting Scripture aside, we must consider the terrifying implications of such an extreme interpretation. If the Apostles can forgive or retain the sins of any, then they have equal, or even greater authority than God Himself. Can the Apostles forgive sins Christ desires to retain, or retain sins Christ desires to forgive?
Thankfully, these are not implications we have to worry about as Christians, because the verse itself does not refer to such fallible creatures as human beings having the ability to forgive or retain sins. Instead, it is a preaching office. Watch what happens when we expand our reading to verse 21: "So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”" (Emphasis added).
Suddenly, verse 23 comes back into line with the Gospel. Throughout Scripture, we are told time and time again, forgiveness of sins comes from faith in Christ. This is why Peter would later go on to proclaim "...God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:38-43).
We see, then, that the forgiving and retention of sins by the Apostles is not a role of manifestation, but of proclamation, of course guided by the Holy Spirit. This is why Paul was able to say that, for example, Clement's name is written in the Book of Life (Philippians 4:3), yet in spite of his desire to do so, was unable to retain his own sin for sake of Israel's salvation (Romans 9:3).
So ultimately, while John 20:23 is one of the most convincing of all Catholic prooftexts, it is ultimately a very dirty trick. Even here, Jesus is still the only one with the power to forgive sins, it's just that the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, are able to identify - in ways no Catholic priest ever can - who has genuinely been saved by the Gospel of faith. They had no power to retain sins Christ has forgiven, nor any power to forgive sins Christ has retained. The key is the Gospel they bore primary witness to.
But then what of James 5:16? Surely there's some merit to this? Let's read it and see. "Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much."
Now, technically, this verse does speak of confession to priests. See, according to various Scriptures, the priestly role is no longer a special one reserved for a particular class of leaders. Rather, as Christians, we are now a Kingdom of priests. Each and every believer, from the most innocent of babes to the aging pastor, is a priest. Thus, when James tells us to confess our trespasses to one another, he is telling us to confess to our fellow priests. The result of this, rather than having one authoritatively forgive the sins of another, is that we pray on each other's behalf. And God listens. Our prayers move God to act.
But there is a notable absence of anything remotely resembling the Catholic priesthood here. There is no special class of priests to whom we are told to confess, we are told to confess to one another. That guy in the pew right next to you? He counts. That girl hiding in the back corner worrying everyone's going to judge her? She counts. The self-righteous jerk who insists he, and he alone, may sit in the middle of the first row? Probably don't go to him, he's not the best example, but he counts. Now, in all fairness, the meme does say God's word says "we should confess our sins", so technically, that's correct. However, as the context of the meme is supporting the Catholic priesthood in contrast to the anti-Catholic (and, as we have seen, fully Biblical) statement "Only Jesus can forgive sins", the meme is correct in an erroneous way. That just happens to be one of Satan's most effective strategies; the best lies are the ones that are closest to the truth.
Is Mary Mediatrix?
The next anti-Catholic statement the meme seeks to address is "Mary is not Mediatrix", which it contrasts with "Mary is mediatrix". In an effort to prove this, it cites a grand total of zero verses which say Mary is Mediatrix. This is because, since Mary is absolutely not Mediatrix, there are no such verses in the Bible. However, 5 verses are cited which do not say Mary is Mediatrix.
Conveniently, in spite of the idolatrous way in which the Roman Catholic Church views Mary, she is mentioned so little in Scripture that everything the Bible says about her can be summarised in a 45 minute long article, as I have done in my 45 minute long article "A Roman Catholic's guide to Mary: How Satan is lying to you". In this article, I have addressed every single one of the verses cited in the meme, with one exception: Psalm 131:8. There is, however, a reason I did not address this verse. That reason? Psalm 131 is only 3 verses long... And it doesn't mention Mary at all.
The rest of the verses do indeed exist, but of course do not mention Mary as Mediatrix. Luke 1:28 reads "And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”" As you can see, there is nothing that even hints at the Roman Catholic view of Mary here. Verse 42 reads "Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" Once again, we see nothing uniquely Roman Catholic. For a full exegesis on these two verses, please see the Luke 1:26-56 segment of the aforementioned Mary article.
Next, the meme cites John 2:1-11, which deals with the wedding at Cana. This, once again, is dealt with in the Mary article, only I included verse 12. Verse 12 is relevant, as it shows that Jesus had brothers, which is impossible in Roman Catholic theology. But let's not go off topic - the meme does not explore the perpetual virginity myth, and so neither will we.
What it does seem to be presenting is the argument that, since Mary was able to persuade Jesus to act at the wedding, she must logically be our mediatrix, too. The problem is, as I pointed out in the Mary article, Mary isn't the only woman who could persuade Jesus to act differently. In Matthew 15:21-28, and again in Mark 7:24-30, we read of a Gentile woman, whose daughter was afflicted by a demon. Initially, Jesus appeared to refuse to help her, but she showed Him faith, and thus her request was granted. If the same logic does not allow us to call this unnamed Syro-Phonecian woman our Mediatrix, then neither does it allow us to say it about Mary.
The last actually existing Scripture the meme mentions is Revelation 12, which not only fails to call Mary our Mediatrix, but indeed fails to mention her at all. As I showed in the Mary article, Revelation 12 actually portrays Israel using the same figurative language that is not only present throughout Revelation, but also harkens back to Joseph's dreams all the way back in the book of Genesis. Roman Catholics consistently fail to fulfil their burden to prove a Marian interpretation of Revelation 12.
While not a single one of the four verses (or the 5th imaginary one) supports the claim that Mary is Mediatrix, 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us unequivocally "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,". Of course, falling short of explicitly saying "Mary is not Mediatrix", it is a necessary extrapolation, if there is one Mediator, and that Mediator is Christ, that Mary cannot, in fact, fulfil a second mediatory role.
Can we pray to saints?
The next anti-Catholic statement the meme addresses is "Praying to Mary and the Saints is wrong". This is contrasted with "Saints in Heaven are praying for us", which is supposedly backed up with Revelation 5:8, and "Pray for one another".
The latter statement is backed up by 4 verses, but amazingly, we do not have to put these back into context. Why? Simply because there is nothing uniquely Catholic about praying for one another. That makes this another straw man of the opposing positions. But what about Revelation 5:8? Does this really show that the saints in Heaven are praying for us? The verse reads "Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."
This is a major problem Roman Catholics have. They find something in Scripture that just vaguely resembles something they believe, like "prayers of the saints", and no matter what the context is, they run with it. This is made even harder by the simple fact that Scripture is made up of both plain and figurative language. In this case, the passage is from the book of Revelation, which is filled to the brim with symbolic language. This makes it easier for Catholics to read their views into the Bible.
In this case, they do so anachronistically, as what Roman Catholics won't tell you is that a "saint" does not require beatification or canonization. This is a concept that developed after the first century. In Scripture, it applies far more broadly to the whole body of Christ. If you are in Christ, you are a saint. Now, that does mean there are saints in Heaven, which of course includes Mary, the Apostles, and at least a few people considered saints by the Roman Catholic Church, but it also includes many un-named Christians who have died throughout the centuries (including many whom the Catholic Church murdered for "heresy"), and even all the Christians who are alive today.
Nothing in either Revelation 5:8, or the context thereof, tells us that the prayers in Revelation 5:8 come exclusively from dead saints, nor does it even explain the context of the prayers included. Instead, it merely portrays "the prayers of the saints", with no further clarification, as incense. This is not the only time Scripture does this. Psalm 141:2 says "Let my prayer be set before You as incense, The lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice." Other Scriptures figuratively describe things that please God as having a pleasant smell to Him. With all this in mind, we can safely assume every prayer that has ever pleased God is, or at the very least could be, in this bowl.
But even if we assume the prayers of the saints refer exclusively to the communications of dead saints with God, this is nowhere near sufficient to establish a justification for us praying to the saints. In fact, throughout the entire Bible, while there are many examples of two or more living people praying for each other, we see no positive examples of anyone praying to the dead, no commands to speak to the dead (but plenty of examples of this being condemned as an abomination for which God pours out His wrath), only one example of anyone praying to the dead (and that didn't turn out so well for Saul), and no evidence that the dead can even hear one person on Earth, much less that they now have the supernatural ability to hear and respond to hundreds upon thousands of Catholics who pray to them on a regular basis. In Scripture, prayer is an act of worship, which is directed towards God alone. Clearly, God does not support Catholic necromancy.
Can we venerate idols?
The final statements the meme contrasts are "All graven images are idols" vs. "God commanded His people to make graven images and venerate them", which it attempts to back up with 5 Scriptures.
Before we put these Scriptures back into context, let's first look at the 10 commandments, as they are found in Exodus 20:1-17:
"And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. “You shall have no other gods before Me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. “You shall not murder. “You shall not commit adultery. “You shall not steal. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”"
According to the Roman Catholic Church, observance of these 10 commandments is obligatory for the justified, and we receive salvation through faith, baptism, and the observance of these commandments (3). Yet, note how clear Moses (or rather, God Himself, as He wrote these commands with His own finger) made His position on graven images. Let's read it again: "“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." (v4-6).
In the decalogue, many commandments are fairly simple. "You shall not murder". Simple. "You shall not commit adultery". Simple. "You shall not steal." Simple. But in this case, God is specific, almost to the excess, not only specifying what He doesn't want us to do, but also why He doesn't want us to do it. God is a jealous God. He doesn't share His glory with anyone else, nor His praise with carved images (Isaiah 42:8).
It shouldn't surprise us, then, that since the Roman Catholic Church vehemently defends the practice of making such images, and Catholics can be frequently caught bowing to them, that they even break tradition by removing this from their citation of the decalogue.
A standard Jewish/Christian listing of the 10 commandments would be as follows:
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.
The Catholic Church, however, lists them as follows:
"1. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods." (4).
Notice the subtle, yet significant difference. This difference is so major that many Roman Catholics apostatise shortly after reading the Bible, simply because the 2nd commandment is so clear on its position regarding graven images. Now, to be as generous as possible to the Catholic Church, the traditional numbering systems of the decalogue are just that: Traditional. The Bible tells us what the commandments are, but it doesn't specifically say we must number them in a specific way. Furthermore, the Catechism does actually present the Biblical passage unedited and in full.
The sneaky thing about the Catholic summary, however, is that whereas the Biblical passage tells us "“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them", the Catholic summary condenses this into "...you shall not have strange Gods before me", removing all references to the creation of idols. And of course, it goes without saying that if we aren't even allowed to make idols, serving them is out of the question.
So then what are we to make of the claim that God actually commanded His people to make and venerate graven images? The passages the meme cites are Exodus 25:10-22, Numbers 21:9, Joshua 7:6, 2 Samuel 6:7, and Ezekiel 41.
Given both the views that I am defending, and the Scriptures I have just showed that make them beyond dispute, you will not be surprised to hear me say that not one of these Scriptures, in any way, support the creation or veneration of graven images.
First, the meme cites Exodus 25:10-22. The more observant among you will have already noticed the close proximity of this passage to the original pronouncement of the Decalogue. This already presents a problem for the Roman Catholic position. God obviously isn't going to say "don't make, or bow to, any graven images", then follow it up with "ok, here's what I want you to do: Make, and bow to, a graven image".
In this case, the image in question is the cherubim which decorated the Ark of the Covenant. There are an extra few layers to this particular passage, as Roman Catholicism has this whole thing wherein Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, but we won't address that in this article. For now, let's focus on the alleged veneration of a graven image here.
The assertion that the ark of the covenant was a venerated image displays extreme ignorance of the purpose of the Tabernacle as a whole. Ignorance which can be quite swiftly cleared up not only by reading the Old Testament in context, but also now with the added context of the New Testament. Here's what we read in Hebrews 9:1-5: "Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail."
From this, we see that the purpose of the cherubim is not veneration. As we read even further into the chapter, we see that "It was symbolic for the present time..." (v9). But symbolic of what, exactly? Not Mary, unsurprisingly. Rather, "...Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation." (v11).
But wait! Didn't Joshua and the elders venerate the ark in Joshua 7:6? This might be convincing, if all we knew about the Ark was that it was decorated with cherubim, and Joshua and the elders bowed before it. However, the Ark is explained in great detail. Specifically, it is noted that God Himself spoke from there! (Exodus 25:22; 30:6; Leviticus 16:2). In other words, God was manifestly present there.
What's worse is that even if we read verse 6 alone, we have contextual clues that show this event had nothing to do with veneration. "Then Joshua tore his clothes, and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of the Lord until evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust on their heads." (Emphasis added). Now, I could be wrong, but I don't think Roman Catholics generally tear their clothes, or put dust on their heads, as a standard way to venerate their ido... images. No, something else is going on here, and if we read past verse 6, we see it:
"And Joshua said, “Alas, Lord God, why have You brought this people over the Jordan at all—to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? Oh, that we had been content, and dwelt on the other side of the Jordan! O Lord, what shall I say when Israel turns its back before its enemies? For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear it, and surround us, and cut off our name from the earth. Then what will You do for Your great name?” So the Lord said to Joshua: “Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face? Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them. For they have even taken some of the accursed things, and have both stolen and deceived; and they have also put it among their own stuff. Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they have become doomed to destruction. Neither will I be with you anymore, unless you destroy the accursed from among you. Get up, sanctify the people, and say, ‘Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, because thus says the Lord God of Israel: “There is an accursed thing in your midst, O Israel; you cannot stand before your enemies until you take away the accursed thing from among you.”" (v7-13).
With this added context, we see that Joshua and the elders are not venerating the Ark, they are in mourning following a defeat, and are seeking God for help. God then replies, presumably out of the mercy seat of the same Ark (Exodus 25:22; 30:6; Leviticus 16:2), explaining His grievance.
So, evidently, we don't see support for veneration here. In fact, if we were to argue that Joshua 7:6 describes veneration of the Ark of the Covenant, we are compelled to also say verse 10 prescribes the cessation thereof, because God says "Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face?". Thus, ironically, the only consistent interpretation here is that "veneration" is wrong. Can you imagine the Catholic response if, while bowing to a Mary statue, God showed up and told them "Get up! Why do you bow to that icon?" Maybe then they would see the problem!
All of the above, ultimately, tells us that the Ark of the Covenant was of typological significance, much like many other things we see throughout the Old Testament. This includes the bronze serpent, which, conveniently, is another Biblical image the meme cites when it mentions Numbers 21:9. This is extremely interesting, because Biblically speaking, the bronze serpent was venerated. But not as its original purpose.
Originally, the bronze serpent was of typological significance. The people rebelled against God, God sent serpents to afflict them, they repented, God commanded the construction of the bronze serpent, and anyone who looked at the bronze serpent was healed. Thus, Christ says "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:14-15).
But there is a world of difference between "veneration" (which, in practice, is simply worship with a fancier title) and typology. Typology, as illustrated by Christ in John 3:14-15, is when a person, thing, or event, dramatically foreshadows God's future work. Notice, all one had to do was look at the bronze serpent to be healed of the venom. The Jews did not bow down to this image.
But they eventually did. They even had a name for it: "Nehushtan". But here's what we read in 2 Kings 18:4-7: "He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan. He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him. For he held fast to the Lord; he did not depart from following Him, but kept His commandments, which the Lord had commanded Moses. The Lord was with him; he prospered wherever he went. And he rebelled against the king of Assyria and did not serve him."
So, rather than venerating this graven image, Hezekiah, who held fast to the Lord, did not depart from following Him, and kept His commandments, broke the bronze serpent that the people were venerating. Isn't that strange? On the one hand, we have Roman Catholics telling us God commanded the Jews to venerate this bronze serpent. On the other hand, we have the Bible telling us that Israel's Godliest king (with the obvious exception of Jesus) destroyed the image precisely because people were venerating it!
What about 2 Samuel 6:7? This is another example of curious citation on the part of the meme. See, Roman Catholics do like to defend their idolatry based on verses 1-5, because it speaks about a celebration involving the transportation of the Ark of the Covenant, but verse 7 says "Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the ark of God." But let's answer the argument as if it was made by a more competent Roman Catholic apologist. After all, I can't pretend I've never accidentally cited the wrong verse.
In 2 Samuel 6:1-5, we read "Again David gathered all the choice men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, whose name is called by the Name, the Lord of Hosts, who dwells between the cherubim. So they set the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill; and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drove the new cart. And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill, accompanying the ark of God; and Ahio went before the ark. Then David and all the house of Israel played music before the Lord on all kinds of instruments of fir wood, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on sistrums, and on cymbals."
Now, as we've already established the ark was never to be venerated, and refuted what is perhaps the most convincing Catholic argument to the contrary, it seems like low hanging fruit to simply say this is not an example of veneration. Nevertheless, I shall resist the temptation to be lazy, and explain what's actually going on here.
First, note that, following its return from the Philistines, the Ark had been left in Kiriath Jearim for quite some time. But this isn't where it was intended to stay. David wanted it moved to Jerusalem, where it would eventually be permanently (at least, that was the intention) placed in the temple, in the Holy of Holies, where it would only ever be accessible, once a year, to the High Priest. Absolutely no veneration is occurring here.
Finally, we reach the last Scripture the meme twists: Ezekiel 41. This is an interesting choice, as no matter which interpretation you take, it doesn't help the Roman Catholic in any way. Ultimately, Ezekiel 41 is part of a larger vision of some future temple, which we read about in chapters 40-42. There are debates over exactly how literal this temple is. Taking the figurative interpretation, there are, of course, no images to venerate, but taking the literal interpretation, the temple in question does not yet exist, meaning... no images to venerate. Even when this temple finally comes into existence, there is a difference between the mere existence of an image, and the veneration thereof. Thus, Ezekiel 41 fails as a defence of veneration.
But there's something a Roman Catholic might think I have overlooked up until now. Regardless of the veneration aspect, these images still exist, do they not? God commanded the Jews to make the Ark, with its cherubim. And God commanded them to make the bronze serpent. So, clearly, God isn't against all images! So can I at least let the Catholics score this one point?
Using this logic, it is actually possible to all but completely nullify the 10 commandments. Most notably, the 6th commandment forbids murder, yet there are a great many times throughout Scripture where God explicitly commands the destruction of whole people groups. Can we suggest that since God commanded many killings, therefore we, as Christians, are supposed to kill a bunch of people?
The obvious answer to this is no. When God commands a specific instance of something that seems to go against His general commands, we must first assume it doesn't actually go against the general command (which is certainly the case here), but also that, even if it did, it would be an exception, not the rule.
Furthermore, if we assume, for a moment, each of the images cited in the meme genuinely were intended to be "venerated", we have another problem to contend with. If God commanded these as exceptions, God commanded them as exceptions. As is shown by the example of Nadab and Abihu, we do not get to decide how we worship God (Leviticus 10:1-2). Thus, if you wish to argue that there are examples of God prescribing the veneration of images, you must find examples of God prescribing the veneration of your images. Where did God prescribe the veneration of Marian statues?
Conclusion
Over the past half an hour, we have dissected a meme that purports to show a difference between what Anti-Catholics say, and what the word of God says. While it seems obvious the meme was made by an amateur who even cites Bible verses that don't exist, it does provide some of the stronger arguments in favor of Roman Catholicism - and some of the weaker ones. Overall, when one studies what the word of God actually says, the entire meme, and the faith it aims to defend, just seems embarrassingly sloppy.
This is because ultimately, it doesn't matter how good the apologist in question is. After all, the devil himself is a fantastic deceiver, destroying whole nations with his lies and treachery. But there are three little words he fears: "It is written". When the devil twists the Scriptures, as he tried to do with Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11, we must respond as Jesus did, putting it right back into context. When we do this, Roman Catholicism doesn't stand a chance, as it is a counterfeit faith designed to imitate Christianity, but ultimately, draw many people away from Christ, who alone is our mediator between man and God.
References
1. Sr. Nina Benedictka Krapic - Global Catholic population rising as number of priests, religious falls, Vatican News (link)
2. Irenaeus - Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 1 (link)
3. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2068 (link)
4. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2052 (link)