Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Are images (pictures) of Christ a break of the 2nd commandment?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I. The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and does good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.
-- Wesminster Confession of Faith, Chap. XXI.I
Question 107: Which is the second commandment?
Answer: The second commandment is, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or 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: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Question 108: What are the duties required in the second commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.
Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature: Whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed.
Question 110: What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it?
Answer: The reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it, contained in these words, For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments; are, besides God's sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, his fervent zeal for his own worship, and his revengeful indignation against all false worship, as being a spiritual whoredom; accounting the breakers of this commandment such as hate him, and threatening to punish them unto divers generations; and esteeming the observers of it such as love him and keep his commandments, and promising mercy to them unto many generations.
-- Westminster Larger Catechism
Originally posted by doulosChristou
Thomas Vincent's reasoning on this question seems, to me at least, to be unassailable:
"It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all; and because his body, as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is; and because, if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain"”if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment."
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Could someone critique this article for me: http://snipurl.com/bfjq
I have posted it before, and just heard Nestorian/Heretic or a posting of a section of the confession in response. Something more would be helpful.
My biggest hang up is that when you have various scenes where an actual physical Jesus was there but has now been removed, it seems that one comes close to inadvertentantly denigrating Jesus' full Manhood. For example at the last supper, there was Jesus that one could look at, feel, smell etc (And could do it without sinning). But now he is absent from the paintings as if He was not physically there.
Some help will be appreciated.
CT
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Some that are in favor of pictures of Christ have argued that if the 2nd commandment forbids images of God, it also forbids images of everything else, since the commandment says, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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." As for my take on this issue, this argument has never been answered by anyone to my satisfaction. It just seems like arbitrary logic to say that "you shall not make a graven image" permits a painting of a great white shark swimming in the ocean but a painting of Christ at the Lord's Supper is forbidden.
[Edited on 23-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
More Reformed expositions of the Second Commandment, all of which agree that images of Christ are thereby prohibited (including, for example, Calvin, Henry, Flavel, Ridgeley, Boettner, Williamson, Murray and Rushdoony), one of which deals specifically with the Nestorian error (the 753 Synod of Constantinople):
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/images9.htm
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
More Reformed expositions of the Second Commandment, all of which agree that images of Christ are thereby prohibited (including, for example, Calvin, Henry, Flavel, Ridgeley, Boettner, Williamson, Murray and Rushdoony), one of which deals specifically with the Nestorian error (the 753 Synod of Constantinople):
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/images9.htm
VH,
Been through this before. All of a sudden, when this issue comes up, everyone becomes a Fundamentalist proof-texter, and nothing from Confessions or theologians counts. Of course, if we were to talk about Scripture, or sanctification, or justification, or just about anything else (sorry, save the other commandment that modern Reformed hate - the 4th) then your citations would be worth something. But the unanimous holdings of the Reformed confessions and Creeds is of no effet here.
Originally posted by Paul manata
the problem, Fred, is that ALL (yep: every, the whole, totality, universaly, no exceptions, etc) of orthodox systematics texts have broken up the attributes as in: this one here, that one there, etc., and no one (nada, zip, zilch, none, noway, big donut) has accused them of dividing the person. This is whay, ladies and gentelmen, we have the phrases: in respects to His human nature. In respects to his divine nature. We can speak it but not draw the distinction????
Originally posted by Paul manata
Secondly
"Second, it is Nestorianism. There is no other way around this"
Prove it.
Originally posted by Paul manata
"You cannot depict a nature."
Prove it.
Originally posted by Paul manata
"You depict a person."
prove it (Oh yeah, when you "depict" Jesus as saying "who touched me" then you have depicted the person, and since ANYTHING that one says about a nature must depict the whole person, then the whole person (both natures) is depicted as not knowing... follow the argument out.... Yep. Deity didn't know something. Scarry huh?)
Originally posted by Paul manata
"People can say that Nestorianism doesn't apply here - but it does, and that very argument was used unanimously by Reformed divines and Confessions/Creeds until the 20th century."
Sorry, I missed that VERY argument. Where is it?
Originally posted by Paul manata
Third is nothing but an argument from silence. Even if we did find some painting you'd still be against it, Fred. So, it seems a bit disingenuous.
Originally posted by Paul manata
Re: "another thought:" Whjat is the purpose of every theologian desribing Christ as he is not. He is not just a "respects to human nature."
(2) All representing of the persons as distinct, as to set out the Father (personally considered) by the image of an old man, as if he were a creature; the Son under the image of a lamb or young man; the Holy Ghost under the image of a dove: all which wrongs the Godhead exceedingly. And although the Son was, and is man, having taken on him that nature, and united it to his Godhead, yet he is not a mere man. Therefore that image, which only holds forth one nature, and looks like any man in the world, cannot be the representation of that person which is God and Man.
And, if it is said, "˜Man´s soul cannot be painted, but his body may, and yet that picture represents a man;´ I answer, It does so, because he has but one nature; and what represents that, represents the person. But it is not so with Christ; his Godhead is not a distinct part of the human nature, as the soul of man is (which is necessarily supposed in every living man) but a distinct nature, only united with the manhood in that one person Christ, who has no fellow: Therefore what represents him, must not represent a man only, but must represent Christ, Immanuel, God-Man. Otherwise it is not his image. Besides, there is no warrant for representing him in his Manhood; nor any colorable possibility of it, but as men fancy. And, shall that be called Christ´s portraiture? Would that be called any other man´s portraiture, which were drawn at men´s pleasure, without regard to the pattern? Again, there is no use of it. For either that image behooved to have but common estimation with other images, and that would wrong Christ; or a peculiar respect and reverence, and so it sins against this commandment that forbids all religious reverence to images. But he being God, and so the Object of worship, we must either divide his natures, or say that image or picture [does] not represent Christ.
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the commandment forbids any and all images of God, then it forbids any and all images of anything. Saying that the commandment is about worship doesn't solve the problem, because, first, I agree that nobody should make images and use them as mediums for worshipping God, whether it be an image of God or an animal. But second, that would also mean that an image of, say, Jesus and the woman at the well that is intended for the purpose of instruction would be fine, since it is not for the purpose of worship. Yeah I know, this isn't the Reformed position, and people like Calvin and all the Puritans would string me up by my toenails for saying such a thing, but that's fine. I know some very qualified and intelligent theologians who disagree with them. Westminster doesn't have a monopoly on the market, you know. Perhaps if I am ordained one day I will change my position.
But having said all that, I wouldn't flinch an inch if suddenly every church in America did away with all pictures of God (Jesus movies, picture books, etc.). They are certainly not something that is necessary, and perhaps we would all be better off without them, so as to save controversy in the church. But I do not believe I'm sinning every time I admire Da Vinci's Last Supper. But I guess that just shows how much those dirty Anglicans have corrupted me.
Originally posted by crhoades
Would all agree that the dove symbol featured on a lot of bumpers and some churches is sin? It is trying to represent the Holy Spirit. That would be creating an image of a bird in the air to represent the person who has no physical nature. I don't see how anyone can say this is not in violation even those who hold to pedagoical uses of Jesus...
Thoughts?
Originally posted by Paul manata
a dove is an attribute of the spirit????? Where is *that* in any systematics text
But, if the spirit did descend as a literal dove then I see no problem with an historical reconstruction of that event.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Fisher's Catechism on the Second Commandment asks and answers many relevant questions.
Etc.
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the commandment forbids any and all images of God, then it forbids any and all images of anything.
Originally posted by Paul manata
a dove is an attribute of the spirit????? Where is *that* in any systematics text
But, if the spirit did descend as a literal dove then I see no problem with an historical reconstruction of that event.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by Paul manata
a dove is an attribute of the spirit????? Where is *that* in any systematics text
But, if the spirit did descend as a literal dove then I see no problem with an historical reconstruction of that event.
Paul,
Surely the way it descended is an attribute. That was the point in describing it in the way it was described-no?
Originally posted by fredtgreco
So my point is that if it describes a manner or attribute of the Spirit's action (i.e His pouring out on man) then it could be depicted according to Paul's test. Not trying to use that as an argument against Paul, just pointing it out.
[Edited on 12/23/2004 by fredtgreco]