Is wearing jewellery with the cross or crucifix a form of idolatry?

Imo, nothing wrong with wearing a crucifix necklace.. You don't worship a piece of jewelry, so its not idolatry. The significance of the cross is in what it represents, and Christ was no idol. So your not worshiping a false idol, but paying homage to the real deal.

I would feel uncomfortable wearing a crucifix (a cross with a figure of Christ on it); I believe this is against the spirit of the second commandment against making images of God (however well-intentioned). But I have no problem with an empty cross - the same symbol, but without the image.

Alison_P said:

I havn't read the whole Bible throughly yet but I know that it states throughout The Bible including verse Leviticus 26:1 which says "You 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". Leviticus 26:1

I believe that making graven images of things in Heaven & on Earth is also one of the 10 commandments. I think it was the second commandment.

Is wearing jewellery with the cross or crucifix, may it be a necklace, earrings or bracelet etc a form of idolatry? Is doing this going against scripture? I wear a necklace with the cross on it but I am beginning to believe that wearing a cross or owning a statue etc of the cross, crucifix or even of Jesus alone is committing idolatry. I used to believe that wearing a cross or crucifix around my neck or another form of jewellery was a representation of Jesus dying for our sins but now I am starting to believe that it is the wrong thing to do and I am thinking about removing the cross from my necklace.

If you believe what I am saying is correct, please explain why and if you believe otherwise , why do you believe that wearing the cross or crucifix is not committing idolatry?

Click to expand...

Deut. 5:8 – God’s commandment “thou shall not make a graven image” is entirely connected to the worship of false gods. God does not prohibit images to be used in worship, but He prohibits the images themselves to be worshiped.

Exodus 25:18-22; 26:1,31 – for example, God commands the making of the image of a golden cherubim. This heavenly image, of course, is not worshiped by the Israelites. Instead, the image disposes their minds to the supernatural and draws them to God.

Num. 21:8-9 – God also commands the making of the bronze serpent. The image of the bronze serpent is not an idol to be worshiped, but an article that lifts the mind to the supernatural.

I Kings 6:23-36; 7:27-39; 8:6-67 – Solomon’s temple contains statues of cherubim and images of cherubim, oxen and lions. God did not condemn these images that were used in worship.

2 Kings 18:4 – it was only when the people began to worship the statue did they incur God’s wrath, and the king destroyed it. The command prohibiting the use of graven images deals exclusively with the false worship of those images.

1 Cor. 1:23- Paul preaches a Christ crucified, not just risen. Catholic spirituality focuses on the sacrifice of Christ which is the only means to the resurrection. This is why Catholic churches have crucifixes with the corpus of Jesus affixed to them. Many Protestant churches no longer display the corpus of Jesus (only an empty cross). Thus, they only preach a Christ risen, not crucified.

1 Cor. 2:2 – Paul preaches Jesus Christ and Him crucified. While the cross was the scandal of scandals, and is viewed by the non-Christian eye as defeat, Catholic spirituality has always exalted the paradox of the cross as the true tree of life and our means to salvation.

Having a crucifix is not idolatry. It is a reminder of our faith and what Jesus did for us. The first iconoclasts (image breakers) were Muslims in the 7th century.

kepha31 said:

1 Cor. 1:23- Paul preaches a Christ crucified, not just risen. Catholic spirituality focuses on the sacrifice of Christ which is the only means to the resurrection. This is why Catholic churches have crucifixes with the corpus of Jesus affixed to them. Many Protestant churches no longer display the corpus of Jesus (only an empty cross). Thus, they only preach a Christ risen, not crucified.

Click to expand...

Actually, this logic is faulty. Paul preached Christ crucified and risen without the help of any cross or crucifix (these did not become Christian symbols until much later). Catholic spirituality may well focus on the sacrifice of Christ (represented by the crucifix) but you can only conclude from that, that Protestant spirituality focuses on the resurrection. If you think that displaying an empty cross means that we don't preach Christ crucified (blatantly untrue), then presumably you don't preach Christ risen - which I'm also sure is not true!

Deborah_ said:

Actually, this logic is faulty. Paul preached Christ crucified and risen without the help of any cross or crucifix (these did not become Christian symbols until much later). Catholic spirituality may well focus on the sacrifice of Christ (represented by the crucifix) but you can only conclude from that, that Protestant spirituality focuses on the resurrection. If you think that displaying an empty cross means that we don't preach Christ crucified (blatantly untrue), then presumably you don't preach Christ risen - which I'm also sure is not true!

Click to expand...

There is no resurrection without the crucifixion. There is nothing wrong with wearing a cross or crucifix. It reminds us of what Jesus did for us. It's called Christianity, summarized.

Willie T said:

Simple answer: "Yes". It amounts to a priest having to wear a backwards collar..... With both, there might not be any other evidence they are Christian.

Click to expand...

Does that apply to the hundreds of Protestant denominations whose ministers also wear backwards collars? Or are you addicted to making cheap shots only at Catholic priests?

Willie T said:

That goes for anyone who thinks wearing something special, or doing something "religious", means a hoot to God....... including bouffant, teased hair (Protestant TV Evangelists) and Fish Hats and robes. They are all hoping for the same results, IMHO.

Click to expand...

Mitres came out in the 10th-11th century, the dagon religion vanished ages ago. In any culture religious head gear has always been weird. Priests don't wear "robes", the chasuble they wear developed from what the priests wore in ancient Israel. If your minister (if you have one) wants to wear a $600 suit, that's his business. There are many things about Judaism you deny that makes you anti-Semitic.

Willie T said:

Just curious...... Who here would display a picture of their loved one's mangled, bloody body in a car wreck to honor someone who died there?

Click to expand...

You equate a perversion with a crucifix? Paul preached Christ crucified. He must have been a Catholic.

Alison_P said:

I havn't read the whole Bible throughly yet but I know that it states throughout The Bible including verse Leviticus 26:1 which says "You 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". Leviticus 26:1

I believe that making graven images of things in Heaven & on Earth is also one of the 10 commandments. I think it was the second commandment.

Is wearing jewellery with the cross or crucifix, may it be a necklace, earrings or bracelet etc a form of idolatry? Is doing this going against scripture? I wear a necklace with the cross on it but I am beginning to believe that wearing a cross or owning a statue etc of the cross, crucifix or even of Jesus alone is committing idolatry. I used to believe that wearing a cross or crucifix around my neck or another form of jewellery was a representation of Jesus dying for our sins but now I am starting to believe that it is the wrong thing to do and I am thinking about removing the cross from my necklace.

If you believe what I am saying is correct, please explain why and if you believe otherwise , why do you believe that wearing the cross or crucifix is not committing idolatry?

Click to expand...

Alison, when the Romans made crosses for their victims they didn’t employ carpenters to square off the timbers or give them a polished finish. They were rounded timbers straight from the felled tree with the branches lopped off in a rudimentry fashion to add to the discomfort of the victim. You can be assured there was nothing gold plated.

I shy away from any outward display representing our faith and favour a meek gentle and upright spirit. To me this is a more telling witness than any dangles or bangles

Lev. 26:1 is not a total ban on all physical objects of a Christian nature. It deals exclusively with the worship of false gods. Alison does not worship her cross/crucifix, so it's not idolatry. Anyone who wears a cross/crucifix is done as a reminder, not an object of worship. If anyone is offended by anyone wearing such things, it's because they read into scripture what isn't there, or its how they were raised.

I don't think there is anything wrong with wearing something that shows you are a follower of Christ. The only thing i would advise is, if you are openly displaying you are a follower of Christ your life should reflect this. The cross is widely known as a symbol of Christianity. If someone is wearing one but is not openly living an obedient life to Christ that certainly does not help the world's View of a Christian.

Dan57 said:

Imo, nothing wrong with wearing a crucifix necklace.. You don't worship a piece of jewelry, so its not idolatry. The significance of the cross is in what it represents, and Christ was no idol. So your not worshiping a false idol, but paying homage to the real deal.

Click to expand...

While I agree we don't worship a piece of jewelry, statue, picture or whatever. I ask myself why do people wear a cross or have a picture of some artist conception of what Jesus looked like. Why do people believe some statue or picture or place is more Holy than another? We should live each day of our lives as Holy and the only 24 hour day we should think as Holy is the day Jesus died, his memorial, so while I don't think it wrong to wear jewelry I think wearing a cross or having a picture of some artist conception of what Jesus looked like or having a statue that others think to be holy and must have in our worship of the True God we ourselves as Christians should stay away from. When it comes to True worship of the True God we the Christian people who are the Church, not A building, should be able to meet in the boondocks without a building without pictures or statues or crosses and worship God. I'm not speaking out against having buildings to meet in.

Alison_P said:

...but I am beginning to believe that wearing a cross or owning a statue etc of the cross, crucifix or even of Jesus alone is committing idolatry.

Click to expand...

It would appear that the Holy Spirit has convicted you of this form of idolatry. The cross, or crucifix is generally used as a talisman or charm, and if you have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and Christ within, you do not need such things.

Enoch111 said:

It would appear that the Holy Spirit has convicted you of this form of idolatry. The cross, or crucifix is generally used as a talisman or charm, and if you have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and Christ within, you do not need such things.

Click to expand...

Says who? Alexander Hyslop? Nobody "needs" such things. You completely miss the point. It has been demonstrated *repeatedly* that having such things is NOT idolatry. There is nothing Biblical about radical iconoclasm.

kepha31 said:

Says who? Alexander Hyslop?

Click to expand...

Speaking of Hislop, he clearly showed how the pagans were using the TAU in a manner similar to people using the crucifix today.

That which is now called the Christian cross was originally no Christian emblem at all, but was the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians--the true original form of the letter T--the initial of the name of Tammuz--which, in Hebrew, radically the same as ancient Chaldee, was found on coins, was formed as in No. 1 of the accompanying woodcut (Fig. 43); and in Etrurian and Coptic, as in Nos. 2 and 3. That mystic Tau was marked in baptism on the foreheads of those initiated in the Mysteries, and was used in every variety of way as a most sacred symbol.

Click to expand...

Enoch111 said:

Speaking of Hislop, he clearly showed how the pagans were using the TAU in a manner similar to people using the crucifix today.

Click to expand...

You are making a big mistake.

The book ('The Two Babylons') was certainly fascinating but I recall being disturbed that almost none of Hislop's claims could really be substantiated by any reputable source, although it was certainly 'meat and drink' to the gullible. I did not entirely reject Hislop's thesis but put in on the back burner for a few years with the feeling that Hislop's points were not backed up with conclusive evidence (something which Hislop himself was apparently blind to). Basically, I came to the conclusion that outrageous accusation is not the same thing as carefully compiled and decisive evidence.

The book has been severely criticized for its lack of evidence, and in many cases its contradiction of the existing evidence: for instance, the Roman state religion before Christianity did not worship a central Mother Goddess, and Jupiter was never called "Jupiter-Puer." Likewise, Semiramis lived centuries after Nimrod, and could neither have been his mother, nor married him. Hislop also makes unacceptable linguistic connections and fanciful word plays, e.g. the letters IHS on Catholic Holy Communion wafers are alleged to stand for Egyptian deities Isis, Horus and Seth, but in reality they are an abbreviation for Ihsous, the Latin spelling of Jesus's name in Greek (Ιησους), although popularly, they stand for the Latin Iesus Hominum Salvator meaning Jesus, Savior of Mankind (which also fits the teaching of Transubstantiation, where the wafer and wine are said to become the body and blood of Christ).”
(Source: Wikipedia article, Alexander Hislop. Alexander Hislop - Wikipedia)

Hislop's Babylonian Mystery Religion Teaching Exposed < not a Catholic source.

Bottom line, Hyslop is a liar by Protestant apologist standards.

Introductory Critique of Hislop's 'The Two Babylons'
(This comes from a Roman Catholic source yet its criticisms of Hislop are justified).
UK Apologetics < Protestant

Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics, by Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics, and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.

The nineteenth century witnessed a flowering of this "pagan influence fallacy." Publications such as The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (the classic English text charging the Catholic Church with paganism) paved the way for generations of antagonism towards the Church. During this time, entire new sects were created (Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses)—all considering traditional Catholicism and Protestantism as polluted by paganism. This era also saw atheistic "freethinkers" such as Robert Ingersoll writing books attacking Christianity and Judaism as pagan...

...Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism "pagan" fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. To make a charge of paganism stick, one must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. One must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item.
...In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove these things regarding a doctrine of the Catholic faith, or even its officially authorized practices. The charge of paganism just doesn’t work.

read more here > Is Catholicism Pagan? | Catholic Answers