Kiffin
Puritan Board Freshman
Ok, did more than just skimming just now (my weakness). I still haven't read Erskine's. It's a little straining on the eye.
What do you envision when you read or hear about the crucifixion?
Do all images of "Christ" violate the 2nd Commandment?
- Thread starter Kiffin
- Start date
- Status
Ok, did more than just skimming just now (my weakness). I still haven't read Erskine's. It's a little straining on the eye.
What do you envision when you read or hear about the crucifixion?
I do not place images of what Christ looked like? Do you? BTW, J. I. Packer and my blog address other issues. Reread much slower and more pointedly.
I still think you need to read the articles linked to more indepth. Take some time to meditate and consider what is being said in light of scripture. Your quick responses are indicative to me that you have not done this. It took me years to come to some of the conclusions I know to be true. I am sure you can say the same thing. And you are wanting two second responses. That aint gonna happen. Take some time to read through the articles and the means Christ has given us for seeing him in the sacraments.
BTW, I would also recommend a book to you to read by Rev. Danny Hyde.
[url=http://www.heritagebooks.org/products/-In-Living-Color:-Images-of-Christ-and-the-Means-of-Grace.html]In Living Color: Images of Christ and the Means of Grace - Reformation Heritage Books
[/URL]
Before you jump on any band wagon listen to what is being said. You are not doing this (taking time to ingest and think about the whole) in my opinion and in my interaction with you. You want two minute responses to scripture quotations that will answer your eternal questions. That is something that is unwise. I am one of the few people that I have ever known to come to faith in Christ as a Calvinist. I do not know many who understand the Doctrines of Grace from the outset. I got saved reading a bible in a Naval Barracks and believed John 15:16 right away. That doesn't happen for most people. It take years sometimes for true understanding to come about. Take a few days to read about it.
BTW, I would also recommend a book to you to read by Rev. Danny Hyde.
[url=http://www.heritagebooks.org/products/-In-Living-Color:-Images-of-Christ-and-the-Means-of-Grace.html]In Living Color: Images of Christ and the Means of Grace - Reformation Heritage Books
[/URL]
Before you jump on any band wagon listen to what is being said. You are not doing this (taking time to ingest and think about the whole) in my opinion and in my interaction with you. You want two minute responses to scripture quotations that will answer your eternal questions. That is something that is unwise. I am one of the few people that I have ever known to come to faith in Christ as a Calvinist. I do not know many who understand the Doctrines of Grace from the outset. I got saved reading a bible in a Naval Barracks and believed John 15:16 right away. That doesn't happen for most people. It take years sometimes for true understanding to come about. Take a few days to read about it.
Last edited:
Osage Bluestem
Puritan Board Junior
Here is what happened to Nehushtan:
2 Kings 18:3-4 KJV
[3] And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.
[4] He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.
This is the passage to show Roman Catholics when they try to bring that up.
nnatew24
Puritan Board Freshman
Regarding children's books and illustrations: I don't think a silhouette or similar representation is a violation of the commandment. When the artist is clearly not attempting to portray Christ as a distinguishable figure or in a realistic manner, then I don't believe it violates the 2nd commandment. Jesus was a human being, after all, and "He is the *image* of the invisible God".
I agree with Joshua.
On a related note, we were in a CRC church last Friday, listening to Handel's Messiah...I looked up at the side walls, and all of the windows had a depiction of Christ in a various stage from his life. I was shocked to see them in that church.
Let me add three points I've made in the past, and may bear repeating:
1) If we make any image of God, it will certainly put us in mind of God. And it is sinful not to have worshipful thoughts of God, whenever we think of him. Ergo, if an image of Christ (or any of the other Persons) doesn't lead you to worship, then you don't need it. And if it does lead you, then by definition it is idolatrous.
2) What about Man, made in God's image? Well, if God made something (or told us to make something), and meant by it to lift our thoughts beyond the creation to the God, then it probably fulfills its function when it is properly used. That, however, does not give us the right to create our own such images.
3) Finally, realize that when we make, for instance, an image of Christ (because he was a man, etc.) we are going in the opposite direction from the direction that the disciples went (when they walked with Jesus, in his flesh), and the opposite direction from which their witness to Jesus in the Bible is meant to take us.
Those men (and the other followers, like Martha for example) went from an understanding that "Jesus is a human, like me," to this understanding: "Jesus is not JUST a human, like me; but he is God-with-us, Immanuel." In other words, the purpose of them being with Jesus--and by extension our encounter with Jesus in the Gospels, especially--is so that we will move from "knowing Christ after the flesh, to knowing him thus no longer" (2Cor.5:16).
ANY image we make of Jesus is necessarily reductionistic. It is trying to capture within our finite apprehensions One who defies our attempts. This is the wrong "move" directionally. Our thoughts are already too small with Jesus; we need to be moving in the "greater" direction, not trying to capture Jesus "humanity" in a depiction (a division that is inherently anti-Chalcedonian by its very nature).
John's description of the risen Christ (Rev.1) isn't meant for us to fixate mentally upon: a glowing man with a sword protruding from his oral orifice. The description is John's attempt to describe an indescribable sight to us. It is meant to put us in mind of the words of Daniel's prophecy, etc.
The FACT of the incarnation, which is a matter of faith in the Word of God, is sufficient to teach us that Jesus was "like me." That he died, only underscores that fact. That he was holy (as I am not), that he spoke as never any man spake, that he rose from the dead--that he fulfilled God's promises for salvation made during the period of OT revelation--all this is for the purpose of teaching me that Jesus was MORE than man. He was the Son of God.
1) If we make any image of God, it will certainly put us in mind of God. And it is sinful not to have worshipful thoughts of God, whenever we think of him. Ergo, if an image of Christ (or any of the other Persons) doesn't lead you to worship, then you don't need it. And if it does lead you, then by definition it is idolatrous.
2) What about Man, made in God's image? Well, if God made something (or told us to make something), and meant by it to lift our thoughts beyond the creation to the God, then it probably fulfills its function when it is properly used. That, however, does not give us the right to create our own such images.
3) Finally, realize that when we make, for instance, an image of Christ (because he was a man, etc.) we are going in the opposite direction from the direction that the disciples went (when they walked with Jesus, in his flesh), and the opposite direction from which their witness to Jesus in the Bible is meant to take us.
Those men (and the other followers, like Martha for example) went from an understanding that "Jesus is a human, like me," to this understanding: "Jesus is not JUST a human, like me; but he is God-with-us, Immanuel." In other words, the purpose of them being with Jesus--and by extension our encounter with Jesus in the Gospels, especially--is so that we will move from "knowing Christ after the flesh, to knowing him thus no longer" (2Cor.5:16).
ANY image we make of Jesus is necessarily reductionistic. It is trying to capture within our finite apprehensions One who defies our attempts. This is the wrong "move" directionally. Our thoughts are already too small with Jesus; we need to be moving in the "greater" direction, not trying to capture Jesus "humanity" in a depiction (a division that is inherently anti-Chalcedonian by its very nature).
John's description of the risen Christ (Rev.1) isn't meant for us to fixate mentally upon: a glowing man with a sword protruding from his oral orifice. The description is John's attempt to describe an indescribable sight to us. It is meant to put us in mind of the words of Daniel's prophecy, etc.
The FACT of the incarnation, which is a matter of faith in the Word of God, is sufficient to teach us that Jesus was "like me." That he died, only underscores that fact. That he was holy (as I am not), that he spoke as never any man spake, that he rose from the dead--that he fulfilled God's promises for salvation made during the period of OT revelation--all this is for the purpose of teaching me that Jesus was MORE than man. He was the Son of God.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
Rev Buchanan, thank you for you insightful post. I was blessed by all of it, but especially enjoyed your above point. For myself, this is the crux of the argument.
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
But if we didn't have images of Christ, how would we have learned that he was surprisingly white for that region?
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Kiffin
Puritan Board Freshman
But if we didn't have images of Christ, how would we have learned that he was surprisingly white for that region?
I know you're joking and I know what you're saying, but doesn't this suggest that you have a better "picture" of Christ?
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
But if we didn't have images of Christ, how would we have learned that he was surprisingly white for that region?
I know you're joking and I know what you're saying, but doesn't this suggest that you have a better "picture" of Christ?
I apologize. I'm not sure what you mean here.
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
I disagree with any picture trying to depict Jesus. 2nd Commandment issues aside though (which I am working through but have yet to come to a firm conclusion), there are some pictures that are less accurate than others if one intends to depict "the average Middle-Eastern man." Of course, to even embark upon such a task is silly because it is just as impossible to depict "the average North American white man." Yet even in this case it would be simply counter-intuitive to depict the white man as having dark skin with common Middle-Eastern features, similar to depicting a Middle-Eastern man as white with common North American or European features.
Let me put it another way: if someone wanted to make a golden calf to worship, I would find it laughable if the calf look like a duck-billed platypus (i.e. a glorified beaver). Do I agree with making the idol in the first place? Of course not. Even still, don't call it a golden calf if it's not a calf.
Jonathan,
The problem with your comment is that to make the "image of Jesus human nature" presupposes that it is legitimate to separate (more than for a didactic purpose in comprehension) one of Jesus' two inseparable natures. This move is implicitly Nestorian, and the Chalcedonian Creed opposes any move that divides the two natures: divine and human. They are united without conversion, confusion or composition in "one person, forever."
If you say, "well, that's JUST Jesus' human nature, and I don't worship THAT," you have mistaken the fact that you worship a PERSON anyway, and not a nature. Neither would you say you worship Jesus' DIVINE nature. You worship Jesus, a Person with two natures.
Nor is it legitimate to say that you may think of the human nature without passing on to the Person who possess it. But, if you use an unauthorized image to put you in mind of God, that is idolatry by definition.
The bottom line is, to make the sort of separation that you just made does, actually, propose that it is possible to present the Person of Jesus as NOT an object of worship. This stance is sub-Christian--not YOU, but the position that you are toying with. Please consider the history of the church's mind on this.
Blessings,
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Nonetheless, it is also valid (or at least I was told it was valid in another thread) to distinguish between Jesus' human nature and his divine nature in the context of his actions (i.e., loving his enemies). If it is true in that case, why not in the case of his physical appearance as well? Or can his divine nature also be said to love his enemies?
Agreed.
Does this not include, also, the Trinity symbol(three intertwining circles) or the cross, since those achieve the same effect?
Rich Koster
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The image I have of Christ is the God/man coming to rescue me from this body of death. Acts 1:11
Skyler. You have to contend with the fathers. You are going way over board and not dealing with what we have said in my opinion. You are also wanting two minute answers to a long standing answer that was answered by the early church as well as the Reformational church. The early church didn't approve of images of Christ. The Reformation went back to that.
To answer your little question I will quote some passages.
P.S. did you read with intent the links I provided earlier? I am willing to bet you haven't read them intently nor meditatively.
Last edited:
Jonathan,
regarding your questions:
1) My previous reply acknowledges the arena in which it is legitimate to distinguish (which isn't the same thing as separate, anyway) between the two natures, in order to speak/understand/teach concerning properties of each. But the specific question under consideration has to do with whether or not it is proper to make any "images" (visual/pictographic representations) of one, all, or any of the three Persons of the Godhead (especially of Christ). To assert that one may make such an image as some sort of aid to understanding only begs the question of validity. Not ANY method of learning a subject is legitimate. Consider how "educational" but "inapt" (i.e. sinful) a stereotypical "bachelor party" is for a prospective husband, visual or otherwise.
2) Your second question (in that paragraph) I simply respond asking you to reconceptualize the whole thing, keeping in mind this classic statement, relative to the distinction between "person" and "nature":
3) I do not recommend using any symbols for God, other than the words on a page. All of them fail at one or many points. But despite its weakness, the Word is nevertheless the best, and it is has the advantage of Authorization. The mystery of the triune Godhead is one of those revealed things I believe in which we are simply meant to contemplate, wonder, and worship a God who is out of our league.
Happy cogitations!
regarding your questions:
1) My previous reply acknowledges the arena in which it is legitimate to distinguish (which isn't the same thing as separate, anyway) between the two natures, in order to speak/understand/teach concerning properties of each. But the specific question under consideration has to do with whether or not it is proper to make any "images" (visual/pictographic representations) of one, all, or any of the three Persons of the Godhead (especially of Christ). To assert that one may make such an image as some sort of aid to understanding only begs the question of validity. Not ANY method of learning a subject is legitimate. Consider how "educational" but "inapt" (i.e. sinful) a stereotypical "bachelor party" is for a prospective husband, visual or otherwise.
2) Your second question (in that paragraph) I simply respond asking you to reconceptualize the whole thing, keeping in mind this classic statement, relative to the distinction between "person" and "nature":
Persons act.
Natures are.
The divine Christ may act in accord with one nature, or the other, or both at the same time. That's his prerogative. We may understand a statement of Scripture better if we understand that it proceeds from, or has reference to one nature, possibly to the exclusion of the other.Natures are.
3) I do not recommend using any symbols for God, other than the words on a page. All of them fail at one or many points. But despite its weakness, the Word is nevertheless the best, and it is has the advantage of Authorization. The mystery of the triune Godhead is one of those revealed things I believe in which we are simply meant to contemplate, wonder, and worship a God who is out of our league.
Happy cogitations!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
