|
To some extent, it could be said that the oxen were functional since they held up the “sea.” But what function would the following have? “And it [the molten sea] was a hand-breadth thick; and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily” (4:5). The sea was not to be plain, but to be carved with lilies simply to be beautiful. In 1 Kings 7:29, we have an additional detail. It comes in the description of the panels on the ten bases of brass in the temple: “And on the panels that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubim.” God is saying, “I’ll even have lions in my house, carved lions, oxen and cherubim.” Not for a pragmatic function, just for beauty. We could continue to multiply the references to art in relationship to the temple. For example, 1 Kings 6:29 reads, “And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, within and without.” This sounds much like what we have looked at above, but it brings into focus something additional. Here cherubim, palm trees and flowers are put together. In other words, we have representational art of both the seen and the unseen world. I don’t believe cherubim is a figure of speech. Cherubim have form and are real. In fact, I am looking forward to seeing them some day. Yet, we may well ask, “How can you make a representation of something in the unseen world?” The answer is simple: it’s easy if God tells you what they look like. The making of cherubim has something to do with propositional revelation. Ezekiel, for example, saw cherubim twice (Ezek. 1:4-25; 3:12, 13). There is nothing at all problematic in picturing cherubim if God shows you or tells you what they look like. We saw how with the tabernacle the artist was required to solve certain technical problems. The same is true for the art in the temple: “In the plain of Jordan did the king cast them [the various art works that were to be in the temple], in the clay ground between Succoth and Zeredah” (2 Chron. 4:17). just as Michelangelo chipped with his hands the marble from the great Italian quarries, so the Hebrew artist cast the bronze in a particular geographical place, a place where the clay was just right to make a good form from his model. These Hebrew artists were not different from men today; both live in the same world and have to deal with all the technical realities of the various forms of art. Secular Art In 1 Kings 10 we learn something about the secular art of Solomon’s day, for here Solomon’s throne is described. “Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the finest gold. There were six steps to the throne, and the top of the throne was round behind; and there were stays on either side by the place of the seat, and two lions standing beside the stays. And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other upon the six steps; there was not the like made in any kingdom” (1 Kings 10:18-20). Every time I read this description I am intrigued. I would like to have seen this magnificent work of art — “ivory ... overlaid with the finest gold” and guarded by two lions by the side of the throne and twelve lions on the stairway to the throne. Some scholars who have wondered why the two lions and the twelve lions are mentioned separately have suggested that the two lions at the top were alive and the other twelve were cast. We cannot be sure whether that is the case or not, but if it is, just imagine it for a moment: Imagine yourself as Solomon, sitting up there with the two lions roaring away on either side of you, chained securely, no doubt, but what a throne! What a piece of secular art! Jesus’ Use of Art The striking thing is that Jesus used this incident and this work of art as an illustration of his coming crucifixion: “And, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:14, 15). What was Jesus using as his illustration? A work of art. But then perhaps someone will say, “Yes, but they smashed it. Hezekiah broke it up in 2 Kings 18:4.” That’s true. In fact, God was even pleased with its destruction. But why did Hezekiah smash the brazen serpent? “And he [Hezekiah] brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it.” Did he smash it because it was a work of art? Of course not, because God had commanded Moses to make it. He smashed the work of art because men had made it an idol. What is wrong with representational art is not its existence, but its wrong uses. Poetry Later in 2 Samuel we are told that David wrote his psalms under the leadership and inspiration of the Holy Spirit: Acts 2:25-31 confirms the fact that David was a prophet. So we might paraphrase David as follows: “Yes, I was a prophet. I was a forth-teller of God. And how did I write? Well, I wrote my poetry under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.” We must not think that David was a prophet only when he wrote prose, for his poetry is just as inspired. How then can we say, or have even the slightest inclination to feel, that God despises poetry? Interestingly enough, we have in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament Scriptures that dates back to the second or third century B.C., a record of a psalm that is not in our Bible. There is a question, of course, whether it is a real psalm of David, but it sounds like David. We do not need to think that everything David wrote was “inspired by God” the way what is in the Bible is inspired. So even if this is a genuine psalm of David, it is probably not inspired in that sense. Certainly not all art is God speaking as a muse through the artist. Rather, it is the “mannishness” of man that creates. The artist as a man does not disappear, leaving the muse alone to speak. We can consider the following psalm from the Septuagint, therefore, to be David writing a piece of poetry as a piece of poetry. I was small among my brethren |
|
Message Thread
 « Back to index |