# 2nd Commandment, Images of Christ, Calvin



## raydixon9 (Mar 30, 2014)

I confess and adhere to the WCFLC Q109 and I'm not saying there isn't plenty more to look at here but I'm specifically just interested in one aspect of the debate. I'm looking for more information on Calvin's position particularly in light of R.C. Sproul's comments that Calvin allowed for artistic depictions of Christ's human nature. During a Q & A session the relevant conversation begins about 45 minutes into the first video and Sprouls comments come about 49 minutes into it. My questions specifically:

1. Will anyone please point me to Calvin's thoughts about this?

2. I really interested in how Calvin decided to separate Christ's two natures so that one might even allow this. Is it even possible to separate them in this way? 

Thanks.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Mar 30, 2014)

I think a helpful place to start is Calvin's Institutes. 1.11-12. Also, volume 2 of his Harmony of the Law commentary, particularly his exposition of the second commandment, might give you a sense of Calvin's thoughts on the subject. I have read nothing that confirms Sproul's remarks, but Calvin does make plain that he is not against all images. For example, 1.11§12:



> I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and painting are gifts of God, what I insist for is, that both shall be used purely and lawfully,—that gifts which the Lord has bestowed upon us, for his glory and our good, shall not be preposterously abused, nay, shall not be perverted to our destruction. We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God, because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 31, 2014)

Ryan, is Calvin saying there that pictures or paintings of people (not God/Jesus) are okay, but to give visible shape to God is unlawful?


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 31, 2014)

If the Lord wanted us to know what he looked like there would be examples of such in the Word. The only one, be it symbolic, is in Revelation and surprise, its never used. All depictions of Christ are from mans vain imagination.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 31, 2014)

It is quite strange that RC holds to such a view. If he confesses the WCF, wouldn't this be a violation of such a confession?


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 31, 2014)

Andrew, no. R.C. has long held odd views on the 2nd and 4th commandment.

For instance at the building where he pastors, there is a large 2nd comm. violation.


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 31, 2014)

Dr. Sproul has been used greatly of God in many areas, but worship (along with the 2nd and 4th commandment issues) are the areas where I fear his own non-confessional views have negatively influenced many who have come to the Reformed faith over the past twenty years. I've never heard him even mention the regulative principle and as has already been mentioned his church building (while beautiful in a certain sense) hardly reflects the theology of the Reformers.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 31, 2014)

Yet he is well familiar with the reformers and their theology? I find his claim quite odd that calvin allowed for images. But he makes a distinction when he makes such a claim.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk


----------



## earl40 (Mar 31, 2014)

Maybe I'll ask RC JR. He is on facebook and he might have the reference you asked for.


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 31, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> Dr. Sproul has been used greatly of God in many areas, but worship (along with the 2nd and 4th commandment issues) are the areas where I fear his own non-confessional views have negatively influenced many who have come to the Reformed faith over the past twenty years. I've never heard him even mention the regulative principle and as has already been mentioned his church building (while beautiful in a certain sense) hardly reflects the theology of the Reformers.



On a slightly different topic, I've never been able to figure out why it was thought appropriate in 18th century Scottish churches to have a carved image of a dove over the sounding board of the pulpit, in churches that were otherwise very Reformed. Take, for example, Little Dunkeld church, where my father worships (in the winter; the Cathedral is too cold). It's a beautiful puritan style church constructed in 1798:

Sacred Scotland - Scotland's Churches Scheme

Yet over the pulpit there is a carved dove, presumably representing the work of the Spirit in applying the Word preached. Nor was this just in Scotland. According to Robert Halley, Lancashire: Its Puritanism and Nonconformity (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1869) 2.297: "Although the sign of the cross in any form was intolerable, occasionally on the sounding board of a 'brave pulpit' was carved a dove with an olive leaf in her bill". He is neither commending nor rebuking this trend in 18th century dissenter churches in his area; merely recording it. Can anyone explain how this is not a breach of the second commandment - in churches that appear to take such things very seriously? Thoughts?


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 31, 2014)

I've no idea. 

I've attended many Free Church and Free Presbyterian Churches and not seen a dove. I can only imagine that some are more particular about this than others.

Maybe they took it as representing the blessing of the Holy Spirt on the Word preached, rather than being a direct representation of the Spirit Himself (?)


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford (Mar 31, 2014)

Sproul Sr. in his first live Ask RC video used the example of the Cherubim to justify art in places of worship and related it with his legitimizing purported representations of the Lord Jesus.

In contrast, Calvin said, Institutes, Vol. 1, Chp. 11:



> It is perfectly clear that those who try to defend images of God and the saints with the example of those cherubim are raving madmen.



Many more selections from Calvin could be added than what is below, but please compare:

From Calvin's Sermons on Deuteronomy:



> The setting up of images in churches, is a defiling . . . By and by, folk go and kneel down to it. . . . The Papists . . . paint and portray ‘Jesus Christ’ - Who (as we know) is not only man but also God manifested in the flesh. He is God’s eternal Son, in Whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells - yes, even substantially . . . Should we have portraitures and images, whereby only the flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ - that is, to wit, of His Divine Majesty? Yes!
> 
> And therefore, whensoever a crucifix stands moping and mowing in the church - it is all one as if the Devil had defaced the Son of God. You see, then, that the Papists are destitute of all excuse . . . They abuse their puppets and pictures, after that fashion.



Calvin's commentary on Exodus 32:4:



> It was a disgraceful thing to prostrate themselves before a calf, in which there was no connection or affinity with the glory of God; and with this the Prophet expressly reproaches them, that “they changed their glory (i. e. , God, in whom alone they should have gloried) into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass.” (Psalm 106:20.) *For, if it be insulting to God to force Him into the likeness of men*, with how much greater and more inexcusable ignominy is His majesty defiled, when He is compared to brute animals? Still it had no effect towards bringing them to repentance; and this is expressed with much force immediately afterwards, when they said to each other, “These be thy gods, O Israel.” Surely the hideousness of the spectacle should have struck them with horror, so as to induce them voluntarily to condemn their own madness; but, on the contrary, they mutually exhort one another to obstinacy; for there is no doubt but that Moses indicates that they were like fans to each other, and thus that their frenzy was reciprocally excited.



Calvin's commentary on Psalm 106:



> It is necessary, however, to observe the design of the prophet, which is to point out the blindness of men as more base and abominable, because not contenting themselves with any common form of superstition, but casting off all shame they give themselves up to the most shocking forms of worshipping God. *Had the people formed for themselves a likeness of God under the likeness of a man, even that would have been impiously robbing God of his due*; how much more shameful was their conduct when they assimilated God to an ox?



Calvin's commentary on Isaiah 44:15:



> In cooking their victuals, and in other conveniences, men perceive that the wood is subject to their control and devoted to their use; how comes it then that they bow down before a piece of wood that has *the shape of a man?* Is not God in this maimer robbed of his right? And when men call upon images, do they not defraud God of that sacrifice which he chiefly demands?



Calvin's commentary on Romans 1:23:



> The madness then here noticed, is, that all attempted to make for themselves an image of God; which was a certain proof that their notions of God were gross and absurd. And, first, *they befouled the majesty of God by forming him in the likeness of a corruptible man*: for I prefer this rendering to that of mortal man, which is adopted by Erasmus; for Paul sets not the immortality of God in opposition to the mortality of man, but that glory, which is subject to no defects, to the most wretched condition of man. And then, being not satisfied with so great a crime, they descended even to beasts and to those of the most filthy kind; by which their stupidity appeared still more evident. You may see an account of these abominations in Lactantius, in Eusebius, and in Augustine in his book on the city of God.



Calvin's commentary on John 20:29:



> There were many unbelievers who, at that time, beheld Christ with the eyes of flesh, and yet were not more blessed on that account; but we, who have never beheld Christ with the eyes, enjoy that blessedness of which Christ speaks with commendation. Hence it follows, that he calls those eyes blessed which spiritually behold in him what is heavenly and divine; for we now behold Christ in the Gospel in the same manner as if he visibly stood before us. In this sense Paul says to the Galatians, (Galatians 3:1,) that Christ was crucified before their eyes; and, therefore, *if we desire to see in Christ what may render us happy and blessed, let us learn to believe, when we do not see.* To these words of Christ corresponds what is stated in another passage, in which the Apostle commends believers, who
> 
> love Christ whom they have not seen, and rejoice with unspeakable joy, though they do not behold him.
> (1 Peter 1:8.)



Calvin's commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:24:



> Leave to Christ the true nature of flesh, and do not, by a mistaken apprehension, extend his body over heaven and earth: do not divide him into different parts by thy fancies, and do not adore him in this place and that, according to thy carnal apprehension. Allow him to remain in his heavenly glory, and aspire thou thither, that he may thence communicate himself to thee. These few things will satisfy those that are sound and modest.



Calvin's commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:7:



> (Εἰδος) I have here rendered aspectum, (sight,) because few understood the meaning of the word species, (appearance). He states the reason, why it is that we are now absent from the Lord - because *we do not as yet see him face to face.* (1Corinthians 13:12.) The manner of that absence is this - that *God is not openly beheld by us. The reason why he is not seen by us is, that we walk by faith Now it is on good grounds that faith is opposed to sight, because it, perceives those things that are hid from the view of men - because it reaches forth to future things, which do not as yet appear.* For such is the condition of believers, that they resemble the dead rather than the living - that they often seem as if they were forsaken by God - that they always have the elements of death shut up within them. Hence they must necessarily hope against hope. (Romans 4:18.) Now the things that are hoped for are hid, as we read in Romans 8:24, and faith is the
> 
> manifestation of things which do not appear.
> (Hebrews 11:1.)
> ...



Calvin's commentary on Colossians 1:15:



> God in himself, that is, in his naked majesty, is invisible, and that not to the eyes of the body merely, but also to the understandings of men, and that *he is revealed to us in Christ alone*, that we may behold him as in a mirror. For in Christ he shews us his righteousness, goodness, wisdom, power, in short, his entire self. *We must, therefore, beware of seeking him elsewhere, for everything that would set itself off as a representation of God, apart from Christ, will be an idol.*



Calvin's commentary on Hebrews 6:19:



> 19. As an anchor, etc. It is a striking likeness when he compares faith leaning on God’s word to an anchor; for doubtless, as long as we sojourn in this world, we stand not on firm ground, but are tossed here and there as it were in the midst of the sea, and that indeed very turbulent; for Satan is incessantly stirring up innumerable storms, which would immediately upset and sink our vessel, were we not to cast our anchor fast in the deep. For nowhere a haven appears to our eyes, but wherever we look water alone is in view; yea, waves also arise and threaten us; but as the anchor is cast through the waters into a dark and unseen place, and while it lies hid there, keeps the vessel beaten by the waves from being overwhelmed; so must our hope be fixed on the invisible God. There is this difference, - the anchor is cast downwards into the sea, for it has the earth as its bottom; but our hope rises upwards and soars aloft, for in the world it finds nothing on which it can stand, nor ought it to cleave to created things, but to rest on God alone. As the cable also by which the anchor is suspended joins the vessel with the earth through a long and dark intermediate space, so the truth of God is a bond to connect us with himself, so that no distance of place and no darkness can prevent us from cleaving to him. Thus when united to God, though we must struggle with continual storms, we are yet beyond the peril of shipwreck. Hence he says, that this anchor is sure and steadfast, or safe and firm. It may indeed be that by the violence of the waves the anchor may be plucked off, or the cable be broken, or the beaten ship be torn to pieces. This happens on the sea; but the power of God to sustain us is wholly different, and so also is the strength of hope and the firmness of his word.
> 
> Which entereth into that, or those things, etc. As we have said, until faith reaches to God, it finds nothing but what is unstable and evanescent; it is hence necessary for it to penetrate even into heaven. But as the Apostle is speaking to the Jews, he alludes to the ancient Tabernacle, and says, that *they ought not to abide in those things which are seen, but to penetrate into the inmost recesses, which lie hid within the veil, as though he had said, that all the external and ancient figures and shadows were to be passed over, in order that faith might be fixed on Christ alone.
> 
> And carefully ought this reasoning to be observed, - that as Christ has entered into heaven, so faith ought to be directed there also: for we are hence taught that faith should look nowhere else. And doubtless it is in vain for man to seek God in his own majesty, for it is too far removed from them; but Christ stretches forth his hand to us, that he may lead us to heaven.* And this was shadowed forth formerly under the Law; for the high priest entered the holy of holies, not in his own name only, but also in that of the people, inasmuch as he bare in a manner the twelve tribes on his breast and on his shoulders; for as a memorial for them twelve stones were wrought on the breastplate, and on the two onyx stones on his shoulders were engraved their names, so that in the person of one man all entered into the sanctuary together. Rightly then does the Apostle speak, when he reminds them that our high priest has entered into heaven; for he has not entered only for himself, but also for us. There is therefore no reason to fear that access to heaven will be closed up against our faith, as it is never disjoined from Christ. And as it becomes us to follow Christ who is gone before, he is therefore called our Forerunner, or precursor.


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford (Mar 31, 2014)

iainduguid said:


> On a slightly different topic, I've never been able to figure out why it was thought appropriate in 18th century Scottish churches to have a carved image of a dove over the sounding board of the pulpit, in churches that were otherwise very Reformed. Take, for example, Little Dunkeld church, where my father worships (in the winter; the Cathedral is too cold). It's a beautiful puritan style church constructed in 1798:
> 
> Sacred Scotland - Scotland's Churches Scheme
> 
> Yet over the pulpit there is a carved dove, presumably representing the work of the Spirit in applying the Word preached. Nor was this just in Scotland. According to Robert Halley, Lancashire: Its Puritanism and Nonconformity (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1869) 2.297: "Although the sign of the cross in any form was intolerable, occasionally on the sounding board of a 'brave pulpit' was carved a dove with an olive leaf in her bill". He is neither commending nor rebuking this trend in 18th century dissenter churches in his area; merely recording it. Can anyone explain how this is not a breach of the second commandment - in churches that appear to take such things very seriously? Thoughts?



I would like to clarify that "a dove with an olive leaf in her bill" is not usually intended to be a representation of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, but rather Noah's dove: 



> And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.


 (Genesis 8:11)

Calvin's Institutes, I.xi.3: 



> The Holy Spirit appeared under the form of a dove, but as it instantly vanished, who does not see that in this symbol of a moment, the faithful were admonished to regard the Spirit as invisible, to be contented with his power and grace, and not call for any external figure?



God was pleased to have an extraordinary visible presence of the Person of the Holy Spirit at Jesus' baptism. However, the rule of our actions is the word of God. The making of any image (symbolical or otherwise) of God is forbidden in Scripture. I don't believe men are to represent God by the likeness of anything that is in Heaven above (e.g. Birds). Compare Deut. 4:16-17, 



> Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flieth in the heavens,



and the Apostle Paul's remarks against the practice of the heathen in Romans 1:23, 



> And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like [...] to birds."



Making images of God the Holy Spirit is how pagans worship. John Gill observes in his commentary that the Samaritans and the Assyrians both used images of doves in their worship. Gill also comments, "The Jews say, that the idol Jacob hid under the oak was in the form of a dove, which the Samaritans after some time found, and set it on the top of Mount Gerizim." It was noted by another author that people convert the visible sign of the Holy Spirit at Jesus' baptism to certify to a fact into a standing idol—in violation of the letter, if not of the spirit, of the Second Commandment. Grace Family Baptist Church also comments Likewise, to portray the Holy Spirit as a dove is idolatrous, it is impiety and madness for man to create images of them – those which are unseen and unseeable. That the Spirit is portrayed as dove in the gospels no more give man warrant to do so than if we were to make an image of God the Father because we find Scripture telling us of His hands, arms, wings, and the like. Calvary Chapel uses a dove as its logo." http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/media/filer/2011/11/15/2nd_-_part_1.pdf 

George Wotherspoon observed that we shouldn't give the name of the Holy Spirit to an image: 



> It is surely a species of mad idolatry to form a graven image or a painting of a pigeon, and call it by the name of the Holy Spirit of God.


----------



## MW (Mar 31, 2014)

iainduguid said:


> On a slightly different topic, I've never been able to figure out why it was thought appropriate in 18th century Scottish churches to have a carved image of a dove over the sounding board of the pulpit, in churches that were otherwise very Reformed.



When Thomas Boston discussed second commandment prohibitions he specifically mentioned the dove to represent the Holy Spirit which was printed in some Bibles.


----------



## Pastor Joe V (Mar 31, 2014)

This is an interesting discussion. I published a brief article on images and the 2nd Commandment on my blog last night, if anyone here may find it helpful.

Why Did John Calvin and the Reformers Forbid All Images of the Divine Persons? | Veritas Dei Lux Mea (God's Truth Is My Light)


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 31, 2014)

All images, whether they be to represent the Godhead, Jesus or the Holy Spirit are a violation. What can we liken God to? Acts 17 v 29. John said he saw the Holy Spirit descend "like" a dove. Are we to assume from this that the Holy Spirit looks like a dove and represent Him as one? Or was this a symbolic representation such as Jesus in Revelation? That we are not to make any likeness would indicate symbolic.


----------

