Images of Christ

[Simply_Nikki]

Well.. I am by no means a zionist.. I do not hop on on the bandwagon of wantonly "supporting" the state of Israel. But.. I suppose there are multipal purposes I wear it. I have a lot of Jewish friends, who believe Jesus was/is not the Messiah, I wear it as a declaration that Jesus was/is King of the Jews as apart of my witness. Also, because i'm not on the rally around the Jews flag, sometimes I and other Christians will get accused of being anti-semetic, which of course doesn't make sense, since my savior is semetic, so I wear the symbol to show that. I also believe in, what I guess i've heard it called the "grafted in" theology and what Paul talks about what being a true Jew or Israelite entails (being children of the promise, not just of the flesh), so that's another reason I wear it. I also wear it to kind of set myself apart and keep myself accountable. If I'm wearing a cross which people almost automatically tie to being "christian" it's but another way to guard me in what i say and how I behave. Of course the Holy Spirit convicts me with or without wearing the symbol, but as a declaration in letting others know i'm a christian without me having to speak (which i guess is the reason for symbols, expressing words without saying them) is another reason I wear it.

In a nutshell, my motives are all based on the underlying desire to bring honor and glory to God, in acknowledging his grace, proclaiming his truth, and in procuring another way to be kept accountable for sin. I dunno.. perhaps i'm in error, which as anyone here can testify to.. I have no problem in admitting. I always appreciate loving admonishment with patience and scriptural references to show my error and/or sin.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I understand the explanation but lest this be brushed off too lightly, this concern you have obviously got in the way of giving a charitable reading to my words yourself and yet you persisted even after a sufficient explanation was given in my first reply. So please take a bit more care.

But why only highlight two men when this is a problem much deeper in American Reformed circles???

I'm curious. Why are you particularly defensive of these two?

Basically, I find that those from a Scottish Presbyterian background don't like what these men have to say on other issues, and so instead of dealing with their arguments, they resort to relevance fallacies in order to prejudice people against them. They don't seem to realize that a man can be right on one thing, but wrong on another. Hence, I try to discourage things like that. Its a bit like someone saying because RCs are infant-baptist, therefore infant baptism is wrong. I hope this makes some sense.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I missed the apology the first time; it is accepted.

Daniel,
Highlighting? I can't imagine why you claim that as you can't have any idea what the structure of the paper will be or what other authors will be covered. I mentioned them, and I believe this is the second or third time I've said this, because I need the material from them. I have leads or think I do for much of the rest that I have on my list to date.

But why only highlight two men when this is a problem much deeper in American Reformed circles???

Oh right, your doing a paper on the issue...I see. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Relevant to my wanting to obtain them, and that they are also some of the key folks noted by those who take exception to LC 109 in Presbytery exams in the OPC and PCA and other conservative denoms in this country. A bit thin skinned today are we not?

Chris, I would be quite happy to have left it there but as the ninth commandment requires us to maintain our own and our neighbours good name, you did not actually state you were writing a report in that reply. You just said you were wanting to obtain them, not being in the PCA I did not know why. Moreover, surely the best way to avoid confusion and to clear up matters which might be misunderstood it to ask questions?

 

[ReformationArt]

Chris,

I found the following in an article by Brian Godawa,

"As Greg Bahnsen warned us, we dare not allow our interpretation of the second commandment to lead us into a docetic diminution of the human reality of the incarnation.2 The Passion is a narrative depiction of Christ�s humanity and His fulfillment of His mission as �the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world� (John 1:29), not an iconic representation of His divinity to worship."

There are no sources cited, unfortunately.

Also, here are other previous threads
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/movies-about-Jesus-violate-2nd-commandment-25698/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/pictures-Jesus-9922/
And a major thread from 2002: http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/images-2nd-commandment-3707/
According to the following thread, an Eastern Orthodox view of images was presented at the 2006 SCCS conference: http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/06-scccs-conference-15180/#post195368

Here's the Gentry Quote in a previous thread (although no citation, except that maybe it was transcribed from a tape) http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/2nd-commandment-224/

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I missed the apology the first time; it is accepted.

Daniel,
Highlighting? I can't imagine why you claim that as you can't have any idea what the structure of the paper will be or what other authors will be covered. I mentioned them, and I believe this is the second or third time I've said this, because I need the material from them. I have leads or think I do for much of the rest that I have on my list to date.

Oh right, your doing a paper on the issue...I see. Sorry for the confusion.

Sorry I missed this post when I made my last one...time like this you feel like asking

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I explained fully in my first post (cited below for your reading). I had no need to do so again. I'm sorry you missed it and construed this as something it was clearly not in context.

Welcome to the crazy-pictures-of-Jesus-so-called-hating-club Andrew. I will try to grab you paper as it looks like at long last a hopefully significant dealing of this issue will appear in a forthcoming Confessional Presbyterian, probably the 2009 looks like. I need to compile material for it; any suggestions. I have my short list but maybe you know some I don't have.

Relevant to my wanting to obtain them, and that they are also some of the key folks noted by those who take exception to LC 109 in Presbytery exams in the OPC and PCA and other conservative denoms in this country. A bit thin skinned today are we not?

Chris, I would be quite happy to have left it there but as the ninth commandment requires us to maintain our own and our neighbours good name, you did not actually state you were writing a report in that reply. You just said you were wanting to obtain them, not being in the PCA I did not know why. Moreover, surely the best way to avoid confusion and to clear up matters which might be misunderstood it to ask questions?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I explained fully in my first post (cited below for your reading). I had no need to do so again. I'm sorry you missed it and construed this as something it was clearly not in context.

Welcome to the crazy-pictures-of-Jesus-so-called-hating-club Andrew. I will try to grab you paper as it looks like at long last a hopefully significant dealing of this issue will appear in a forthcoming Confessional Presbyterian, probably the 2009 looks like. I need to compile material for it; any suggestions. I have my short list but maybe you know some I don't have.

Relevant to my wanting to obtain them, and that they are also some of the key folks noted by those who take exception to LC 109 in Presbytery exams in the OPC and PCA and other conservative denoms in this country. A bit thin skinned today are we not?

Chris, I would be quite happy to have left it there but as the ninth commandment requires us to maintain our own and our neighbours good name, you did not actually state you were writing a report in that reply. You just said you were wanting to obtain them, not being in the PCA I did not know why. Moreover, surely the best way to avoid confusion and to clear up matters which might be misunderstood it to ask questions?

Sorry I am confusing the CPJ and PCA...apologies again.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This may be slightly but I remember reading something in one of R.J. Rushdoony's books where he said that the iconoclast controversy in the eastern church was due to political reasons; can anyone shed any light on this?

Whatever the civil authorities motives, I believe they were right to destroy them (if that is what they did).

 

[tdowns]

Does the Ark?

Does this passage, give any support to the argument, that images, that represent, but are obviously not the exact replica, of a heavenly object, are allowed, because God actually used them.

“You shall make a mercy seat [3] of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. 18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. 21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel."

Obviously, the Cherubim, would be false images, because I can't imagine that something made of earthly substances will be an exact image of something in heaven. But they are not a lie, because they just represent that something, in this case Cherubim. So, pictures of Christ, simply, represent, the Man who walked this earth as God.

I think I've heard this argument somewhere. Just wondering, how the argument, that the images of Christ are a lie, because they are not exactly like him, hold up, based on passage above?

And, despite the fact that it is already overused, since I have yet to use it...

 

[tcalbrecht]

Does this passage, give any support to the argument, that images, that represent, but are obviously not the exact replica, of a heavenly object, are allowed, because God actually used them.

“You shall make a mercy seat [3] of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. 18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. 21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel."

Obviously, the Cherubim, would be false images, because I can't imagine that something made of earthly substances will be an exact image of something in heaven. But they are not a lie, because they just represent that something, in this case Cherubim. So, pictures of Christ, simply, represent, the Man who walked this earth as God.

I think I've heard this argument somewhere. Just wondering, how the argument, that the images of Christ are a lie, because they are not exactly like him, hold up, based on passage above?

And, despite the fact that it is already overused, since I have yet to use it...

I believe the answer is that God commanded the making of the images wrt the ark. Moses created the ark after the pattern shown to him on the mountain (Heb. 8:5). The ark and the images were part of the old covenant worship of God.

In contrast, no one has been authorized to make a representation of Christ. No one was shown a comparable "pattern on the mountain" and told to go and make an images after what they saw.

So the lie comes in pretending that something is what it is not.

 

[kvanlaan]

OK, sorry, gotta ask - why then are photos OK?

We are making images, and in some cases we respect the images themselves to a degree (the only surviving photo of a loved one, for example, may be the object of overmuch admiration/attention.) Does the action related to the photo make it wrong, or is photo itself? Or do I just have to get out my Big Book o' Ordnung and see what it says there?

 

[Bygracealone]

A sad element to this whole matter is how far the Church has gone astray in her evangelism today. Not only do we have no confidence in the God-ordained means of evangelism via the pulpit, but we've even gone so far as to break the second commandment in order to fulfill the command to evangelize by producing things like the Jesus film or the RCC version of the Passion. For many, the only Jesus they will ever come across is some actor on the big screen. Sad...

 

[matthew11v25]

I think I've heard this argument somewhere. Just wondering, how the argument, that the images of Christ are a lie, because they are not exactly like him, hold up, based on passage above?

And, despite the fact that it is already overused, since I have yet to use it...

Not sure I follow (think because I am rushing)...

Heres a stab at pictures of Christ being a "lie".

I have always thought (I believe Paul Manata used this argument too) that pictures of Christ are Nestorianism (early church heresy involving Christ's nature of God and man). Since Christ is 100% God and 100% man any dividing of the two natures = a false Christ. Since a picture can only attempt to depict the humanity of Christ (I dont know anyone claiming to depict his deity, because NO ONE CAN accurately do so) it divides the nature of Christ. Any depiction therefore is a false depiction of Christ since we would be dividing the union of his two natures. When people in the NT times saw Christ they saw the God/Man, where as people who see "Jesus" in modern pictures (apart from the fact that they most likely do not even look like him) see someone trying to take a stab at what his physically body looked like. I think there are also issues with fallen men trying to depict true beauty, holiness, righteousness, etc.

I personally dont see why we even try to make pictures of Christ (given that we do live in a very visual culture) since we have physical representations in the Lord's Supper and reading the word.

thats my

 

[ReformationArt]

Daniel,

I'm guessing you didn't read my paper, b/c I addressed that question specifically as follows:

In his speech on Mars Hill in Acts 17:29, the apostle Paul says, “Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.” All so-called images of Jesus that exist today are formed by the art and imagination of man. Because God has chosen to not give us a visible image of the Son by way of a portrait, those who undertake to create one must draw upon art and imagination to do so.

Such creative activity with regards to all or any of the three persons of the Godhead is forbidden by God in His Word. The result of such activity is that man who is created in God's image seeks now to create God in his (man's) image. So then, Jesus is pictured most often as anything but a first century Jew. To create God in man's image is a form of idolatry, which is addressed by Paul in Romans 1:22-23, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

 

[javajedi]

Thanks Andrew, I downloaded your article, if I have comments I'll pass them on.

... or even the symbol of the trinity depicted as three interlocking circles sometimes with a triangle tying them together. ...

What is the problem with this symbol? It is not intended to physically represent the Trinity. [Isn't it on the cover of our Red Trinity hymnals? ]

Wouldn't this be like the 'fish' symbol - a Christian symbol not physically representing a person of the Godhead?

 

[dannyhyde]

OK, sorry, gotta ask - why then are photos OK?

We are making images, and in some cases we respect the images themselves to a degree (the only surviving photo of a loved one, for example, may be the object of overmuch admiration/attention.) Does the action related to the photo make it wrong, or is photo itself? Or do I just have to get out my Big Book o' Ordnung and see what it says there?

The Heidelberg Catechism answers this question, making a distinction between images of God and images of anything else:

97. May we not make any image at all?
God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures, though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve God by them.​

 

[etexas]

Is there a difference between a symbol and an image? Megan gave me a small silver cross, I do not worship it, nor do I view it as an image of God. My PB Brethren, I wish for no war on such an issue, but what if any distinction do you make between symbol/Image?

 

[ReformationArt]

Wikipedia says, A sign is an entity which signifies another entity. Wikipedia also says that symbols are objects, characters, or other concrete representations of ideas, concepts, or other abstractions. There are other articles on line dealing with the differences, however, for the most part the two words are used interchangabley.

Dave, the difference between the Trinity symbol and the fish is that one is a visible representation of the godhead, and the other is not. Anytime you point at something (no matter what it is) as a visible representation of God, I believe it is a violation of Scripture. So, the symbol on the cover of the Trinity hymnal bugs me, but I'm not calling for them to be burned either ;-).

 

[etexas]

Wikipedia says, A sign is an entity which signifies another entity. Wikipedia also says that symbols are objects, characters, or other concrete representations of ideas, concepts, or other abstractions. There are other articles on line dealing with the differences, however, for the most part the two words are used interchangabley.

Dave, the difference between the Trinity symbol and the fish is that one is a visible representation of the godhead, and the other is not. Anytime you point at something (no matter what it is) as a visible representation of God, I believe it is a violation of Scripture. So, the symbol on the cover of the Trinity hymnal bugs me, but I'm not calling for them to be burned either ;-).

So would the silver cross which I view as a symbol of my faith (not an image of the Godhead I do not think God looks like a bit o' silver with four spokes,)so in that light would my cross be an idol, I am not "picking a fight" I truly want a consensus

 

[SRoper]

I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."

While triangles are legitimate in their place, surely when we attach a theological meaning to them - which God does not - we are violating the regulative principle.

 

[etexas]

I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."

I TOTALLY agree! I do seperate a symbol from an image! If I am cruising down the road and I see some 125 yeat old Presbyterian Church with a cross on the steeple I don't stop the SLK and bow to the cross and say "wow man! God!."

 

[ReformationArt]

I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."

This is true, for your average geometric shapes. However, no one looks at a golden calf and says "this is God", that is unless, someone fashions a calf out of gold and says "This IS God." Taking three shapes and constructing them into one joined shape w/ separate parts, as a symbol of the godhead is making an image of the triune God. Again, let's rehearse WLC 109

Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; 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 hath appointed.

This seems to word things in a very clear and direct way.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."

This is true, for your average geometric shapes. However, no one looks at a golden calf and says "this is God", that is unless, someone fashions a calf out of gold and says "This IS God." Taking three shapes and constructing them into one joined shape w/ separate parts, as a symbol of the godhead is making an image of the triune God. Again, let's rehearse WLC 109

Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; 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 hath appointed.

This seems to word things in a very clear and direct way.

You did not highlight the entirety of the relevant clause:

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;

The external representation forbidden is any likeness of any creature whatsoever. The likeness of a man for Christ or a dove for the Holy Spirit are both forbidden. It says nothing of symbols, e.g., geometric shapes.

 

[SRoper]

I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."

This is true, for your average geometric shapes. However, no one looks at a golden calf and says "this is God", that is unless, someone fashions a calf out of gold and says "This IS God." Taking three shapes and constructing them into one joined shape w/ separate parts, as a symbol of the godhead is making an image of the triune God.

It seems that there is a difference between the person who made the golden calf and says "this is God" and the person who draws a triangle and says "this represents the concept of the Trinity." The latter is an illustration of a theological concept and not a purported image of God in any or all of his persons.

I wonder, would you be opposed to a teacher in a classroom writing the names "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" on the board in a triangular arrangement? What if he drew a triangle connecting the three names together?

 

[ReformationArt]

I do see the gray area, however here are some thoughts. God has chosen to reveal himself to us using words, spoken and written. The Spirit works according to the power of the Word he inspired.

As to the pedagogical use of drawing connecting lines on the chalk board, that is still something different than creating a symbol/image and calling it God.

Given the very real danger of idolatry, what value do you see in creating and using such images? I suppose it comes down ultimately to a question of the sufficiency of Scripture.

 

[ReformationArt]

You did not highlight the entirety of the relevant clause:

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;

The external representation forbidden is any likeness of any creature whatsoever. The likeness of a man for Christ or a dove for the Holy Spirit are both forbidden. It says nothing of symbols, e.g., geometric shapes.

You are correct regarding the wording of the WLC. However, I'm reading that in light of Acts 17:29, which is not limited to simply images of creatures, and is a fuller outworking of the second commandment,

Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.

Here, the apostle speaks very broadly of using various media to create images of God, including all things formed by the art and imagination of man. Can we not say that the symbol found on the cover of the Trinity Hymnal was created by a graphic artist, from his art an imagination?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

While he doesn't address the triangle (and is this often presented with rays around it?), James Durham says the following from his lecture on the 2nd commandment:

Therefore, upon these grounds, (1) We simply condemn any delineating of God, or the Godhead or Trinity, such as some have upon their buildings, or books, like a sun shining with beams, and the Lord’s name, Jehovah, in it, or any other way. This is most abominable to see, and a heinous wronging of God’s majesty.
​

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

While he doesn't address the triangle (and is this often presented with rays around it?), James Durham says the following from his lecture on the 2nd commandment:

Therefore, upon these grounds, (1) We simply condemn any delineating of God, or the Godhead or Trinity, such as some have upon their buildings, or books, like a sun shining with beams, and the Lord’s name, Jehovah, in it, or any other way. This is most abominable to see, and a heinous wronging of God’s majesty.
​

Yes, to me that is making a visible representation of God which is not authorised in Scripture, hence it is a breach of the regulative principle.