The Order of Biblical Books. Christian Art and Graven Images
by the Rev. Walter Snyder

Q: Why are the books of the Bible not in chronological order and why are the Apocryphal
books not included?

A: Some of them are in order (the historical books follow in order until Chronicles overlaps with
Kings, albeit from a different perspective). Job then probably dates back to the time of the Patriarchs.
However, it is grouped with the poetic or "wisdom" books (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song
of Songs). The prophets are then mixed in order after Isaiah--Daniel. The three groupings are from
the Hebrew Bible, although Israel normally had the Torah (the five books of Moses) and the prophets
before the other books. Also, there is some difference as to what category some books belong. The
ordering of the prophets is due somewhat to size and theological importance: The first four are of
greater scope and have more meat than do the Twelve. The order of these Minor Prophets may be
partly due to size and partly to time of acceptance by Israel as true Scriptures.

In the New Testament, the Gospels and Acts are in proper order, as is Revelation. The Pauline
epistles are grouped by author, size, and to some degree theological weight and catholicity
(application to all of Christendom). The others are partly arranged by author and partly by general
acceptance by the early Church.

The Apocrypha are books that have never been widely accepted as genuine, inspired Scriptures,
although different ones have had varying degrees of acceptance. This is somewhat true even of books
that are included among the 66 that are in all Christian Bibles. As one example, Esther is not
regarded on the same level as other historical books for several reasons, including its not mentioning
God with any names or titles.

Some deride Luther for not fully accepting James in the canon of the New Testament, but James was
from early years among the ~antilegomena~, books "spoken against" by some in the Church. The
problem is that while Christians may agree that the Holy Ghost inspired the authors, he did not
inspire the compilers. Thus, the testimony of the books, their agreement with the rest of Scripture,
and their bearing witness either to the coming of the Messiah or the message of Christ was part of the
decision-making process.

Q. I am an artist (oils on canvas). I am very hesitant about painting Christian accounts from the
Bible which would include angels, etc. If I did, would I be breaking the commandment
regarding making graven images? As a human, I can rationalize that: a. God gave me this gift;
b. illiterate people in the dark ages learned bible accounts via paintings and sculpture; c.
illiterate people in 2001 can learn Bible accounts via paintings; d. paintings inspire me,
therefore they can inspire others; and on and on. What do you think?

The command from God regarding graven images is very specific. It was also specifically given to
Israel. Throughout the history of Christianity, the case of Christian art has been argued. In general,
the majority of the western Church has agreed that the command does not apply now that the true
Image of God, Jesus Christ, has taken a concrete, human form.

In the Eastern Church, statuary was often forbidden, but icons, paintings, mosaics, and the like were
usually allowed. The dispute boiled over in the Iconoclastic (icon-destroying) Controversy. To this
day, two-dimensional representations are the norm.

Under the freedom of the Gospel, the question becomes not so much, "Is it allowed?" and more, "Is
it the best thing to do?" If you produce good art that makes people more aware of God in his
holiness, perfection, and splendor, showing also his love for fallen man in the person of Jesus Christ, I
think that you are doing a good thing. If you are making a mockery of Scripture, deriding Christ or
destroying the historical record of the Bible, then it would not be good.

As a sort of personal (but still Biblical) aside, what sort of angels would you paint? With apologies to
Christian author C. S. Lewis, would they look like beings who would frighten and awe me to the core
of my being? Would they need to tell me, "Stop being afraid!"? Or would they be like so many
illustrations from religious art, effeminate or even feminine creatures who couldn't frighten and who
could barely startle someone---beings more likely to say, "There, there, it's okay"?

Ask the Pastor is copyright (c) 2001 by Walter P. Snyder. It may be reproduced in totality, including
this disclaimer, by anyone, provided that no profit is generated by said republication and
redistribution. Translations into other languages should similarly note the United States and any
appropriate international copyrights, as well as God's Scriptural injunctions concerning the property
of others.