# John Piper and the 2nd Commandment



## Backwoods Presbyterian

If you have time today listen to this MP3 and hear what John Piper says concerning pictures of Jesus and the 2nd Commandment. 

About 5 minutes and 30 seconds in he says, "God broke the Second Commandment when he became incarnate". 

This is troubling in a number of ways, but give a listen and tell me what you think about his explanation. Before the John Piper apologists get on me I know he is not saying God sinned. But listen to it.


----------



## larryjf

Christ was not the work of an artisan's hand, therefore He was not an image in an idolatrous sense.


----------



## JohnGill

*Yet another reason not to listen to Piper*

Apparently Piper doesn't understand the nature of God or his law. (God does not sin, nor does he break his word.) He also does not seem to understand the Biblical usage of 'seeing' & 'hearing' which do not refer to the physical organs or else the deaf cannot receive faith. (See Rom 10:17)

Seems like he's justifying.


----------



## the particular baptist

Hi Chris please understand i mean no disrespect when i say i have a problem with your first sentence.


> Apparently Piper doesn't understand the nature of God or his law


A man that does not understand the nature of God or His law is not only unfit for ministry but most likely a lost man. I would hope you extend Dr Piper the benefit of the doubt.

flavio


**edit**
Listened to the piece and I would hope Dr Piper would re-phrase that if given the chance b/c i disagree with his statement that "God broke the 2nd commandment"


----------



## FrielWatcher

John Piper is huge and usually correct of theology and the justification of God. I just re-listened to the file because I had listened to it earlier. When he states, at 5m40s, there are panel members with him that give the statement an "amen". 

Now, that begs then - Christ is a graven image, an idol?

Ex. 20:4-6: "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. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

God then breaks His own law? I don't think so when He sends Himself. He is not sending a depiction of Himself or an affection that is like God, but not Him. Bowing down before Christ is then not bowing down before the God YHWH? 

Piper does understand the nature of God and His law so I find this a troubling statement from the Dr.


----------



## JohnGill

PactumServa72 said:


> Hi Chris please understand i mean no disrespect when i say i have a problem with your first sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently Piper doesn't understand the nature of God or his law
> 
> 
> 
> A man that does not understand the nature of God or His law is not only unfit for ministry but most likely a lost man. I would hope you extend Dr Piper the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> flavio
> 
> 
> **edit**
> Listened to the piece and I would hope Dr Piper would re-phrase that if given the chance b/c i disagree with his statement that "God broke the 2nd commandment"
Click to expand...


Rereading what I posted I realize I should have more fully explained myself before I posted it. I apologize for that.

There are men who are saved and do not fully understand the nature of God or his law and some of these faithfully serve, and many serve well. So, no, I am not saying he is lost or necessarily unfit for the ministry. Nor did I mean to imply that. Based upon what I heard, if he honestly believes that God, who instituted the law which is a reflection of his holiness, broke the second commandment, then I must now consider Piper to lack understanding about God and his law. And to claim that God broke his law by sending Jesus, to me, is akin to saying Jesus was born by sin.

If I were to affirm that Piper does not lack this understanding, then I must conclude that Piper is saying something he knows to be wrong. I'd rather assume ignorance on his part than deliberate deceit. For me, to not assume a lack of understanding here is more troubling.

I too hope he would rephrase it if given the chance.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I thought that Adam was made in the image of God as well? Piper is equivocating on the word "image."

Comment removed by Administrator. WAY out of line.

-CH


----------



## Brian Bosse

CalvinandHodges said:


> Comment removed by Administrator. WAY out of line.



This seems rather uncharitable coming from someone who in his signature says "in...all things Charity." I need to go cool off.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

By "equivocating" do you mean he deliberately using terms in dual-senses to confuse his audience? Or do you think it might be a hasty generalization to say that Piper is a pretty careless fellow with central elements of his theological program?

I have to agree with Brian's note re. "charity". I think some is due here.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

This might be a little off topic, but it relates to the 2nd commandment. Are pictures of Christ wrong? If so, why? If the pictures aren't used for worship or for making Christ "more real", what is wrong with a picture of Christ? 

From what I understand, the idea from the second commandment was "worshipping" the graven image.


----------



## MW

Every orthodox Christological book I have ever read maintains that there was no confusion of natures when the second person of the Godhead became incarnate.


----------



## Honor

I'm sorry but I don't get it.... How do ya'll get that from?....4 “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. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."


----------



## panta dokimazete

I think JP spoke extemporaneously - when he does so, sometimes he boo-boos. That's what this is - send Grudem an email and he'll set him straight.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
> 
> 5 *You shall not bow down to them or worship them*;



JP was wrong, but images of Christ, if not worshiped or created with the intent to worship, do not inherently break the commandment.

That is - v5 qualifies v4.


----------



## panta dokimazete

A thought - I can consider the "Man-ness" of Christ via an image or likeness and appreciate His struggles as a Man, His interaction with people or His torture on the Cross - there is no way that any image of Christ can capture nor manifest His "God-ness" - which is why I could, nor would, never worship a caricature of Christ.


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> A thought - I can consider the "Man-ness" of Christ via an image or likeness and appreciate His struggles as a Man, His interaction with people or His torture on the Cross - there is no way that any image of Christ can capture nor manifest His "God-ness" - which is why I could, nor would, never worship a caricature of Christ.



The unio personalis makes this an impossibility. Just as the natures cannot be confused, neither can they be divided.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> The unio personalis makes this an impossibility. Just as the natures cannot be confused, neither can they be divided.



Not divided - considered characteristically - Christ is fully Man, thus His "Man-ness" and life as a Man is important as He is the second Adam. 

His complete "Man-ness" requires us to consider and comprehend Him as a Man, with the understanding that He is also fully God. His "God-ness" is incomprehensible, His "Man-ness" is - perhaps not fully, but substantially.


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> Not divided - considered characteristically - Christ was fully Man, thus His "Man-ness" and life as a Man is important as He is the second Adam.
> 
> His complete "Man-ness" requires us to consider and comprehend Him as a Man, with the understanding that He was also fully God. His "God-ness" is incomprehensible, His "Man-ness" is - perhaps not fully, but substantially.



Every time you use the personal pronoun "His," you are referring to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, not to a distinct nature.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Joshua said:


> For what it's worth, folks can believe what they want in this matter, but as for the _Puritan_ Board, there should be no advocacy of images.
> 
> (And I know you're merely fleshing things out, but it doesn't need to get to advocacy)



No advocacy of images for _worship_, right? Is there a confessional prohibition of all images in all circumstances?


----------



## panta dokimazete

For reference:



> Q. 49. Which is the second commandment?
> A. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing 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 shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.[126]
> 
> Q. 50. What is required in the second commandment?
> A. The second commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his Word.[127]
> 
> Q. 51. What is forbidden in the second commandment?
> A. The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images,[128] or any other way not appointed in his Word.[129]


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> Every time you use the personal pronoun "His," you are referring to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, not to a distinct nature.



Is there a confessional prohibition for considering Christ's "Man-ness"?

He is self-described as a Son of Man...


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you use the personal pronoun "His," you are referring to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, not to a distinct nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a confessional prohibition for considering Christ's "Man-ness"?
> 
> He is self-described as a Son of Man...
Click to expand...


WCF 7:2, "So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, *were inseparably joined together in one person*, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which *person is* very God, and very man, yet *one Christ*, the only Mediator between God and man."


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> For reference:



Please refer also to the Larger Catechism, answer 109, where one of the sins forbidden is, "the making any representation of God, of all or *of any of the three persons*."


----------



## panta dokimazete

> 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.



Still qualified to worship.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you use the personal pronoun "His," you are referring to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, not to a distinct nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a confessional prohibition for considering Christ's "Man-ness"?
> 
> He is self-described as a Son of Man...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WCF 7:2, "So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, *were inseparably joined together in one person*, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which *person is* very God, and very man, yet *one Christ*, the only Mediator between God and man."
Click to expand...


I'll respond to this, then abandon the discussion, as I know how this invariably ends .

Let me say first, that I never, ever, ever propose segregating the natures of Christ - this I profess and confess. Amen.

"Very man" - means something - how is that realized in Christ? We know he had a body, with a face, hands, etc... We know he interacted with people, suffered on a cross, bled and died as very man. It is the "very man-ness" I am proposing may be understood in those contexts. Not for worship, certainly, but for context.

That is - when I read Scripture and Christ is described teaching - I imagine Him in His human body standing before a group of people in the cultural context. It is an aid for consideration - I do not worship that mental image, but it does make the Scripture "come alive" to me and see Christ as a real person in a real context.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Joshua said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Still qualified to worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> "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 word _making_ means just that. _Making_.
> 
> **************REGARDLESS**************
> 
> This is both a Puritanesque and Reformed board, and there will be no defenses and or advocacy of images.
> 
> To make an image that purports to represent Christ is to lie about God's very being, whether it be intentional or unintentional. We do not know what Christ looked like, nor can He be divided.
> 
> End of Discussion.
Click to expand...


Calling someone a liar is rather rude and obnoxious


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Joshua said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> "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 word _making_ means just that. _Making_.
> 
> **************REGARDLESS**************
> 
> This is both a Puritanesque and Reformed board, and there will be no defenses and or advocacy of images.
> 
> To make an image that purports to represent Christ is to lie about God's very being, whether it be intentional or unintentional. We do not know what Christ looked like, nor can He be divided.
> 
> End of Discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone a liar is rather rude and obnoxious
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So? You delete my post, but you engage in the same activity? Hmmm. Some here are not Epistemologically Self-Conscious.

Grace and Peace, brother,

Rob


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> That is - when I read Scripture and Christ is described teaching - I imagine Him in His human body standing before a group of people in the cultural context. It is an aid for consideration - I do not worship that mental image, but it does make the Scripture "come alive" to me and see Christ as a real person in a real context.



Whereas I am different. I find visual representations minimising in that the idea becomes associated with the image and thereby distorts the fulness of the idea.


----------



## kalawine

I think Piper is giving the Passion movie a fluff job here. I guess I'm sort of off topic but there is something that really bothers me. I'm not a Piper fan nor am I a Piper enemy. I think he's written some good stuff but what bothers me so much is that it seems that no matter what the man says people are in total shock when he is wrong. Many people get defensive of him too. Let's face it. He made some stupid, uncalled for statements on this mp3. I get so tired of seeing people defend their heroes. I love reading Gordon Clark but I realize that he got way off course on some things. I refuse to defend his mistakes. But any time someone goes after Piper or Sproul or McArthur (the list goes on) people try to gloss it over. Face it: the man made some disturbing comments. I mean, "God broke the Second Commandment when he became incarnate?!?!?!" Not only is this an outrageous statement but it calls for rebuke and correction that he would receive if he wasn't one of the "Untouchables." If I were a Baptist I would call him on it.


----------



## panta dokimazete

kalawine said:


> Not only is this an outrageous statement but it calls for rebuke and correction that he would recieve if he wasn't one of the "Untouchables."



Like I said - email Grudem - *he'll* "touch" him


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Joshua said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? You delete my post, but you engage in the same activity? Hmmm. Some here are not Epistemologically Self-Conscious.
> 
> Grace and Peace, brother,
> 
> Rob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, I'll excuse your presumption, but I _did not_ delete your post, thank you very much. Nor did I ask anyone else to do so. I don't appreciate the accusation. And I also have no idea what your beef is.
Click to expand...


Check out post #10 dude - if you did not do it - then you agreed with it. Which makes the "accusation" stick.

All I am simply pointing out is that "accusations" from administrators and moderators should apply to themselves as well. That is my "beef"

Now that I have made myself clear - I will end this conversation.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Kim G

Joshua said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check out post #10 dude - if you did not do it - then you agreed with it. Which makes the "accusation" stick.
> 
> All I am simply pointing out is that "accusations" from administrators and moderators should apply to themselves as well. That is my "beef"
> 
> Now that I have made myself clear - I will end this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Sir (as opposed to _dude_), I was looking for some post tonight, and didn't realize. Furthermore, I don't even remember what it is that you wrote. Whom here, _specifically_, have I called a Liar? Go back and read very carefully. Insofar as I am able to tell, I haven't "accused" anyone here specifically of lying. I will not defend myself any further, but one can go back and read all my posts and see if my character is replete with offensiveness and accusations.
Click to expand...

Josh said, "To do X is to lie about Y." He made a statement of truth.

He did *not *say, "You did X and you are a liar." This statement may be true but is not particularly edifying.

Let's not make this into something bigger than it is.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

kalawine said:


> I think Piper is giving the Passion movie a fluff job here. I guess I'm sort of off topic but there is something that really bothers me. I'm not a Piper fan nor am I a Piper enemy. I think he's written some good stuff but what bothers me so much is that it seems that no matter what the man says people are in total shock when he is wrong. Many people get defensive of him too. Let's face it. He made some stupid, uncalled for statements on this mp3. I get so tired of seeing people defend their heroes. I love reading Gordon Clark but I realize that he got way off course on some things. I refuse to defend his mistakes. But any time someone goes after Piper or Sproul or McArthur (the list goes on) people try to gloss it over. Face it: the man made some disturbing comments. I mean, "God broke the Second Commandment when he became incarnate?!?!?!" Not only is this an outrageous statement but it calls for rebuke and correction that he would receive if he wasn't one of the "Untouchables." If I were a Baptist I would call him on it.



I personally feel very indebted to both Dr. Piper's preaching and writing. That being said, I believe he was in error in what he said here. It seems with him and the other men you mentioned that many will go very far to defend them (perhaps because of the debt they feel to them) and others go very far to find disagreement with them. We should (in my opinion) be willing to disagree with them and also remember we all err at different times and will all likewise need to be corrected.


----------



## kalawine

ManleyBeasley said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Piper is giving the Passion movie a fluff job here. I guess I'm sort of off topic but there is something that really bothers me. I'm not a Piper fan nor am I a Piper enemy. I think he's written some good stuff but what bothers me so much is that it seems that no matter what the man says people are in total shock when he is wrong. Many people get defensive of him too. Let's face it. He made some stupid, uncalled for statements on this mp3. I get so tired of seeing people defend their heroes. I love reading Gordon Clark but I realize that he got way off course on some things. I refuse to defend his mistakes. But any time someone goes after Piper or Sproul or McArthur (the list goes on) people try to gloss it over. Face it: the man made some disturbing comments. I mean, "God broke the Second Commandment when he became incarnate?!?!?!" Not only is this an outrageous statement but it calls for rebuke and correction that he would receive if he wasn't one of the "Untouchables." If I were a Baptist I would call him on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally feel very indebted to both Dr. Piper's preaching and writing. That being said, I believe he was in error in what he said here. It seems with him and the other men you mentioned that many will go very far to defend them (perhaps because of the debt they feel to them) and others go very far to find disagreement with them. We should (in my opinion) be willing to disagree with them and also remember we all err at different times and will all likewise need to be corrected.
Click to expand...


I agree with you. I guess it just seems mind-numbing to me that he made a statement like the one we're discussing here. But, as you said, we all err sometimes. Goodness! I wish my life had a rewind button to undo some things I've said!


----------



## py3ak

Sometimes preachers say things for rhetorical value that won't stand up under analysis. In that way, verbal unorthodoxies may be quite consistent with theological accuracy. But there is no denying that they are rather dangerous.


----------



## kalawine

py3ak said:


> Sometimes preachers say things for rhetorical value that won't stand up under analysis. In that way, verbal unorthodoxies may be quite consistent with theological accuracy. But there is no denying that they are rather dangerous.



Yea, I wondered if that was what he was intending to do. If I remember correctly he said it rather bluntly and forcefully as to make the point that if God can create a body to "house" God, we can paint a picture to represent him. Sheesh! Anyway... that's some strong rhetoric. Still, I'm not branding JP a heretic.


----------



## py3ak

Well, if that was his point I retract my remarks about rhetoric, as being inapplicable in this context. That is simply a bad argument.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

kalawine said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Piper is giving the Passion movie a fluff job here. I guess I'm sort of off topic but there is something that really bothers me. I'm not a Piper fan nor am I a Piper enemy. I think he's written some good stuff but what bothers me so much is that it seems that no matter what the man says people are in total shock when he is wrong. Many people get defensive of him too. Let's face it. He made some stupid, uncalled for statements on this mp3. I get so tired of seeing people defend their heroes. I love reading Gordon Clark but I realize that he got way off course on some things. I refuse to defend his mistakes. But any time someone goes after Piper or Sproul or McArthur (the list goes on) people try to gloss it over. Face it: the man made some disturbing comments. I mean, "God broke the Second Commandment when he became incarnate?!?!?!" Not only is this an outrageous statement but it calls for rebuke and correction that he would receive if he wasn't one of the "Untouchables." If I were a Baptist I would call him on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally feel very indebted to both Dr. Piper's preaching and writing. That being said, I believe he was in error in what he said here. It seems with him and the other men you mentioned that many will go very far to defend them (perhaps because of the debt they feel to them) and others go very far to find disagreement with them. We should (in my opinion) be willing to disagree with them and also remember we all err at different times and will all likewise need to be corrected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you. I guess it just seems mind-numbing to me that he made a statement like the one we're discussing here. But, as you said, we all err sometimes. Goodness! I wish my life had a rewind button to undo some things I've said!
Click to expand...


Me too!


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

The use of the term "image" as it refers to Jesus Christ carries a very specific sense:



> Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, Heb. 1:3.



I will leave it to the commentators to eke out the sense in this passage.

The use of the term "image" in the 2nd Command has a very different sense:



> Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, Ex. 20:4.


It seems obvious to me, at least, that the term "image" is being used in two different fashions in these two different passages.

However, when Piper claims that these two different senses of the word "image" are actually one and the same - he is equivocating on the word "image."

Wikipedia defines "Equivocation" thus:



> It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).
> 
> There is a good example given as well:
> 
> A feather is light.
> What is light cannot be dark.
> Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.


I hope this clarifies without being "overly harsh."

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## Confessor

panta dokimazete said:


> I think JP spoke extemporaneously - when he does so, sometimes he boo-boos. That's what this is - send Grudem an email and he'll set him straight.



Thank you for that link! I have been searching for a while for a "common sense" justification of not using bad language, i.e., how to explain to someone _why_ the Bible says not to use bad language. Wayne demonstrated it with the analogies to body odor and unclean shirts.


----------

