# Reformed Consensus on Images of Christ



## davenporter

Hi folks,

I am curious on a few issues surrounding the 2nd commandment and the broadly Reformed world's take on images of Christ.

It seems the consensus on this board (and indeed the teaching of the Westminster Standards) is clearly that any image/visual representation of God or Christ (including His human nature) is prohibited, and for good reasons, which I have read. You do not have to convince me. 

I am wondering why it seems that the more broadly/less Reformed (i.e. many PCA congregants) in my experience do not adhere to this part of the confession. Particularly I am speaking of R.C. Sproul -- yesterday I read in Tabletalk (from August 2010) that he does not consider the 2nd commandment as ruling out images of Christ, but that Christ is an exception. It is my understanding that many others in the PCA and certainly almost all in broad evangelicalism do not hold to such clear standards that are clearly represented in the Larger Catechism and easily argued for on the basis of logical deduction, and it seems that the historical Reformed view has been to reject any images of Christ whatsoever. I've noticed this also with the Sabbath issue -- one of my PCA friends didn't even know the Sabbath was in the Confession! Why are the 2nd and 4th commandments no longer revered among many even within the Reformed camp, whereas it appears there used to be a consensus? (Or is my idea of a consensus a misconception?)

Finally, I am wondering how one with such a conviction (that images of Christ are not permissible) should act toward family members who are evangelical (not Reformed) Christians and do not hold to such a view (e.g. if one receives as a gift a picture of "Jesus" or a nativity set or a children's book with pictures of "Jesus"). How awkward, right? Of course, I would rather please God, but I would also prefer not to frustrate my family more than I ought! It is an issue of obedience to God's Law, and of course is of great importance, but I want them to see that we do not keep it out of some false hope in justification by the Law, but out of love for the Lord and His Law.

(Mods: if this is in the wrong forum, my apologies; feel free to move it)


----------



## OPC'n

Sproul makes an exception for Christ bc he believes that the pics of him are showing his man part of his 
God/man essence. That's a very simplified way to putting what he believes. Part of the 2nd Commandment states, 

“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,..." 

So this commandment is talking about praying to things that replace God. We can have pics of fish etc on our walls or even figurines but they are to be just that and not something we bow down to. I use to hold to Sproul's thinking but what I came to realize is that it never fails with mankind that we look upon it as it actually being him and thus it is a graven image. Perhaps you could ask your family what they think of when they have pics of Jesus and go from there teaching them how in their hearts they are treating it as a graven image even though they don't bow down to the pic.....in their hearts they are.


----------



## Covenant Joel

As to the why question, I don't know that I have any solid answers. It has often surprised me how many in my own denomination do not seem to consider the Confession's teaching on the Confession. Part of the why probably has to do with technological advances (this doesn't mean that these are good reasons, or even that opponents of the Confession's teaching would use these reasons, but speaking historically). You didn't have to worry about the same issues of travel, electricity, and so on in the past. I would even suggest we could use some more clear, helpful, Reformed reflection on some of those issues. 

As to how to deal with family members who do not share your convictions, I think being open and honest is a good place to start. I think many of my friends and family find my views a bit bizarre, as they simply haven't been exposed much to the whole discussion of the Sabbath. But if you can clearly explain why you practice what you do, and if you can simultaneously tell them that you aren't looking down your nose at them, then you'll find that they can deal with that, even if they don't agree. It can get complicated at times, but honesty and loving communication can go a long way. 

E.g., I have people invite me out to eat regularly on Sunday. I like to just tell them, "Thanks so much for the offer, we'd really love to get together with you sometime. I don't eat out on Sunday, because I don't want to force anyone to work when I wouldn't myself do that job. But how about you come over to our place after church next Sunday so we can talk and eat together?"


----------



## OPC'n

Thank you, Josh! I should add when I said, "that it never fails with mankind that we look upon it as it actually being him and thus it is a graven image." that I don't know what's in Sproul's heart. I do know he thinks of them a great art work according to what he has said in the past. Perhaps he doesn't look upon them the way I explained. I know he is reformed and he is a godly man and one of my favorite teachers.


----------



## davenporter

Thanks, good thoughts. For clarification, I would explain that these are extended family members. My wife and I are in agreement on this issue.

Joshua, could you expand a little on what you would view to be sin regarding these images? For example, could I in good conscience go visit a family member's home where there is a clear violation posted on the wall?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Note John Murray's reasoning, which I find very sound:

The question of the propriety of pictorial representations of the Saviour is one that merits examination. It must be granted that the worship of Christ is central in our holy faith, and the thought of the Saviour must in every instance be accompanied with that reverence which belongs to his worship. We cannot think of him without the apprehension of the majesty that is his. If we do not entertain the sense of his majesty, then we are guilty of impiety and we dishonor him.

It will also be granted that the only purpose that could properly be served by a pictorial representation is that it would convey to us some thought or lesson representing him, consonant with truth and promotive of worship. Hence the question is inescapable: is a pictorial representation a legitimate way of conveying truth regarding him and of contributing to the worship which this truth should evoke?

We are all aware of the influence exerted on the mind and heart by pictures. Pictures are powerful media of communication. How suggestive they are for good or for evil and all the more so when accompanied by the comment of the spoken or written word! It is futile, therefore, to deny the influence exerted upon mind and heart by a picture of Christ. And if such is legitimate, the influence exerted should be one constraining to worship and adoration. To claim any lower aim as that served by a picture of the Saviour would be contradiction of the place which he must occupy in thought, affection, and honour.

The plea for the propriety of pictures of Christ is based on the fact that he was truly man, that he had a human body, that he was visible in his human nature to the physical senses, and that a picture assists us to take in the stupendous reality of his incarnation, in a word, that he was made in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man.

Our Lord had a true body. He could have been photographed. A portrait could have been made of him and, if a good portrait, it would have reproduced his likeness.

Without doubt the disciples in the days of his flesh had a vivid mental image of Jesus' appearance and they could not but have retained that recollection to the end of their days. They could never have entertained the thought of him as he had sojourned with them without something of that mental image and they could not have entertained it without adoration and worship. The very features which they remembered would have been part and parcel of their conception of him and reminiscent of what he had been to them in his humiliation and in the glory of his resurrection appearance. Much more might be said regarding the significance for the disciples of Jesus' physical features.
Jesus is also glorified in the body and that body is visible. It will also become visible to us at his glorious appearing "he will be seen the second time without sin by those who look for him unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28).

What then are we to say of pictures of Christ? First of all, it must be said that we have no data whatsoever on the basis of which to make a pictorial representation; we have no descriptions of his physical features which would enable even the most accomplished artist to make an approximate portrait. In view of the profound influence exerted by a picture, especially on the minds of young people, we should perceive the peril involved in a portrayal for which there is no warrant, a portrayal which is the creation of pure imagination. It may help to point up the folly to ask: what would be the reaction of a disciple, who had actually seen the Lord in the days of his flesh, to a portrait which would be the work of imagination on the part of one who had never seen the Saviour? We can readily detect what his recoil would be.

No impression we have of Jesus should be created without the proper revelatory data, and every impression, every thought, should evoke worship. Hence, since we possess no revelatory data for a picture or portrait in the proper sense of the term, we are precluded from making one or using any that have been made.

Secondly, pictures of Christ are in principle a violation of the second commandment. A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship. But since the materials for this medium of worship are not derived from the only revelation we possess respecting Jesus, namely, Scripture, the worship is constrained by a creation of the human mind that has no revelatory warrant. This is will worship. For the principle of the second commandment is that we are to worship God only in ways prescribed and authorized by him. It is a grievous sin to have worship constrained by a human figment, and that is what a picture of the Saviour involves.

Thirdly, the second commandment forbids bowing down to an image or likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. A picture of the Saviour purports to be a representation or likeness of him who is now in heaven or, at least, of him when he sojourned upon the earth. It is plainly forbidden, therefore, to bow down in worship before such a representation or likeness. This exposes the iniquity involved in the practice of exhibiting pictorial representations of the Saviour in places of worship. When we worship before a picture of our Lord, whether it be in the form of a mural, or on canvas, or in stained glass, we are doing what the second commandment expressly forbids. This is rendered all the more apparent when we bear in mind that the only reason why a picture of him should be exhibited in a place is the supposition that it contributes to the worship of him who is our Lord. The practice only demonstrates how insensitive we readily become to the commandments of God and to the inroads of idolatry. May the Churches of Christ be awake to the deceptive expedients by which the archenemy ever seeks to corrupt the worship of the Saviour.

In summary, what is at stake in this question is the unique place which Jesus Christ as the God-man occupies in our faith and worship and the unique place which the Scripture occupies as the only revelation, the only medium of communication, respecting him whom we worship as Lord and Saviour. The incarnate Word and the written Word are correlative. We dare not use other media of impression or of sentiment but those of his institution and prescription. Every thought and impression of him should evoke worship. We worship him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God. To use a likeness of Christ as an aid to worship is forbidden by the second commandment as much in his case as in that of the Father and Spirit.


----------



## Jack K

davenporter said:


> I am wondering why it seems that the more broadly/less Reformed (i.e. many PCA congregants) in my experience do not adhere to this part of the confession.



To answer the question (rather than argue the issue)...

Certainly, many in the Reformed camp just do what they see in the larger evangelical world. Others have considered the issue and have become convinced that some depictions in some situations are allowed or even helpful. If you're trying to learn and want to research the recent history on the issue and the reasons some give for allowing some pictures, the starting place is probably the 1981 RPCES synod overture (never adopted).


----------



## earl40

I am going to ask a "what if'"....so if I may. What if Jesus had been born in a family who had an artist in it, would it have been a sin for for him to have drawn a likeness while He was with us on earth? If so would Jesus have stopped him from doing what he was doing? Or is it the general consensus that our Lord chose a time when this just simply would not happen?


----------



## KevinInReno

My wife and I growing up Roman Catholic both have seen the clear worship of depictions of Christ. I do believe it's a gross violation of the 2nd commandment. Ultimately the Lord our God is one. Jesus is one with the Father and Spirit. Any depiction of Jesus is a depiction of our God. Hence a violation of the Lord's 2nd commandment.


----------



## KevinInReno

earl40 said:


> I am going to ask a "what if'"....so if I may. What if Jesus had been born in a family who had an artist in it, would it have been a sin for for him to have drawn a likeness while He was with us on earth? If so would Jesus have stopped him from doing what he was doing? Or is it the general consensus that our Lord chose a time when this just simply would not happen?




I would state in this hypothetical... the sin going on would be failing to recognize the Lord was in his or her presence.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Just to throw in another objection to images of Christ, these images have greatly contributed to the progressive feminization of Jesus that has occured over the last hundred years or so. Most of these paintings depict him as soft and harmless with long flowing locks of hair.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

And don't forget the blue-eyed, blonde haired, caucasian "Christ" pictures that were so common when I was a child.


----------



## KevinInReno

I always marvel at how time and time again Christ can be depicted with long hair... as if no one who has ever drawn this long haired depiction ever read the book of Timothy. I'm pretty confident Christ had short hair. I would be willing to wager quite a pretty penny in my new hometown.


----------



## J. Dean

OPC'n said:


> Sproul makes an exception for Christ bc he believes that the pics of him are showing his man part of his
> God/man essence. That's a very simplified way to putting what he believes. Part of the 2nd Commandment states,
> 
> “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,..."
> 
> So this commandment is talking about praying to things that replace God. We can have pics of fish etc on our walls or even figurines but they are to be just that and not something we bow down to. I use to hold to Sproul's thinking but what I came to realize is that it never fails with mankind that we look upon it as it actually being him and thus it is a graven image. Perhaps you could ask your family what they think of when they have pics of Jesus and go from there teaching them how in their hearts they are treating it as a graven image even though they don't bow down to the pic.....in their hearts they are.


In fairness to Sproul and others, though, who do not hold to the strict interpretation of the 2nd commandment, just because something like a picture of Christ has the potential to be turned into an object of worship does not necessarily make it wrong. That's like saying justification by faith alone is bad because it has the potential to be abused and turned into Antinomianism. That something CAN be abused is not cause alone for shunning it.

The EPC church I attend for Bible study has a large stained-glass portrait of Jesus Christ on its back wall behind the pulpit, but never have I seen or known of anybody, nor have I myself, look to that image as an object of worship. Not everybody who has a picture of Christ immediately falls into the Catholic trap of worshipping the image, and we need to be fair-minded and careful when we discuss this and not stereotype.

That being said, I do agree that many images of Christ do not do Him justice, and the Caucasian/effeminate portraits I've seen of him are less than appealing.


----------



## Tim

Many of these comments have been off-topic. 

Our brother in his original post has asked why so many confessional Christians do not adhere to this part of the confession, and how we should respond to them. Let us give him the discussion he has requested. 

Might all this have something to do with a trend from strict to looser subscription to the confessions?


----------



## OPC'n

J. Dean said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sproul makes an exception for Christ bc he believes that the pics of him are showing his man part of his
> God/man essence. That's a very simplified way to putting what he believes. Part of the 2nd Commandment states,
> 
> “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,..."
> 
> So this commandment is talking about praying to things that replace God. We can have pics of fish etc on our walls or even figurines but they are to be just that and not something we bow down to. I use to hold to Sproul's thinking but what I came to realize is that it never fails with mankind that we look upon it as it actually being him and thus it is a graven image. Perhaps you could ask your family what they think of when they have pics of Jesus and go from there teaching them how in their hearts they are treating it as a graven image even though they don't bow down to the pic.....in their hearts they are.
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Sproul and others, though, who do not hold to the strict interpretation of the 2nd commandment, just because something like a picture of Christ has the potential to be turned into an object of worship does not necessarily make it wrong. That's like saying justification by faith alone is bad because it has the potential to be abused and turned into Antinomianism. That something CAN be abused is not cause alone for shunning it.
> 
> The EPC church I attend for Bible study has a large stained-glass portrait of Jesus Christ on its back wall behind the pulpit, but never have I seen or known of anybody, nor have I myself, look to that image as an object of worship. Not everybody who has a picture of Christ immediately falls into the Catholic trap of worshipping the image, and we need to be fair-minded and careful when we discuss this and not stereotype.
> 
> That being said, I do agree that many images of Christ do not do Him justice, and the Caucasian/effeminate portraits I've seen of him are less than appealing.
Click to expand...


I guess you didn't read my second comment


----------



## Moireach

This is a good and relevant question for Reformed churches to consider today, who seem to be increasingly weak on this doctrine.

Obviously it's primarily very simply a symptom of backsliding. There are, doubtless, all kinds of reasons for compromise. I'll let you know what the main reason I've come across is.

The main one is the pressure of innovating in methods of evangelism. The Bible insructs us to "proclaim the gospel". And the Biblical example is that of preaching, teaching and persuading, being ready to a give a reason for the hope within us. 

This isn't attractive to worldly people though, and it's not visual. And we live in a visual age. So what I have seen is reformed people taking part in Dramas of the Gospel, with a person actually acting as Jesus Christ. I was shocked that a conservative person who has been accepted to train for the ministry in a WCF confessing denomination took part in this play, and was given permission to by one of the most conservative ministers in the whole WCF confessing denomination.

This idea of innovating to a more entertaining and attractive evangelism also manifests itself is in using the Mel Gibson movie. I have seen this also in a WCF confessing denomination, whose minister of course vowed on the WCF.

These are the "subtle" ways this commandment start to be broken. You won't see framed photos of a man with long brown hair and facial hair till a wee while later!


----------



## toddpedlar

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> And don't forget the blue-eyed, blonde haired, caucasian "Christ" pictures that were so common when I was a child.



You must be referring to the ubiquitous "Jesus' senior portrait" prints...


----------



## Marrow Man

Tim said:


> Might all this have something to do with a trend from strict to looser subscription to the confessions?



I think that loose subscription is merely a symptom of a bigger problem. There are cultural/worldly influences that shape our view of things. We live in a visual age, as we are often told (but that is not the true impetus, as images existed long before the medium of TV), but in reality we take our cues from others. Other churches have images, so we think that must be a good idea. Where did those churches get the idea? Well, the pagans always had their images, didn't they? They certainly didn't get the idea from Holy Scripture.

For any interested, here is a paper I wrote while in seminary on the issue. It deals more with the ethical aspect of the issue (it was for an ethics class).

Ethical Considerations of Images of Christ « Gairney Bridge


----------



## toddpedlar

J. Dean said:


> In fairness to Sproul and others, though, who do not hold to the strict interpretation of the 2nd commandment, just because something like a picture of Christ has the potential to be turned into an object of worship does not necessarily make it wrong. That's like saying justification by faith alone is bad because it has the potential to be abused and turned into Antinomianism. That something CAN be abused is not cause alone for shunning it.
> 
> The EPC church I attend for Bible study has a large stained-glass portrait of Jesus Christ on its back wall behind the pulpit, but never have I seen or known of anybody, nor have I myself, look to that image as an object of worship. Not everybody who has a picture of Christ immediately falls into the Catholic trap of worshipping the image, and we need to be fair-minded and careful when we discuss this and not stereotype.
> 
> That being said, I do agree that many images of Christ do not do Him justice, and the Caucasian/effeminate portraits I've seen of him are less than appealing.



Two things.

First, the commandment forbids the making of the image of God, not the worshipping of it. The latter is forbidden by the First Commandment.

Second, no image of Christ could EVER do Him justice because it either a) separates His humanity from His Divinity, thus being a false image of a "pretend" Jesus that never existed, or b) depicts God, which is clearly forbidden in the second Commandment


----------



## Moireach

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> And don't forget the blue-eyed, blonde haired, caucasian "Christ" pictures that were so common when I was a child.



Ha! Were you brought up in the 1930s in Germany!? 
I've never heard of that before!


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

No, the 1960's/70's, but they were everywhere in rural baptist churches back then. The little baptist church my Grandmother attended (which was otherwise pretty straight) passed out "Jesus fans" with an aryan representation of the Lord since they had no air conditioning. I was stunned as an "older youngster" when I first realized the Lord was a Jew, and most likely NOT a blond, blue-eyed white guy with hair like Robert Plant.


----------



## davenporter

Good points, everyone. I wonder how much the notion of "contextualization" being espoused at various seminaries and denominations these days has contributed to Christians' weakening commitment to the confession/Bible.

I see this issue as clearly Biblical, with no exception or way out of it for any Christian -- evangelical OR Reformed. I wonder if my position on the RPW contributes to that perspective. I really think that we have forgotten that God is, "Holy, Holy, Holy" and think that Jesus is just our buddy, or, like many have suggested, an effeminate hippie with flowing locks of hair, which is utter blasphemy against God. Also, we have forgotten all of the creeds that our fathers in the faith had to fight for to promote the orthodox Christ as being one person in two distinct natures. Now modern liberalism wants to say that Jesus was just a good human teacher (who apparently had a lying issue). Oughtn't we fight against such blasphemy and exalt the name (3rd commandment) of Christ and worship Him in holiness (2nd commandment)?

At the same time, I am newly Reformed, and I am a little fiery on some of these issues, and I don't want to take it overboard. I feel strongly about these things since I have become convinced of them from Scripture and logical deduction from it, but at the same time I do want to be balanced and gracious, understanding that my evangelical family members will need to work through a lot of these things, and I will probably have to bear with being called a legalist or Pharisee many times. And maybe an antinomian at other times.  But at the same time, it is crucial to always be growing in righteousness, and recognizing the holiness of God, and continually seeing more and more of our sin, and seeing the power of God overcome that sin in our lives. I think that being loving on this issue necessitates being both firm and patient.


----------



## Covenant Joel

davenporter said:


> Good points, everyone. I wonder how much the notion of "contextualization" being espoused at various seminaries and denominations these days has contributed to Christians' weakening commitment to the confession/Bible.



You might need to explain what you mean by that. Contextualization itself is not an inherently unbiblical idea, that I can see. Of course, it can be done badly and can be based on unbiblical principles. But I don't think that the simple idea of contextualization is what the problem is in this situation.


----------



## davenporter

Covenant Joel said:


> davenporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good points, everyone. I wonder how much the notion of "contextualization" being espoused at various seminaries and denominations these days has contributed to Christians' weakening commitment to the confession/Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might need to explain what you mean by that. Contextualization itself is not an inherently unbiblical idea, that I can see. Of course, it can be done badly and can be based on unbiblical principles. But I don't think that the simple idea of contextualization is what the problem is in this situation.
Click to expand...


What I mean by contextualization is the concern to make our worship services appealing to the current trends in modern culture. I'm not sure if that's the same definition you would use.


----------



## Covenant Joel

davenporter said:


> What I mean by contextualization is the concern to make our worship services appealing to the current trends in modern culture. I'm not sure if that's the same definition you would use.



I see what you mean. That's not exactly what the term means in missiological literature. But as that's not the focus of the thread, I'll just stop there.


----------



## J. Dean

OPC'n said:


> I guess you didn't read my second comment


I did miss that. Thank you for pointing that out.


----------



## J. Dean

toddpedlar said:


> Two things.
> 
> First, the commandment forbids the making of the image of God, not the worshipping of it. The latter is forbidden by the First Commandment.
> 
> Second, no image of Christ could EVER do Him justice because it either a) separates His humanity from His Divinity, thus being a false image of a "pretend" Jesus that never existed, or b) depicts God, which is clearly forbidden in the second Commandment


So would it have been a sin for somebody to paint a picture of Jesus in a family portrait had the means for Mary and Joseph to do so been available? Again, the cited interpretation of the first and second commandments as shaped by the Puritans is not held by all Christians, even many in the Reformed camp.


----------



## toddpedlar

J. Dean said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things.
> 
> First, the commandment forbids the making of the image of God, not the worshipping of it. The latter is forbidden by the First Commandment.
> 
> Second, no image of Christ could EVER do Him justice because it either a) separates His humanity from His Divinity, thus being a false image of a "pretend" Jesus that never existed, or b) depicts God, which is clearly forbidden in the second Commandment
> 
> 
> 
> So would it have been a sin for somebody to paint a picture of Jesus in a family portrait had the means for Mary and Joseph to do so been available? Again, the cited interpretation of the first and second commandments as shaped by the Puritans is not held by all Christians, even many in the Reformed camp.
Click to expand...


Your question about someone painting a picture is a diversion and doesn't help you make your argument at all. We're talking about now, not then. (and yes, had the person known that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, it would have been sinful to depict him)

Second, the interpretation of the first and second commandments that I presented is not something the Puritans invented as new, but is much older. The direct discussion of images of Christ dates at the very least well back before the East/West split to the Council of Constantinople in 754. 

Third, the interpretation of the first and second commandments regarding the making of images of God (including images of Christ, the second person of the Trinity) in any fashion for any purpose is consistent with the confessional standards of this board. The fact that some that claim connection to the Reformers may believe that images are ok does not make the stance confessional. It simply is not - it blatantly contradicts the confessions.


----------



## Andres

davenporter said:


> At the same time, I am newly Reformed, and I am a little fiery on some of these issues, and I don't want to take it overboard. I feel strongly about these things since I have become convinced of them from Scripture and logical deduction from it, but at the same time I do want to be balanced and gracious, understanding that my evangelical family members will need to work through a lot of these things, and I will probably have to bear with being called a legalist or Pharisee many times. And maybe an antinomian at other times. But at the same time, it is crucial to always be growing in righteousness, and recognizing the holiness of God, and continually seeing more and more of our sin, and seeing the power of God overcome that sin in our lives. I think that being loving on this issue necessitates being both firm and patient.



You have a good attitude and I commend your stance on seeking to uphold the 2nd commandment. I would concur with what Josh said earlier - perhaps you could have more leniency with family members than with a church. For example, if I went to a family members home that displayed a 2nd commandment violation, I would most likely still return to that family members home. But if I visited a church with an obvious 2nd commandment violation, i wouldn't see myself returning to that church. And when I say leniency with family, I don't mean that you simply overlook the sin, but instead you love them enough that you charitably give them grace as they grow in their understanding of the 2nd commandment.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

I have always truly wondered if Jesus would have destroyed a camera if He had bodily lived on earth during our times, and someone had tried to take a picture of Him.


I've wondered this since childhood.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

well, surely I am not still wondering it...
:sheepishlykicksthedirt:

I was saying what I used to wonder as a kid...you know....innocent wonderings...


----------



## davenporter

Constantlyreforming said:


> well, surely I am not still wondering it...



vs



Constantlyreforming said:


> I have always truly wondered



I think "I have always" implies you still are...

If not, someone correct my understanding of the grammar.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

:sheepishlykicksmoredirt:


----------



## davenporter

Constantlyreforming said:


> :sheepishlykicksmoredirt:



Sorry brother, just giving you a hard time. 



Covenant Joel said:


> That's not exactly what the term means in missiological literature.



I would be interested in hearing what the term means in missiological literature. Feel free to post it here or PM it to me. I did bring it up so it is part of the discussion. Typically, when I hear "contextual" it means we modify something in the way we do our ecclesiology to make it more palatable or understandable to the people living in that culture. However, if I am misunderstanding the term it would be helpful to hear the correct definition.


----------



## Covenant Joel

davenporter said:


> I would be interested in hearing what the term means in missiological literature. Feel free to post it here or PM it to me. I did bring it up so it is part of the discussion. Typically, when I hear "contextual" it means we modify something in the way we do our ecclesiology to make it more palatable or understandable to the people living in that culture. However, if I am misunderstanding the term it would be helpful to hear the correct definition.



In missiology, it refers to how we communicate the gospel and practice our faith within the context of another culture. I.e., the fact that in India a missionary would conduct worship in Hindi is an example of contextualization. That's what the base of the term means. Now of course, the debates have to do with how to do contextualization well and in line with Scripture. Sometimes people ignore Scripture in favor of culture. But that doesn't make the term itself something we should avoid. It's an unavoidable part of ministry, particularly in cross-cultural situations. That's all I was getting at.


----------



## Peairtach

Constantlyreforming said:


> well, surely I am not still wondering it...
> :sheepishlykicksthedirt:
> 
> I was saying what I used to wonder as a kid...you know....innocent wonderings...



It wasn't innocent, brother! It was one of your childhood sins! Now go away and repent of it and sheepishlykickmoredirt !


----------



## Andres

Joshua said:


> The whole _What if_ scenarios are just silly. They *weren't*_. _God is the maker of history. There weren't artistic renditions of him, nor cameras, etc. It is irrelevant. "Thou shalt not *make*..." There it is. That's all we need. Direct, explicit, divine revelation. Don't do it.



Amen. And I'd also like to add, "If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas."


----------



## OPC'n

toddpedlar said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Sproul and others, though, who do not hold to the strict interpretation of the 2nd commandment, just because something like a picture of Christ has the potential to be turned into an object of worship does not necessarily make it wrong. That's like saying justification by faith alone is bad because it has the potential to be abused and turned into Antinomianism. That something CAN be abused is not cause alone for shunning it.
> 
> The EPC church I attend for Bible study has a large stained-glass portrait of Jesus Christ on its back wall behind the pulpit, but never have I seen or known of anybody, nor have I myself, look to that image as an object of worship. Not everybody who has a picture of Christ immediately falls into the Catholic trap of worshipping the image, and we need to be fair-minded and careful when we discuss this and not stereotype.
> 
> That being said, I do agree that many images of Christ do not do Him justice, and the Caucasian/effeminate portraits I've seen of him are less than appealing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things.
> 
> First, the commandment forbids the making of the image of God, not the worshipping of it. The latter is forbidden by the First Commandment.
> 
> Second, no image of Christ could EVER do Him justice because it either a) separates His humanity from His Divinity, thus being a false image of a "pretend" Jesus that never existed, or b) depicts God, which is clearly forbidden in the second Commandment
Click to expand...


very good point


----------



## Edward

Tim said:


> Our brother in his original post has asked why so many confessional Christians do not adhere to this part of the confession



1. Ignorance
2. Opting for tradition over scripture
3. Weakness. 



> and how we should respond to them.



Respectfully, if they are our elders (That's how you should do it, not necessarily how I would)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Just a couple of notes on threads that have to do with the Law.

1. The Law is non-negotiable. It is a reflection of the character of God.

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" (1Ti. 1:8-10).

and

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Mat. 7:23). (i.e. law-less ones)


2. People who violate the Law of God go to hell. The second commandment is a capital offense. People who violate the second commandment willfully demonstrate they are not regenerated, and subsequently will go to hell.

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies...Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal. 5:19-21).

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (Jam. 2:10).

3. You can't get this question wrong, nor can you get it wrong and then teach others the wrong version.

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" (Mat. 18:6-7).

Scary stuff.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 2. People who violate the Law of God go to hell. The second commandment is a capital offense. People who violate the second commandment willfully demonstrate they are not regenerated, and subsequently will go to hell



I agree with you about the second commandment, but are you saying anyone who breaks God's commandments will go to hell? Because I think we all break God's commandments probably on a daily basis.


----------



## davenporter

Bill The Baptist said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. People who violate the Law of God go to hell. The second commandment is a capital offense. People who violate the second commandment willfully demonstrate they are not regenerated, and subsequently will go to hell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you about the second commandment, but are you saying anyone who breaks God's commandments will go to hell? Because I think we all break God's commandments probably on a daily basis.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't worry about whether he believes that everyone actually gets the punishment that they earn, since Dr. McMahon subscribes to the Westminster Standards. It is by grace we are saved, through faith -- not by anything that we do. Dr. McMahon is simply pointing out that everyone earns Hell, and we need to take EVERY command of God and EVERY sin seriously, because EVERY sin requires an eternal punishment from God.



> violate the second commandment willfully demonstrate they are not regenerated



The key word here is *willfully*. Many Christians are ignorant and thankfully God is a God of immense grace and will overlook their hidden sins so long as they are trusting Christ. But as those who are not ignorant, we ought to acknowledge our hidden sins and seek to trust the Lord to empower us to cease sinning in the ways that He shows us. The regenerate Christian has and exercises the evangelical grace of repentance. Some people choose to knowingly reject God's commands and presume upon His grace because of laziness or the desire to please their family or whatever. May we not malign the holiness of God, and give in to those who despise His grace with their antinomianism, but may we be a city upon a hill and give glory to God.


----------



## Goodcheer68

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 2. People who violate the Law of God go to hell. The second commandment is a capital offense. People who violate the second commandment willfully demonstrate they are not regenerated, and subsequently will go to hell.



Could you please clarify what you mean by willfully? Do you mean knowing the truth and still rejecting to be obedient, or even one who is ignorant that pictures of Christ are in fact disobedience. If the latter then I would not be so ready to cast judgment. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" 1 John 1:8.


----------



## davenporter

Goodcheer68 said:


> Could you please clarify what you mean by willfully? Do you mean knowing the truth and still rejecting to be obedient, or even one who is ignorant that pictures of Christ are in fact disobedience. If the latter then I would not be so ready to cast judgment. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" 1 John 1:8.



Willful - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1. obstinately and often perversely self-willed
2. done deliberately: intentional

Thankfully, it doesn't look like they've redefined this term yet!


----------



## Elizabeth

So, is Luther in hell? Maybe I am mistaken, but wasn't he a violator of the 2nd? I don't think he was ignorant, so he can't get a pass on that.


----------



## davenporter

Elizabeth said:


> So, is Luther in hell? Maybe I am mistaken, but wasn't he a violator of the 2nd? I don't think he was ignorant, so he can't get a pass on that.



We cannot go beyond what Scripture says, and its teaching is laid out clearly for us in the Confession: repentance unto life is an evangelical grace.

I can hardly imagine Luther saying, "I know that having images of Jesus is forbidden by God." And, "Though I know this, I will willfully make an image of Christ for myself." I don't know enough about Luther to determine that that's what he did (maybe you should give us some quotes to show that what you're suggesting is true: 1. Luther violated the 2nd commandment; 2. Luther was not ignorant that such a violation was sin). But if that's what he did, do you really think that he had the gift of repentance?


----------



## Elizabeth

I am not trying to be belligerent, Mr Davenport. I've read some things that led me to believe Luther had not a problem with images and such in churches. I am sorry if I was mistaken. When I get to my big computer later, I will try to track down what I read for you. I'd love to get an opinion on this. Again, I was not trying to get anyone's goat. I don't always phrase things so well...old age creeping up on me!


----------



## Elizabeth

Mr Davenport, this is what I read:

"Therefore I freely admit, images are neither here nor there, neither evil nor good, we may have them or not, as we please. This trouble has been caused by you; the devil would not have accomplished it with me, for I cannot deny that it is possible to find some one to whom images are useful. And if I were asked about it, I would confess that none of these things give offense to me, and if just one man were found upon earth who used the images aright, the devil would soon draw the conclusion against me: Why condemnest thou that which is still useful in worship? This challenge I could not answer; he would have successfully defied me. He would not have got nearly so far if I had been here. He played a bold game, and won, although it does no harm to the Word of God. You wanted to paint the devil black, but forgot the charcoal and used chalk. If you would fight the devil, you must be well versed in the Scriptures, and, besides, use them at the right time." From sermon 4, in this book: http://books.google.com/books/about/Works_of_Martin_Luther.html?id=Q3xIAAAAMAAJ


----------



## davenporter

I think the context helps a bit here.

On page 407 of the link you gave, Luther says, "On the subject of images, in particular, we saw that they ought to be abolished if they are going to be worshiped, otherwise not, although I wish they were abolished everywhere because they are abused, -- it is useless to deny it. For whoever places an image in a church, imagines he has performed a service unto God and a good work, which is downright idolatry."

...

"But this is not sufficient reason to abolish, destroy and burn all the images; and why? Because we must admit that there are still people who have not the wrong opinion of them, but to whom they may be useful. Although they are few, yet we cannot and should not condemn anything which is still useful to the devotions of any man. But you should have taught that images are nothing, God cares nothing for them, and that He is not served, nor pleased when we make an image for Him, but that it would do better to give a poor man a gold-piece than to give God a golden image, for God has forbidden the latter, but not the former."

...

"Now, although it is true, and no one can deny that the images are evil because they are abused, nevertheless we must not on that account reject them, nor condemn anything because it is abused. That would result in utter confusion. God has commanded us not to lift up our eyes unto the sun, etc., that we may not worship them, for they are created to serve all nations. But there are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Shall we, therefore, essay to pull the sun and stars from the skies? Nay, we will not do it. Again, wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him. Shall we, therefore, kill all the women and pour out all the wine? Again, gold and silver cause much evil, shall we, therefore, condemn them? Nay, if we would drive away our one worst enemy, who does the most harm, we would have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, even as Jeremiah says, "The heart of the man is crooked," or, as I take the meaning, "always twisting to one side or the other." And what good would that do us?"

"He who would blacken the devil must have good charcoal, for he, too, wears fine clothes and goes to the fair. But I can catch him by asking him: Do you not place the images in the churches because you think it a special service of God? and when he says Yes, as he must, you may conclude that what was meant as a service of God he has turned into idolatry by abusing the images; he eagerly sought what God has not commanded and neglected God's positive command, to help the neighbor."

...

"Therefore I freely admit, images are neither here nor there, neither evil nor good, we may have them or not, as we please. This trouble has been caused by you; the devil would not have accomplished it with me, for I cannot deny that it is possible to find some one to whom images are useful. And if I were asked about it, I would confess that none of these things give offense to me, and if just one man were found upon earth who used the images aright, the devil would soon draw the conclusion against me: Why condemnest thou that which is still useful in worship? This challenge I could not answer; he would have successfully defied me. He would not have got nearly so far if I had been here. He played a bold game, and won, although it does no harm to the Word of God. You wanted to paint the devil black, but forgot the charcoal and used chalk. If you would fight the devil, you must be well versed in the Scriptures, and, besides, use them at the right time."


----------



## davenporter

I'm having some trouble understanding 



davenporter said:


> the devil would soon draw the conclusion against me: Why condemnest thou that which is still useful in worship?



Why does Luther answer that with



davenporter said:


> This challenge I could not answer; he would have successfully defied me.



I would expect Luther to have had an answer for the devil, but I suppose it's in the case that someone supposedly benefits from using the images in worship. But then he says



davenporter said:


> He would not have got nearly so far if I had been here.



Is that to suggest that he wouldn't have let the devil speak?



davenporter said:


> He played a bold game, and won, although it does no harm to the Word of God.



I have no idea what Luther means by this. It seems that it does harm to the Word of God (unless Luther is referring to a hypothetical situation of someone benefiting from an image)



davenporter said:


> You wanted to paint the devil black, but forgot the charcoal and used chalk. If you would fight the devil, you must be well versed in the Scriptures, and, besides, use them at the right time."



It seems Luther is suggesting they weren't ready to face the devil.

Anyway, apart from that last section that I'm having a lot of trouble understanding, it seems that Luther is saying that he is opposed to images in worship, but not in general, and he doesn't even bring up images of Christ (is there some historical context I am missing?). I could be misunderstanding, but please correct me if that's the case.

In any case, it seems that Luther is not _willfully_ rejecting the Word of God.


----------



## darrellmaurina

Moireach said:


> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't forget the blue-eyed, blonde haired, caucasian "Christ" pictures that were so common when I was a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! Were you brought up in the 1930s in Germany!?
> I've never heard of that before!
Click to expand...


I saw them often as well.

The original question was how should we respond to people who have images in their homes and churches and see no problem with them.

Pictures of Christ, for me, fall into the same category as expensive organs and high church liturgy. Even if they're not Second Commandment violations, they're at best unnecessary and at worst are temptations to sin. They also may be violating the Ninth Commandment because most of those images of Christ are obviously non-Semitic and in direct violation of several Biblical principles. Jesus almost certainly had short hair and a traditional Jewish beard.

Those are the arguments I make to people who want to have images of Christ.

I prefer to fight on other issues, but the worship in my "ideal church" would look very much like a Covenanter congregation; I agree with Cromwell on smashing the stained glass windows and destroying the statuary and instruments. However, it's hard for me to forget things like the decision of Jonathan Edwards to introduce the Watts hymnal into First Congregational Church of Northhampton, or the Dutch Reformed continuation of the Christological holy days, or the decision of the Dutch government to refuse to allow the removal of organs, instead hiring municipally-paid organists to play the organ before worship services.

I think we need to allow for some level of charity in these matters. Satan's primary line of attack today is not hymnody or stained glass windows, and while I oppose wasting God's money on unnecessary expenses, we have other problems to deal with which are far more critical. I'd much rather fellowship with a conservative 1928 Prayer Book Anglican than with a liberal PC(USA) minister whose beautiful old whitewashed church meetinghouse reflects a theology of the founders no longer shared by the current occupant of the pulpit.


----------



## Goodcheer68

davenporter said:


> Willful - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 1. obstinately and often perversely self-willed
> 2. done deliberately: intentional
> 
> Thankfully, it doesn't look like they've redefined this term yet!



Thanks for the dictionary version, but I was quite aware of that, it was the way in which Mcmahon stated it that was unclear to me. "People who violate the Law of God go to hell." That sounds like anyone ignorant or not, and I don't see the Bible teaching that. And then the next sentenced he then said "willfully disobey" so I just wanted clarification to make sure I am understanding him correctly.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Goodcheer68 said:


> davenporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Willful - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 1. obstinately and often perversely self-willed
> 2. done deliberately: intentional
> 
> Thankfully, it doesn't look like they've redefined this term yet!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the dictionary version, but I was quite aware of that, it was the way in which Mcmahon stated it that was unclear to me. "People who violate the Law of God go to hell." That sounds like anyone ignorant or not, and I don't see the Bible teaching that. And then the next sentenced he then said "willfully disobey" so I just wanted clarification to make sure I am understanding him correctly.
Click to expand...


Patrick,

FYI, "people who violate the Law of God go to hell" is biblically accurate. Any who transgress the Law, death is required of them. Death is both spiritual and physical. Ignorance is not an excuse either. Whether one is ignorant of their sin or not, it's still transgression of God's Law.


----------



## davenporter

Goodcheer68 said:


> davenporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Willful - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 1. obstinately and often perversely self-willed
> 2. done deliberately: intentional
> 
> Thankfully, it doesn't look like they've redefined this term yet!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the dictionary version, but I was quite aware of that, it was the way in which Mcmahon stated it that was unclear to me. "People who violate the Law of God go to hell." That sounds like anyone ignorant or not, and I don't see the Bible teaching that. And then the next sentenced he then said "willfully disobey" so I just wanted clarification to make sure I am understanding him correctly.
Click to expand...


The first part of that sentence Dr. McMahon wrote tells you who goes to hell (all lawbreakers, period, ignorant or no, unless, of course, God justifies them). The second part tells you that those who willfully continue to break one of God's commandments are showing that they are not regenerate. If they are regenerate, they will repent.


----------



## Goodcheer68

Andrew P.C. said:


> FYI, "people who violate the Law of God go to hell" is biblically accurate. Any who transgress the Law, death is required of them. Death is both spiritual and physical. Ignorance is not an excuse either. Whether one is ignorant of their sin or not, it's still transgression of God's Law.



Sorry about not being clear. We were talking about Christians and their violation of the 2nd commandment, so that was what I was assuming when I wrote that. I should have said that it is not Biblical to say that Christians go to hell for violating the law- we do it everyday. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" 1 John 1:8.


----------



## Goodcheer68

davenporter said:


> If they are regenerate, they will repent.


That assumes that they know it to be wrong. In which case I believe they would repent. But what happens if they never come to this belief? Does that mean they are not regenerate?


----------



## davenporter

Goodcheer68 said:


> davenporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are regenerate, they will repent.
> 
> 
> 
> That assumes that they know it to be wrong. In which case I believe they would repent. But what happens if they never come to this belief? Does that mean they are not regenerate?
Click to expand...


We've already answered that, when dealing with "willing" sins. If someone doesn't know something to be wrong, how can they confess it? Yet at the same time, those who love God will love His commandments and keep them -- they will seek to better understand God's Word and abide in Christ.

Also:

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (1 John 2:3-6)


----------



## Goodcheer68

davenporter said:


> We've already answered that, when dealing with "willing" sins. If someone doesn't know something to be wrong, how can they confess it? Yet at the same time, those who love God will love His commandments and keep them -- they will seek to better understand God's Word and abide in Christ.



It doesn't seem that you answered that or at least I am not seeing the answer clearly. There are many who seek to better understand, but will *never* know the truth completely until glorified. This includes coming to understand the Doctrines of Grace, and even the 2nd commandment, yet they are still Christians even if they die not knowing the truth and subsequently sin because of it. Is that wrong to believe?


----------



## davenporter

Goodcheer68 said:


> davenporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've already answered that, when dealing with "willing" sins. If someone doesn't know something to be wrong, how can they confess it? Yet at the same time, those who love God will love His commandments and keep them -- they will seek to better understand God's Word and abide in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem that you answered that or at least I am not seeing the answer clearly. There are many who seek to better understand, but will *never* know the truth completely until glorified. This includes coming to understand the Doctrines of Grace, and even the 2nd commandment, yet they are still Christians even if they die not knowing the truth and subsequently sin because of it. Is that wrong to believe?
Click to expand...


I did answer the question, but I will try to make it clearer. Can someone who is not perfectly sanctified be saved? Absolutely, and that includes someone who doesn't understand the whole Law of God. I imagine I have deficiencies in my understanding of God's Law, and I certainly don't always keep it! But we would do well to heed the tension in the Scriptures, as in the passage I quoted above. We are saved by grace through faith alone -- but saving faith is never alone.

Doctrine in itself doesn't save. The Lord does by regenerating us and granting us faith and repentance. But won't someone who is truly regenerated, who has truly come to know Him, desire to study and meditate upon and keep the commandments of God? Absolutely. We must not seek to lessen that tension, but trust in the effectual salvation that God provides for us.

"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13).

I'm certainly not saying that someone can't be saved unless they understand all the commandments or that salvation is by works. God forbid! But we should be faithful to the Bible. We don't accept easy-believism's "once-prayed-a-prayer-always-saved". We believe in the robust, Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Not this American foolishness where one altar call can give you assurance of salvation. Only Christ can save, His finished work gives us assurance, and He will not leave us wallowing in our sin.


----------



## Goodcheer68

davenporter said:


> I'm certainly not saying that someone can't be saved unless they understand all the commandments or that salvation is by works. God forbid! But we should be faithful to the Bible. We don't accept easy-believism's "once-prayed-a-prayer-always-saved". We believe in the robust, Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Not this American foolishness where one altar call can give you assurance of salvation. Only Christ can save, and He will not leave us wallowing in our sin.



I agree whole-heartily with what you said. However, it just seemed that Mcmahon was saying something else, and would be in question of Sproul's salvation. That is why I asked for clarification of what he believed. Obviously he hasn't replied but thanks for your response

Patrick


----------



## jeclark71

If I may, can I please ask a question concerning this issue. I am new to this topic and just wanted to ask if the commandment was A.) concerning God, or B.) false gods, because it seems like verses 3 and 5 of Exodus 20 are referring to false gods? In Deuteronomy 5:9 God refers to the false gods. Also does not Isaiah 53:1-3 and revelation 1:12 give us a mental picture of Jesus, I mean your mind automatically fills in the image of this description. I am new to this and have had pictures of Jesus and no we do not worship it, but I can see where one can come to the desire to think it represents to true image. I am Just asking to learn a lot of helpful information through out this post thank you.


----------



## davenporter

jeclark71 said:


> If I may, can I please ask a question concerning this issue. I am new to this topic and just wanted to ask if the commandment was A.) concerning God, or B.) false gods, because it seems like verses 3 and 5 of Exodus 20 are referring to false gods? In Deuteronomy 5:9 God refers to the false gods. Also does not Isaiah 53:1-3 and revelation 1:12 give us a mental picture of Jesus, I mean your mind automatically fills in the image of this description. I am new to this and have had pictures of Jesus and no we do not worship it, but I can see where one can come to the desire to think it represents to true image. I am Just asking to learn a lot of helpful information through out this post thank you.



Hey brother,

Here is what the Westminster Larger Catechism has to say about the second commandment:



> 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.



Hope that helps! There is a lot more out there written on the issue, and this discussion has been had on the Puritan Board quite a few times in the past. Here is one thread that may help to start your thinking on this issue.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/do-all-images-Christ-violate-2nd-commandment-59642/


----------



## jeclark71

Thank you Benjamin, I will look into this and thank you for your answer. The London confession asks what is forbidden in the second commandment? Then reads the second commandment forbids the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in His Word and gave Deuteronomy 4:15 and 2 Colossians 2:18. My understanding had been that Deuteronomy was referring to God the Father who is Spirit (John 4:24) who has no equal or physical reference. I will study this more and I thank you for your time in answering this and for the link.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

OPC'n said:


> "... it never fails with mankind that we look upon it as it actually being him and thus it is a graven image."


It is a graven image because it is worked by the hand of men, not because mankind will look upon it as actually being Him. It is a forbidden graven image because it is a represnetation of God in a manner explicitly forbidden. One can not divide the hypostatic union, and images of Christ by their nature cause us to contemplate Christ through visual rather than aural functions which in and of itself is an act of idol worship.

Consider the base pagan. Even they do not claim the Idols of Stone, Metal, Wood, or Paint are the actual gods they worship themselves. These are representations of the gods they worship, made by the hands of men in 2 or 3 demensions, and a definite geographic local. 

we do not say "mankind will look upon a graven image of God as actually being God *therefore* it is a graven image."

we do say: "
*Deuteronomy 4:15-19.* Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. 

*Acts 17:29.* Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 

*Romans 1:21-23, 25.* Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.... Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
"


----------

