# Movies about Jesus violate 2nd commandment?



## shackleton

I have been reading commentaries on the WCF and catechisms that pertain to the 2nd commandment. Now I am wondering if according the these documents, movies about Jesus and especially pictures, are a violation of the 2nd Commandment. 

If they are, what should we do with movies like the Passion that _seemed_ to do some good for evangelism? 
What about bible tracts and Sunday School material? 
What about any paintings that give an artists rendition of stories of the bible that pertain to Jesus? 

One I read said that thinking about Jesus was a violation of the 2nd commandment. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

shackleton said:


> One I read said that thinking about Jesus was a violation of the 2nd commandment.
> Any thoughts?


I guess you mean one work said visualizing Jesus in our mind was wrong, which is correct. I can't imagine any Christian saying we can't think about Jesus, period. Visualizing Christ in our mind in some image as well as physical representations are unlawful per the second commandment as WLC 109 says: 


> Q109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment, are, all devising, (a) counselling, (b) commanding, (c) using (d) and anyways approving any religious worship not instituted by God himself; (e) tolerating a false religion; (f) *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, (g) all worshipping of it,* (h) or God in it, or by it; (i) the making of any representation of feigned deities, (k) and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; (l) all superstitious devices, (m) corrupting the worship of God, (n) adding to it, taking from it, (o) whether invented and taken up of ourselves, (p) or received by tradition from others, (q) though under the title of antiquity, (r) custom, (s) devotion, (t) good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; (u) simony, (w) sacrilege, (x) all neglect, (y) contempt, (z) hindering, (a) and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed. (b)
> 
> 
> a NUM 15:39
> b DEU 13:6-8
> c HOS 5:11; MIC 6:16
> d 1KI 12:33
> e DEU 12:30-32
> f DEU 13:6-12; ZEC 13:2-3; REV 2:2, 14-15, 20; REV 17:12, 16-17
> g DEU 4:15-19; ACT 17:29; ROM 1:21-23, 25
> h DAN 3:18; GAL 4:8
> i EXO 32:5
> k EXO 32:8
> l 1KI 18:26, 28; ISA 65:11
> m ACT 17:22; COL 2:21-23
> n MAL 1:7-8, 14
> o DEU 4:2
> p PSA 106:39
> q MAT 15:9
> r 1PE 1:18
> s JER 44:17
> t ISA 65:3-5; GAL 1:13-14
> u 1SA 13:11-12; 1SA 15:21
> w ACT 8:18
> x ROM 2:22; MAL 3:8
> y EXO 4:24-26
> z MAT 22:5; MAL 1:7, 13
> a MAT 23:13
> b ACT 13:44-45; 1TH 2:15-16

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## christiana

I well remember when they first started to make 'biblical' movies. I was horrified that anyone, even in Hollywood would presume to make a movie about the bible or to ever consider an actor playing the part of Christ! Such travesty, blasphemy.
We have progressively become desensitized as the frog in the boiling pan of water! All such is so common place today and no one seems offended anymore.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Yep. Or as Thomas Vincent says: 


> It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all, and because his body, as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is, and because, if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment. _Exposition of the Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism._


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Yea, sorry, the patent was already filed on that one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DMcFadden

I've heard of the Texarkana Swamp Monster and the Texarkana Phantom Killer and even Texarkana Ross Perot. But low-down horse-thieving puritan-plagiarizing hicks, now that's a new one.


----------



## Bladestunner316

I wholeheartedly agree any image of the so called Christ we see depicted is a violation of the 2nd commandment.


----------



## Davidius

If images of Christ are a violation of the 2nd commandment then it is certainly sinful to visualize Him in our minds. We know this from His teachings on the Law in Matthew 5. Committing adultery with a woman in our heart would be likened to visualizing Christ in our mind.


----------



## javajedi

shackleton said:


> I
> What about bible tracts and Sunday School material?



Great Commission Publications (PCA/OPC) does not have images of Jesus in their Sunday School materials for this reason.


----------



## SouthernHero

I agree that it is a violation of the 2nd commandment. Movies and pictures and such are also all so catholic that I shudder... However, what a challenge it is after being inundated with constant "pictures" of Christ, not to picture Him at times... We should set our minds like flint not to, though.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> One I read said that thinking about Jesus was a violation of the 2nd commandment.



Meditating upon Christ is not a violation of the Second Commandment, but thinking on a self-imagined picture of the Lord is. Remember you cannot know if the "picture" of Christ is an accurate portrayl...and it probably is not.


----------



## tcalbrecht

shackleton said:


> I have been reading commentaries on the WCF and catechisms that pertain to the 2nd commandment. Now I am wondering if according the these documents, movies about Jesus and especially pictures, are a violation of the 2nd Commandment.
> 
> If they are, what should we do with movies like the Passion that _seemed_ to do some good for evangelism?
> What about bible tracts and Sunday School material?
> What about any paintings that give an artists rendition of stories of the bible that pertain to Jesus?
> 
> One I read said that thinking about Jesus was a violation of the 2nd commandment.
> 
> Any thoughts?



I recall when _The Passion_ came out there were many congregations in the PCA that advertised it, and even sponsored group viewings for members and friends. I also recall that there were many pastors that denounced the film from the pulpit on 2nd commandment grounds. Talk about a confusing message. (I think in large measure the confusion has resulted from the "joining and receiving" of the RPCES into the PCA.)

In my congregation at the time I shared some of these "anti-" sermons with members and friends. I got a positive reaction from all the people who spoke with me about it. The only negative reaction I got was from the Session who said, 1) how dare you offer these opinions, and b) why didn’t you balance it with sermons from the other side. The Session didn’t take a position even though there was a lot of buzz within the congregation. I never did understand if they were offended because I would expose the congregation to a confessional/biblical argument why such movies are not a good idea, or if I jumped the gun and stirred things up. I received no negative feedback, except from certain Session members, some of whom I’m sure are in the "images of Jesus are OK as long as we don’t worship them" camp.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'm going to try to put this succinctly, to say what has already been said, just different words.

Jesus "in the flesh" was a veiling of his divine glory. It was the blessing of the disciples and those others who saw the Lord THEN (as we will LATER) to take what they were given and to see _through_ the veil and commune with GOD through the Lord. Don't miss this: Jesus came to "show us the Father," his incarnation was to *reveal divinity*. What do we think John means when he said "we beheld his GLORY"?

The utter, total failure of any and all pictures, images, etc. of Jesus is that they CANNOT do this critical thing: they cannot reveal GOD to us, to our minds. They merely show us _how in some man's mind *Jesus is like him!*_ But that is the OPPOSITE of why Jesus came to earth, and took on flesh! He became like us SO THAT (purpose) we should be like him, as like him as creatures can be. And I can say that while in no way denying that he came to DIE in that flesh like we ought to have under the curse of judgment.

We will one day--when our own bodies are glorified, be ABLE to see him as he is, and will see him each one for himself. And we will, as the disciples did, be seeing him not do much for the manner in which we have become like him in glorified bodies, but how DIFFERENT he still is from us, even then. We will be penetrating with our now glorified eyes beyond to see so far as we are enabled to more of the glory of the Father.

This is how our Bible functions. It isn't filled with pictures of Jesus. What it presents to us of him, especially when we read the gospels, when they are preached to us (not exclusively of course) is Jesus. And as we read of him, we are not given the LIBERAL's Jesus, a great MAN, the BEST MAN EVER. NO! God is showing us HIS revelation, this is the DIVINE one! We are encountering GOD. In other words, in the Bible we are encountering that Divine One as well or BETTER than the disciples did! Dare I say that? Well, that is what Peter says! 2 Pet. 1:17-19.

It has always Always! ALWAYS!! been the essence of idolatry to bring God down to our level, to represent him as LIKE us in some way. Same with these movies. They are NOT (the Bible says they CAN'T, so I don't care what anybody else CLAIMS) lifting our minds up to the divine, and to the extent we act as though they are, we are worshipping according to idols.

"Little children, keep yourselves from idols." 1 John 5:21


----------



## Poimen

Preach it brother!


----------



## etexas

How do we avoid a picture of Christ in our minds???? I don't really try to, at times when I read the Gospels....I can almost "picture" Christ talking to the Apostles. Like I say....it is not deliberate...it just happens. Am I alone here???? (I would like to add I am not advocating a mental image thing......I am just a bit curious if others have this happen.)


----------



## SouthernHero

Right on, Contra.


----------



## toddpedlar

shackleton said:


> I have been reading commentaries on the WCF and catechisms that pertain to the 2nd commandment. Now I am wondering if according the these documents, movies about Jesus and especially pictures, are a violation of the 2nd Commandment.
> 
> If they are, what should we do with movies like the Passion that _seemed_ to do some good for evangelism?



Some people become Christians after first being evangelized by the Mormons.

Should we encourage Mormon missions as a means of Christian evangelism? The end NEVER justifies the means...


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, how can we read the Gospels and not imagine the activities as happening?


If it says that Jesus wept, we have a picture of a weeping man. If we say that they plucked out Jesus' beard then we picture him with a beard. It is impossible not to picture a bearded man getting his beard plucked. 




Also, a question about the PCA: They follow the WCF too, right? Their pastors must pledge to uphold it too, right? Do they interpret the 2nd commandment differently and is this permissible or should they all be defrocked who even so much as watch the Jesus film?



Ha, another observation: This assertion that the Jesus evangelistic film is idolatry puts watching it a worse evil than watching P_rn. That doesn't make sense.



As well, whenever we make a picture of ANYTHING we only picture its physical aspects. In photographs of me, my soul cannot be pictured, thus is this a travesty since a photo can never picture my spiritual self?



Also, why can we make graven images of animals and flowers and people but not God per the Decalogue. It says everything under heaven in heaven, etc? It seems to prohibit any representational art en toto. 



Does not the Decalogue forbid graven images of anything for the sake of worship? I.e. we are not to bown before them? My parents have a yard gnome....is this idolatry?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This is not an answer, of which I think there is one that starts to but could be elaborated, but the material is not online any longer, except to say, many assume everyone thinks pictorially or necessarily does and that it is uncontrollable. I know two men who say they do not think pictorially. I know another minister who was convicted of this very thing regarding visualizing Christ and trained himself not to do that. I throw that out for what it is worth; anecdotal to be sure.



etexas said:


> How do we avoid a picture of Christ in our minds???? I don't really try to, at times when I read the Gospels....I can almost "picture" Christ talking to the Apostles. Like I say....it is not deliberate...it just happens. Am I alone here???? (I would like to add I am not advocating a mental image thing......I am just a bit curious if others have this happen.)





Pergamum said:


> Yes, how can we read the Gospels and not imagine the activities as happening?
> 
> 
> If it says that Jesus wept, we have a picture of a weeping man. If we say that they plucked out Jesus' beard then we picture him with a beard. It is impossible not to picture a bearded man getting his beard plucked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, a question about the PCA: They follow the WCF too, right? Their pastors must pledge to uphold it too, right? Do they interpret the 2nd commandment differently and is this permissible or should they all be defrocked who even so much as watch the Jesus film?
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, another observation: This assertion that the Jesus evangelistic film is idolatry puts watching it a worse evil than watching P_rn. That doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> As well, whenever we make a picture of ANYTHING we only picture its physical aspects. In photographs of me, my soul cannot be pictured, thus is this a travesty since a photo can never picture my spiritual self?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, why can we make graven images of animals and flowers and people but not God per the Decalogue. It says everything under heaven in heaven, etc? It seems to prohibit any representational art en toto.
> 
> 
> 
> Does not the Decalogue forbid graven images of anything for the sake of worship? I.e. we are not to bown before them? My parents have a yard gnome....is this idolatry?


----------



## Iconoclast

etexas said:


> How do we avoid a picture of Christ in our minds???? I don't really try to, at times when I read the Gospels....I can almost "picture" Christ talking to the Apostles. Like I say....it is not deliberate...it just happens. Am I alone here???? (I would like to add I am not advocating a mental image thing......I am just a bit curious if others have this happen.)



We are given in the book of Revelation,a slight glimpse of what John saw:
13And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 

14His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 

15And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 

16And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. 

17And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 

18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. 

We are given the Lord's supper to remember him by, but Peter spoke to the non eyewitness 's this,

8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

Unlike the false teachers of today who claim to see Him.


----------



## Pergamum

Hmm..everytime Peter remembered back to a visual memory of Jesus breaking the bread was he sinning? Our memories always change after all. And he IS making a visual representation of Christ (even if better informed than ours).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> Hmm..everytime Peter remembered back to a visual memory of Jesus breaking the bread was he sinning? Our memories always change after all. And he IS making a visual representation of Christ (even if better informed than ours).




No, because Peter would have been remembering what Christ actually looked like during His humiliation; we cannot however, do the same, as we have not actually seen Christ with our eyes, therefore, mental images of Him are our own inventions.


----------



## Pergamum

Ah, but we never remember exactly right and we recreate our memories. After 20 years we begin remembering an illusion and this illusion would therefore become an image not rooted to reality.


And what's with John in Revelation temptingus to sin? A man with white woolen hair and a girdle.... If mentally imagining this is sin, then why would the inspired holy writers tempt by evoking such imagery?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> Ah, but we never remember exactly right and we recreate our memories. After 20 years we begin remembering an illusion and this illusion would therefore become an image not rooted to reality.
> 
> 
> And what's with John in Revelation temptingus to sin? A man with white woolen hair and a girdle.... If mentally imagining this is sin, then why would the inspired holy writers tempt by evoking such imagery?




So are you saying that our mental images are actually an accurate picture of Christ?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Moreover another question those advocating movies about Jesus have to answer is how can any man pretend to be the Lord Jesus Christ without violating the second commandment?

I am not saying that acting is wrong when you are pretending to be Napoleon or Cromwell etc, but for a sinful man to pretend to be the sinless Son of God is surely going too far.


----------



## thekingsknight

The Truth About Images of Jesus and the Second Commandment
by Justin Griffin



Excellent! Take up & read.



The book can be purchased here, but I ordered it from amazon 



Tate Publishing - Your Christian Book Publishing Company, The New Author Book Publisher



The following are "online" studies



http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jus_griffin/jus_griffin.imagesofjesus1.html



http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jus_griffin/jus_griffin.imagesofjesus2.html



http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jus_griffin/jus_griffin.imagesofjesus3.html



http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jus_griffin/jus_griffin.imagesofjesus4.html



http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jus_griffin/jus_griffin.imagesofjesus5.html


----------



## Amazing Grace

Pergamum said:


> Ah, but we never remember exactly right and we recreate our memories. After 20 years we begin remembering an illusion and this illusion would therefore become an image not rooted to reality.
> 
> 
> And what's with John in Revelation temptingus to sin? A man with white woolen hair and a girdle.... If mentally imagining this is sin, then why would the inspired holy writers tempt by evoking such imagery?



"You shall not make for yourself a 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; *you shall not bow down to them or serve them*; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6 RSV)


Isnt this qualified by the phrase after the semi colon? If no punctuation was used, then I alwas thought we are not to bow down to anything..

Would these be considered graven images that God actually commanded to be made?

Exodus 25:16-20, 26:1, 31:

16 And you shall put into the ark the testimony which I shall give you. 17: Then you shall make a mercy seat of pure gold; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. 18: And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19: Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20: The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.

26:1 1: "Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen and blue and purple and scarlet stuff; with cherubim skillfully worked shall you make them….31: "And you shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet stuff and fine twined linen; in skilled work shall it be made, with cherubim; 


Numbers 21:7-9:

7: And the people came to Moses, and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. 8: And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." , 9: So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.


----------



## JBaldwin

I struggled with this issue years ago while I was still steeped in fundamentalism. One of the evangelistic tools our mission used was the "Jesus" film. It really bothered me. It seemed a bit confusing to violate one command while sharing the gospel. 




> Also, a question about the PCA: They follow the WCF too, right? Their pastors must pledge to uphold it too, right? Do they interpret the 2nd commandment differently and is this permissible or should they all be defrocked who even so much as watch the Jesus film?



Having been in the PCA for some time, I can say that for some reason, this particular issue is up for grabs even within the same presbytery. Not only that, I've seen the same pastor promote the "Jesus" film and reject the "Passion". 


When it comes to personal worship, I think we can all be guilty of idolatry from time to time. Even if we don't conjure up an image of God or Christ in our minds, we come up with all sorts of ideas of what we think He is like and begin to worship that. In the end, our hearts are wicked and deceitful, and we need His grace to worship Him rightly.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Peter's memory of Jesus (which thing is only presented to us in words not images, and in the "collective consciousness" of the gospel-record), whatever it amounted to, had the unique-to-him quality of reminding him of his Divine-encounter. Of his conversations with God, of his walks "in the garden in the cool of the day," communing with God-in-the-flesh. When our memories achieve the same thing, I think it will be OK for us to cherish them too.

*If it is a sin* to create a "vision" of Christ based on John's Rev. 1 imagery (arguably very not-literal, the pieces/parts of which are meant to convey information and not a picture), *then, we really can't blame John for our abuse of Scripture.* It is not to the purpose to say "I'm not going to call it sin, because John must have wanted us to envision Jesus ourselves according to this description." One's conviction regarding the sin will determine whether we attempt to recreate any such picture, and whether we think of any such picture recreated AS the Jesus whom John saw and we worship.

My caution, as stated previously, is that in reenvisioning the words as a picture, we are taking created things and attempting to "see" God thereby. _How is that different from any instance of idolatry in the Bible or outside it?_ If we aren't attempting literally to "see God" by it, what are we doing with our picture? Seeing Jesus' humanity? OK, now we are in Nestorian waters; we are dividing up the Person, and furthermore using our "look" at him to "show us ourselves" rather than him "showing us the Father."

There is lots of other imagery in Revelation. The Lamb Slain. Do we attempt to envision that, and think "there, that picture is revealing God to me"? That which reveals God inspires devotion. The images we might create could come from every page of the Bible. Must be OK, right? It seems quite absurd to me, on these principles, not to see continuity between private mental images and filling our churches, front yards, rearview mirrors, and every other place with "biblically inspired images".

If I am correct, and there is no discontinuity, then suddenly the absolute prohibition of images under which to worship God makes perfect sense. We are to abolish the first form of it we recognize. And go back to earlier forms and abolish those. We must be iconoclasts from first to last, starting in our minds and hearts.

As I close, it comes to mind that there might be a question about the Bible as an object--since the Bible reveals God, is it an object of worship? Can it be an IDOL? It is possible to abuse the Bible, IF it is treated as an OBJECT. If it is used contrary to its AUTHORIZED purpose. The leather, paper, glue and ink of a book is no object of worship. But let me say this: _an OPEN Bible, that is: the moment of comprehension, the medium and message of Christ, *being read*, is indeed a thing of worship to the heart of faith._ Can you doubt it? Is it not the Divinity, Christ the Word, the Speaker, who is being revealed?

Ruining a Bible is not a sin; tragic maybe, costly perhaps; but an unintentional loss. But what was the sin of Jehoiakim, Jer. 36:23? It was hatred of the Word of the Lord. It was folly. It was irreverence of the highest (or lowest) degree. The vellum and ink were nothing. But cutting it and burning it was nonetheless an act of utmost sacrilege, as v24 to the end of the chapter indicates. The Bible is not a THING of worship, but reading it or hearing it read or preached renders its content--the message--a THING of worship.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The 2nd commandment prohibition has to do with the *right worship of God*. It has nothing whatever to do with the making of art, drawing of pictures, carving statues, dreaming, mental pictures in general, etc.

Regarding God-authorized forms of worship, i.e. tabernacle:

1st, a note on the brasen serpent: please note not merely Numbers 21, but also 2 Kings 18:4. The purpose of the serpent had been perverted.

Now then, 
if God placed a symbol, object, pomegranate, cherubim, whatever in his Temple, then it had a divinely authorized purpose, and had to be used as such. Perhaps it was only there for beauty. It was not a thing under which to reveal God himself, or which should inspire worship.

It should also be remembered that the excessive (I uses that term guardedly) pomp of the Temple service was deliberate by God, as that which should *obscure*, or VEIL under the OT administration. God tells us in the NT that the law was meant as further blindness to those who were perishing (see 2 Cor. 3). These were types and shadows, and needed eventually to be removed for the better edification of God's people at the times of fulfillment.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Pergamum said:


> Ah, but we never remember exactly right and we recreate our memories. After 20 years we begin remembering an illusion and this illusion would therefore become an image not rooted to reality.



The grounds given for the wisdom behind God's forbidding of us making any kind of images (including mental) is that the Israelites had not seen God: "Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth" (Deut. 4:15-18). But the apostles *had* seen Jesus, and so their memory of him is at least not one purely and simply conjured up by them, but is based on what they saw; and even though their physical brains would not have been able to _perfectly_ remember every detail because of their fallen bodies, the same is even true of their physical eyes and receptors even when they saw Him in person. Yet the explained basis for the commandment given in Deuteronomy 4 is *not* "since you could not perfectly perceive every detail of the form you saw," but rather "since you saw *no form*." But that basis was not the case for the apostles with respect to Jesus.



Pergamum said:


> And what's with John in Revelation temptingus to sin? A man with white woolen hair and a girdle.... If mentally imagining this is sin, then why would the inspired holy writers tempt by evoking such imagery?



As with so much imagery in Scripture, wouldn't a possibility be that it is simply there to communicate certain analogous things that the descriptions would symbolize, e.g. purity, age and wisdom from the woolen hair, etc.?



Amazing Grace said:


> "You shall not make for yourself a 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; *you shall not bow down to them or serve them*; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6 RSV)
> 
> 
> Isnt this qualified by the phrase after the semi colon? If no punctuation was used, then I alwas thought we are not to bow down to anything..



Again, it is still further qualified by the passage from Deuteronomy 4: The stated grounds for the commandment is that we have not seen Him; yet the apostles _had_ seen Him, and as such, they would naturally remember the physical images of him in their heads. But any such mental images _we_ attempt to picture in our minds are not memories of a form we have seen, but completely random, self-constructed misrepresentations.



Amazing Grace said:


> Would these be considered graven images that God actually commanded to be made?



Of course not; for the command says "you shall not make *for yourself*" - and people following direct instruction from God is completely different from constructing _their own_ creation _for themselves_. It's the same principle as prophecy, tongues and all special revelation: In Deuteronomy 18:20 it is said, "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die." Here it is made clear that it is a sin to come up with one's own piece of instruction or supposed "prophecy"; yet we know that at the same time, God commanded people many times to proclaim the prophetic instructions *He* had given them. So it is with graven images - God forbids us from making them for ourselves, yet that is perfectly consistent with Him giving His own instructions at times for specific images, such as the serpent, and even the Lord's Supper as an image of Christ's body and blood.


----------



## Iconoclast

Bruce wrote this :
If it is a sin to create a "vision" of Christ based on John's Rev. 1 imagery (arguably very not-literal, the pieces/parts of which are meant to convey information and not a picture), then, we really can't blame John for our abuse of Scripture. It is not to the purpose to say "I'm not going to call it sin, because John must have wanted us to envision Jesus ourselves according to this description." One's conviction regarding the sin will determine whether we attempt to recreate any such picture, and whether we think of any such picture recreated AS the Jesus whom John saw and we worship.


The imagery in Revelation,in chapter one, or anywhere else in the book is God given.
While I am not going to whip out an easel and paint brushes to try to recreate the images in my best Bob Ross imitation, nevertheless considering these portions of scripture is highly instructive.
One thing that comes through is that although John had seen the risen Christ before the ascension,what he describes in Rev.1 he struggles to even put in words, ie

white like wool-his eyes were as a flame of fire-15And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 

One thing is for certain, it certainly is not the hippie looking picture that I must remove out of my Thompson Chain bible everytime I buy one. The description given of an emerald rainbow around the throne,or of angelic beings is a God given Image. We are to think about it along with the description of Hebrewws 1;1-3,, or Jn 17
The Lord Jesus in full glory. We are meant to take comfort in the fact that are fully sovereign Lord is in control and ruling and reigning. To not come away with this is to miss the point of the writing.
The difficulty John had describing it ,shows the reality is beyond what we could even begin to try to make,draw, sculpt, or anything else.


----------



## Ravens

I also find it very hard to not visualize Christ "in some sense" in my mind. I'm not talking of meditating on His appearance, or dwelling on details and the like, but its hard for me to read the Gospels and think about the cross without forming some kind of picture of what's happening. Mostly I only have that problem when it comes to the cross.

If it is a sin to visualize Christ in your mind even in passing, or while reading (and I'm largely convinced that it is, even though I wouldn't bet all my chips on it), I think it is harder for this generation to deal with. And in that respect, the sins of the fathers are having an effect on their children. I saw pictures and images of Christ from the time I was in Sunday school, week in, week out, for year after year. 

Most of the Christians in our nation, raised in non-Reformed churches, grew up the same way. When you are taught to think of Christ pictorially in your formative years, its harder to root out. And in that respect, I would say its critical to keep images of Christ away from children; which is ironic, because I know some that would allow images in childrens' lessons and what not, even when they would forbid their use in adult magazines and movies. 

I've sometimes wondered why the 2nd Commandment wouldn't apply to the burning bush (which, as I understand it, was a very common symbol in the Reformed churches), Jacob's ladder, wheels-within-wheels etc., also, . I would think it would bar the pictorial representation of theophanies in the same way that it prevents manifestations of the Theophany Himself. And that would also apply to representing the Holy Spirit in terms of a dove outline.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

etexas said:


> How do we avoid a picture of Christ in our minds???? I don't really try to, at times when I read the Gospels....I can almost "picture" Christ talking to the Apostles. Like I say....it is not deliberate...it just happens. Am I alone here???? (I would like to add I am not advocating a mental image thing......I am just a bit curious if others have this happen.)



Hey:

As NaphtaliPress pointed out earlier: holding pictures of Jesus in the mind is a sin. However, this type of sin is forgivable. In order to keep yourself from committing this sin you have to trust that the Holy Spirit who works with the Word of God in your heart to prevent such things from happening.

As a means to this end: 1) Remember there is no accurate describtion of Jesus anywhere in the New Testament, and 2) Keep yourself from looking at all those fake pictures of Jesus.

What I find truly horrific about this is that we allow pictures of Jesus in children's books - even "Reformed" children books. What then are we teaching our children about this?

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Pergamum

That fish symbol needs to go too, I guess?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Pergamum said:


> That fish symbol needs to go too, I guess?


Why?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I have an old thread series which ran from April 3 to June 27, 1996 on Doug Comin's old Covie-Forum on the subject of 'pictures' of Christ. With the fpcr.org site in some kind of redesign, I am not sure it will appear as an available download there or not. It was available there for many years. I have the text file if anyone wants it. Rich, maybe it could be hosted here on PB somewhere? Word says it is 1,150,000 characters with spaces in size. It is long winded and meandering (you know, like threads on PB are). Doug may not remember this even exists, but he gave me permission to edit up the file years ago. I may pull one or two of my posts to the thread and put here just for kicks. Probably the one of post interest is a summary on mental images I tried to pull for John La Shell's dissertation, "Imaginary Ideas of Christ: A Scottish-American Debate".


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pergamum said:


> That fish symbol needs to go too, I guess?



Why?

Are people trying to or being led to see God in the fish?

What does the _symbol_ represent? I was under the impression that it was an ancient, quasi-secret identifier of Christians. The letters for "fish" were an acronym for the name/titles of "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior". Is the symbol an identity badge for Christians or a "picture" of Christ? I guess for me, I've never looked at a fish, or THE fish, and thought "That is a picture of Jesus, the Son of God." I suppose for someone who did, then perhaps they ought to ditch it.


It seems clear to me that there are fundamentally two different reactions to the notion that visual representations of "any persons of the Trinity," including Jesus, is simply sinful. Either one consents that it is wrong, and seeks to avoid indulgence major or minor. Or one starts looking at those with those convictions, and mocks and derides them for perceived individual "violations" of the command. How is this different from atheists who just go looking for Christian "moral" lapses? "So much for your morality--buncha hypocrites. I'll decide what's right and wrong for me."

We don't allow the unbeliever to get away with his caricatures. Saying things like, "Your so-called absolute commands--against murder, etc.--look how inconsistent you are! Death of a thousand convenient qualifications. Your 'commandments' are obviously bunk." We shouldn't adopt a similar posture when dealing with the 2nd Commandment among our own selves.

Like it or not, there is a "reformed" position, one defined by the Confessions, and held by a history with whom we are in continuum. None of us have to apologize for it, nor do we have to answer every snide mischaracterization of the position, every accusation of a lapse, especially when the association is baseless and irrelevant. If Jesus hadn't authorized the Bread and Wine, we should never have thought it up ourselves upon pain of blasphemy and "trivialization" of the Savior's death. But his own words elevated the same to the status of an ordinance.

If someone thinks differently from us on images of Christ, you can have them, all of them--we who are opposed to them don't want them. But please don't sit back on your cushion with the pea-shooter and plink away at those "straightlaced types" on the other side. If you want to take the position on, dress up and get out your heavy artillery.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*First of two 1996 post WRT John K. La Shell's work*

Here is the first of two posts citing the work of John K. La Shell ("Imagination and Idol: A 
Puritan Tension", WTJ, Fall 1987; “Imaginary Ideas of Christ: A Scottish-American Debate” [Ph.D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1985]). Matt has the first article posted here. I am editing out names in this post since there lacks context from the full thread. As for the nature of the post, folks will understand it is snipped from an old debate and I trust the reader will pardon mistakes and any 'immaturity' in an 11 year old post. Apologies also that it repeats points already made or ground already covered in earlier posts in this thread. The bits of interest are the La Shell remarks.


> ********************
> Item #4
> ********************
> Subject: RE: Covie-forum (May 17, 1996) Images: Some questions
> for the "general" vs. the no exceptions opposers of Images
> Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 17:31:08 -0500
> From:Chris Coldwell
> To: "'Douglas W. Comin'"
> 
> 
> If Covie-forum will pardon yet another post on this issue of images
> and if the moderator permits, I have questions which perhaps Pastor
> C or those still in the debate may be able to answer, or at least
> help me to understand more of the dynamic going on here.
> 
> 1. If the images of Christ do not and are not intended to stir up
> devotion, then what precisely *IS* the point of having them?
> 
> 2. How is the conundrum, postulated by Durham down to Murray
> (17th to 20th century) -- that rock and a hard place - of being
> caught between the second and third commandments avoided? Or how
> is the argument -- If the image stirs up devotion it is idolatry,
> if it doesn't it is vain - unsound?
> 
> 3. If the answer to question 1. is for artwork and decoration,
> then I ask how can we avoid violating the third commandment?
> 
> 4. If the answer to question 2 is to instruct the ignorant, then
> how is this argument different from the one between the Reformers
> and the Papists - the RCs said pictures were the books for the
> unlearned? If the answer is that they are to teach children,
> then I fail to see any difference. If we want any full assurance
> that how we teach our children about God will redound to his glory
> and their good, then shouldn't we look to Scripture for our rule in
> this, for perhaps one of the most important things we do -
> instructing the next generation in the ways of God? 2 Tim 3:14-17.
> "And that from a CHILD thou (Timothy) hast known the holy scriptures,
> which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which
> is in Christ Jesus. (16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
> and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
> instruction in righteousness: (17) that the man of God may be perfect,
> throughly furnished unto all good works." Scripture is sufficient to
> teach children the ways of God and furnish them unto ALL good works.
> No pictures needed here by Lois and Eunice. If we are looking to do
> our children good lets not go looking to break the commandment which
> curses THEM and succeeding generations in the violating of it!
> 
> 5. I appreciate Pastor C's or anyone's willingness to
> continually examine what we believe and jettisoning whatever
> is unsound no matter what the pedigree or history. However, I
> have failed to grasp the significance or purpose in this case.
> If the no exceptions folks are wrong in forbidding all use of
> images of Christ, then what exceptions are allowed? If for
> Instruction, then what objections in my question 4 are unsound
> and why? If for artwork or decoration, then how without violating
> other of God's commands?
> 
> I realize piling up questions like I've done may make it appear
> that I'm angry (I'm not) or come across as bullying (I don't
> intend to be); and I hope this doesn't sound shrill or scolding.
> But I'm not dispassionate in this matter either. After all we
> aren't discussing differences over flavors of ice cream! I have
> appreciated the care with which Pastor C has couched his
> "concerns" but I do want to know what practical use this discussion
> has? Perhaps another, yet lengthy quote may be helpful, and that
> from someone who is apparently not an absolutist on pictures of
> Christ (according to my reading of him).
> 
> [I wrote this in an earlier]post to a different discussion group.
> 
> 
> 
> In one of the earlier posts on this topic of images, I
> recommended John K. La Shell's "Imagination and Idol: A
> Puritan Tension", WTS Journal, Fall 1987. There I said he
> was not in the absolutist camp on the unlawfulness of pictures
> of Jesus, but he was hesitant to endorse the benefit of their
> use and qualified heavily any use they might have. Someone who
> wants to seriously pursue a thorough study of the literature on
> the topic should not ignore La Shell's other piece on the topic,
> his "Imaginary Ideas of Christ: A Scottish-American Debate."
> I obtained copies of both pieces in preparation of my support
> document (Indifferent Imaginations, Blue Banner v. 3 #7-8) for
> the petition one of our elders had before North Texas Presbytery
> (PCA) on images at presbytery meetings. However, while holding
> the door open to some images in a guarded way (realizing that
> they can be a stumbling block to sin) in his attempts to evaluate
> the psychological "insights of Jonathan Edwards and the equally
> important cautions of Ralph Erskine," La Shell is far from the
> aggressive endorser of pictures of Christ seen here on KR, nor
> does he reject the historic understanding of the regulative
> principle. It should be noted La Shell is mainly investigating
> the study of the debate that took place between Ralph Erskine
> and James Robe over visions and mental images of Christ, in the
> context of the Great Awakening. This of course leads him into a
> discussion of images as well as mental images of Christ. While
> some of La Shell's theorizing may put him outside the historical
> Puritan position, he seems to remain, for all practical purposes,
> in that camp. From that standpoint he lends a great deal of support
> to the arguments I previously posted against the expedience and
> indifference of images.
> 
> La Shell concludes the following
> 
> 
> 
> "Another important area for investigation is indicated by a rising
> consciousness of the arts as a valid Christian vocation. The
> problems associated with Christian themes in art can be approached
> from the viewpoint of the artist or from the perspective of the
> Christian public. If Puritan exegesis of the second commandment
> is essentially correct, then certain restrictions are placed on
> the creativity and freedom of the artist. Even if art based on
> Gospel history is permitted, <
> that such art should focus on Christ, particularly on Christ
> in any great detail>> the artist needs to steer a careful course
> between two dangers. If he attempts to reproduce a biblical scene
> as it appeared to a first-century observer, he may miss the inner
> significance of the event. On the other hand, if he clearly depicts
> the inner meaning of an event, he runs the risk of obscuring its
> true historicity (Rookmaaker 1971, 16; La Shell 1976, 70-72). The
> perspective of the Christian public poses, if anything, an even
> more difficult problem. In the first place, many Christians are
> extremely resistant to parting with beloved pictures. Second,
> many of them find it difficult to make fine distinctions such
> as those which have been discussed. They want to know if pictures
> are good or bad - period. When faced with those alternatives,
> it may be wisest to reject even Gospel history as a proper subject
> for art.
> 
> Perhaps three incidents from the experience of the author will
> help in illustrating the difficulties frequently encountered
> among Christians who have never considered the implications of
> the second commandment. In the first, a chalk artist produced a
> larger-than-life head of Christ. While his family sang "Beautiful
> Savior," the room was darkened and the picture flouresced under
> ultraviolet light. Then the audience was invited to contemplate
> the crucified and risen Savior. The atmosphere was charged with
> emotion; scarcely a dry eye was to be found in the auditorium.
> The service was followed by eager competition among the young
> people for possession of the picture, and no one seemed to
> consider that devotion stirred up by an image might be displeasing
> to God. The second incident occurred during a pastoral visit in a
> home. A grandmother asked her small granddaughter whose picture hung
> on the wall. The child responded, "That's God." The author realized
> that an image of God can only teach lies, and that the child had been
> cruelly deceived. However, it would have made matters worse to tell
> her that the picture was not really God, but only Jesus, for Jesus
> is God. The final incident followed a (perhaps foolhardy) message
> on idolatry delivered beneath a large stained glass image of the
> Good Shepherd. One indignant parishoner provided perfect confirmation
> of the danger of exalting images over the Word of God. Her icy glare
> was accompanied by the claim that she frequently received more spiritual
> blessings by meditating on that window than she did from the sermons.
> As these examples illustrate, Puritan concern regarding images of
> Christ has relevance even today. Moreover, the danger of external
> images is totally unrecognized in many segments of the modern church,
> what can be said about mental idolatry? As difficult as it may be, it
> appears that the subject ought to be addressed. The perils of
> coveteousness and of mental adultery are regularly proclaimed from
> the pulpit. Perhaps it is time to include instruction on the ways
> in which men defile God's glory by their vain imaginings of Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thus far La Shell.
> I appreciate Covie-forum's and the Moderator's indulgence.
> snip.
Click to expand...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Second of two 1996 post WRT John K. La Shell's work*

Here is the second of two 1996 posts to the old Covie-Forum, this one on mental imaginations of Christ.


> ********************
> Subject: Covie-forum (June 19, 1996) #2
> ********************
> Items Posted:
> *1. Chris Coldwell: mental imaginations of Christ*
> ********************
> Item #1
> ********************
> Subject: RE: mental imaginations of Christ
> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 22:45:23 -0500
> From: Chris Coldwell <[email protected]>
> To: "'Douglas W. Comin'" <[email protected]>
> 
> 
> Covie-forum:
> Early on in my posts on the topic of pictures of Christ I quoted
> a fellow named La Shell. I don't remember mentioning it at the time,
> but would say John La Shell's dissertation, "Imaginary Ideas of
> Christ: A Scottish-American Debate" (hereafter IMAG.) is pertinent
> to the discussion on mental pictures of Christ. It would be very
> helpful, particularly if anything official is ever done in any
> presbyteries, for those involved to get a copy of that paper.
> Not all of what he says is to my agreement, nor does he completely
> support the iconoclast position, but he has done the homework, whether
> we choose to agree with the conclusions or not. I think it is important
> to "do the homework" or read someone who has so we don't get bogged down
> in questions that are just not supportable historically, nor germane to
> the real question (like redefining the meaning of LC 109 - no offense Tony).
> 
> In the Great Awakening (early 1740s) a number (usually reckoned a small
> percentage of the total) of those who expressed concern for their soul's
> state, claimed to have experienced visions - some of the Savior. Tangential
> but related to the sometimes vicious debate that waged about the validity
> of the revival itself, a rather lengthy discussion ensued between several
> individuals about the legitimacy of mental images of Christ. The main
> protagonists were James Robe and Ralph Erskine, but much of the background
> to the "pro visions" side was provided by Jonathan Edwards. Robe endorsed
> and went somewhat beyond even Edwards' position. Erskine opposed all mental
> images of the Savior as idolatry.
> 
> The dissertation also enters a great deal into Edwards' view and the
> Puritans view of 'imagination.' La Shell writes: "Edward's assertion,
> that no one is able '? to fix his thoughts on God or Christ, or the
> things of another world, without imaginary ideas attending his
> meditations' proved to be a bombshell." (IMAG, p. 103). He says
> "In stating that imaginary ideas almost inevitably intrude into a
> man's thoughts of the divine, Edwards is stepping perilously close
> to the brink of acceptable Puritan dogma." (IMAG, p. 70).
> 
> La Shell writes: "In addition, the Westminster Larger Catechism,
> Question 109, specifically warns against the dangers of mental
> idolatry. On this basis ministers of the Secession Church in Scotland
> charge the revival party with encouraging idolatry. The mental images
> of Christ, experienced by some of the converts, seem to be a clear
> violation of the second commandment. Edwards, however, appears unmoved
> by such considerations. Why?" (IMAG, p. 72). La Shell after a lengthy
> discussion helpfully summarizes Edwards:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the preceding pages it has been suggested that Edwards' view may
> have differed from the traditional Puritan appraisal of mental images
> of Christ. Although he regarded them with a degree of caution which
> often approached suspicion, he also afforded them a measure of
> credibility as natural concomitants of genuine spiritual experiences.
> Several reasons for his approach have been pointed out. These may be
> summarized under four headings.
> 
> "Edwards' EMPIRICISM provided an openness to the evaluation of experience.
> When he found that mental images of Christ were reported by some whom he
> regarded as genuine converts, he was not inclined to ascribe them to
> Satanic agency. Second, the PSYCHOLOGY which he adapted from Locke
> treated the human soul as a unit. Because of this the imagination could
> not be easily dissociated from the understanding as it sometimes had been
> in Puritan psychology. There was no longer room for the distinction
> between the 'sensitive' soul and the 'intellectual' soul. In addition,
> it became impossible to treat the new spiritual sense of the Christian
> as a separate faculty which could operate independently of the rest of
> the activities of the soul. Therefore, the imagination could be operative
> even during the most spiritual of experiences. Also associated with Locke's
> influence is Edwards' theory of LANGUAGE. An imaginary idea of Christ may
> be simply a sign used in thinking about Him. In this case, it is little
> different than the word 'Christ' which fulfills the same role. Finally,
> Edwards' IDEALISM provided him with a view of the world in which he could
> develop new theories of typology and aesthetics. The relation of the
> physical world to the spiritual world suggests that the beauty of a
> mental image of Christ may (at times) function as a type of the eternal
> and primary beauty of God." (IMAG, pp. 101-102)
> 
> 
> 
> La Shell goes on to point out most of the Edwards material to understand
> all of the above was not published in Edwards' lifetime, and turns his
> attention to the Scottish debate between Robe (Established Church) and
> Erskine (Secession Church).
> 
> La Shell lays out the difference between the parties: "It was this
> connection posited between the senses and the understanding which
> proved to be a major target for the attacks of the Seceders.
> 
> 
> 
> "What part do the senses play in our knowledge of the world or of God?
> Can an imaginary idea of Christ's human body be considered either
> necessary or helpful to saving faith, especially since imaginary ideas
> relate only to the sensible world? These issues were raised by James
> Fisher [Fisher's Catechism fame -- CC] in his <Review of the Preface>:
> 
> "'?if there be the least sensible or visionary Representation of God or
> of Christ formed in our Imagination, we do that very Moment think upon
> a false God and a false Christ. Our Senses and Imagination, cannot assist
> us at all, in thinking upon the Divine Nature and Perfections' (Fisher
> 1743, 13, body).
> 
> "An important part of the question is the natural constitution of man.
> If it is true (as most acknowledged) "That we cannot think upon spiritual
> Objects without imaginary Ideas attending our Meditations?," is it because
> of our created nature, or is it "?owing to our lapsed and imperfect State"
> as Willison suggests (1743, 7)? Even if imaginary ideas attend spiritual
> exercises primarily because of the fall, it can be asked, 'Do you think
> God hath created the Imagination, or any inferior Faculty of the Soul,
> merely for the Devil's Use? Hath he not Access to the Imagination himself
> when he will" (Willison 1743, 10)? Robe insists "?a natural Fruit of
> Corruption?," but they arise "?from our natural Constitution, or from
> our finite and corporeal Nature?, and would have been as unavoidable,
> if we had continued in a State of Innocence as now?" (Robe 1743, 5-6).
> Erskine was equally adamant for the opposing view. Even if they are
> unavoidable, imaginary ideas of Christ's human body are sinful and
> idolatrous. At one point he confesses with evident shame:
> 
> "'I must own and acknowledge, that, while I write upon this speculative
> subject, I am conscious to myself of so many vain imaginations of my own,
> that I am obliged to write against myself as well as Mr. Robe, and my own
> imaginary ideas as well as his' (Erskine 1745, 220)
> 
> "What then are the substantive issues which divide the revivalists from
> the Secession ministers? First, they are theological. Is an imaginary
> idea of Christ's human body helpful to faith or is it idolatrous? Second,
> there are philosophical dimensions to the problem. How is faith related
> to that world of sense by which the imagination is limited. The disputants
> attempted to prove their cases by appealing to approved divines and
> philosophers, but they also turned to the Scriptures" (IMAG, pp. 107-108).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> La Shell turns to the two points in detail. I cannot summarize it well
> here, but Robe found some wiggle room in some language of a couple of
> the Puritans (which Erskine found difficult to explain away), while
> Erskine (relying particularly on Owen) demonstrates the preponderance
> of the support of previous authors put him in the mainstream of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> "Considering the variety of witnesses adduced by both Robe and Erskine,
> it is fair to ask whether there existed a Puritan consensus regarding
> mental images of Christ. ? The great respect accorded to the Westminster
> standards among Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Calvinistic Baptists
> (who all adopted forms of the Confession) suggests that there was something
> of a consensus on basic principles?[LC 109 cited]?Puritan authors,
> including those cited above, frequently denounced mental idolatry and
> saw in it the evil source of all external image worship. James Robe,
> by his own admission, stands within that tradition. However, the
> controversy which began in 1742 appears to be the first attempt to
> define precisely the limits of mental idolatry. When do the natural
> and unavoidable mental symbols by which men think became idolatrous?
> That is the question.
> 
> "Although there is room for disagreement, it appears that Ralph Erskine
> stands within the conservative mainstream of tradition, while James Robe
> is stretching its borders. Erskine is certainly harsher than some of his
> predecessors when he condemns all mental imagery of spiritual things.
> However, the expressions which seem so congenial to Robe's position may
> not have been intended to include the vivid imaginary ideas which Robe
> defends. ?
> 
> "Robe blurs the distinction between the normal symbols used in thinking
> and vivid mental images. That blurring is a natural result of the
> traditional definition of the imagination, which includes both kinds
> of experience under the same faculty. When early Protestants adopted
> Scholastic forms of thought (in spite of warnings from some of the
> Reformers), they inherited a number of problems. Among these was a
> potential conflict between their understanding of the imagination
> and the rejection (by some groups) of mental images of God. Since
> the medieval Church embraced all kinds of images, no such conflict
> was possible for it. The Cambuslang revival provided a stimulus for
> focusing attention on the problem, but it does not seem that either
> Robe or Erskine recognized that their differences stemmed from
> inherent inconsistencies in the traditions of reformed scholasticism."
> (IMAG, pp. 128-129).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> La Shell summarizes the philosophical debate:
> 
> 
> 
> "What then can be concluded about the philosophical background of
> Ralph Erskine and James Robe? First of all, it was mixed, and that
> very lack of uniformity allows both men to appeal to their common
> traditions for support. Second, as noted earlier, neither Erskine
> nor Robe seems willing to concede the existence of these differences.
> Third, Erskine is probably closer to the mainstream of Puritan tradition
> in his insistence that some knowledge of God is innate. Robe does not
> appear to deny this explicitly; perhaps the arguments based on Adam's
> knowledge of God and the animals were too strongly imbedded in his
> background to dispute. Finally, however, Erskine's occasionalism is
> a more novel answer than he recognizes. Many of the sources he cites
> to prove innate knowledge or the independence of the soul from the
> senses do not directly deal with this aspect of the problem?"
> 
> "Win, Lose or Draw
> "In eighteenth century Scotland there was no neutral panel of judges
> to determine whether Ralph Erskine or James Robe had won their debate?
> 
> "Perhaps the best way to evaluate the controversy is to consider the
> points upon which the disputants agree. It is then possible to ask which
> of them best adheres to the common terms of the debate. Both parties accept
> the principle that external or internal images of God are idolatrous. Our
> ideas of God must not be attended by any mental pictures of Him. Both also
> accept the traditional definition of the imagination as the image-producing
> faculty of the mind. They differ on whether an imaginary idea of the human
> body of Christ should be considered idolatrous. Robe's doctrine would be
> more defensible if he were content to state that such ideas are completely
> neutral events with purely psychological explanations. His insistence that
> imaginary ideas of Christ's human body are helpful and necessary to faith
> places the matter in a far more unfavorable light from the traditional
> perspective. ..
> 
> "On the other hand, Erskine's declaration that propositional truths are
> not the objects of fancy is open to serious question. He believes he has
> found a way to conceive of Christ as man without the aid of imaginary
> ideas of corporeal objects. However, it is difficult to think of the
> virgin birth without imagining a woman and a baby?Perhaps his rejection
> of all imagery in thinking of spiritual objects is a case of philosophical
> overkill." (IMAG, pp. 155-156).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> La Shell goes on to champion Edwards' view (receiving imagery as a
> significant aspect of thought) against Erskine's denial and concludes
> that the psychology of Erskine be reject while some aspect of his charge
> of idolatry be maintained.
> 
> He says:
> 
> 
> 
> "In these warnings concerning mental idolatry, two principles
> are operative. First, the imagination is the root of all idolatry because
> of its power freely to fashion images which are not in accord with reality.
> Second, it is generally assumed that the same kinds of external images
> which are forbidden are also prohibited in the mind.
> "Exceptions
> "In the controversy over mental images, Robe finds himself cast into a
> defensive position. His argument amounts to an assertion that there are
> exceptions to the general rule. Can that position be sustained? Perhaps
> it will be helpful to review briefly the tradition which he faces. The
> basic premise is that all visible representations of God are sinful.
> Second, images of Christ are forbidden because His divine nature cannot
> be pictured; a picture can only represent His human nature which is but
> half a Christ. If it stirs up devotion, that is idolatrous worship; if
> it does not, the picture serves no useful purpose. Third, even mental
> images of God are specifically condemned. In order to demonstrate the
> validity of some mental images of Christ, these three premises must be
> weakened" (IMAG, pp. 193-194).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> La Shell goes through these three points and how they might be weakened.
> 
> Under point one, he holds out some theoretical support for gospel history
> being pictured (focusing on the work of Christ and not his person).
> 
> Under the second point he states:
> 
> 
> 
> "A more difficult problem arises when the mental image represents the Lord
> Jesus Christ. In accepting some such images, Robe and Edwards appear to be
> weakening the second premise of the Puritan position on images. The union
> of Christ's two natures in one person forms the primary basis for Puritan
> rejection of images of the Savior; to present the mind's eye with half a
> Christ is heresy at best, or idolatry at worst. Robe's clear response is
> that it is not heretical to think of the humanity of Christ apart from
> His deity. Therefore, it is permissible to have an imaginary idea of His
> human body. Such an idea does not preclude a simultaneous realization of
> His deity. In fact, an imaginary idea of Christ as man must be combined
> with an intellectual comprehension of his deity in order to arrive at a
> true and complete conception of the Mediator.
> 
> "Robe's position implies conclusions which he might well have rejected.
> Erskine charges Robe with teaching that external images of Christ are
> also lawful (Erskine, 1745, 155). The accusation is based on an inaccurate
> reading of one sentence in Robe's <Fourth Letter> (Robe 1743, 44).
> Nevertheless, the connection between mental and external images does
> seem to be very close. If meditation involving a mental image does not
> blasphemously divide the natures of Christ; why should meditation
> stimulated by a picture of the Lord be subject to that charge?"
> (IMAG, pp. 195-196)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On point three La Shell says:
> 
> 
> 
> "In spite of these concessions, not all of the imaginary ideas defended
> by Edwards and Robe can be justified. Reports of visions include pathetic
> images of a crucified Savior and beautiful images of a glorified Savior.
> In both cases the visions must be regarded as portraits rather than signs
> of historical events. For this reason, it is necessary for Robe and Edwards
> to defend mental images on the basis that they are involuntary. This
> constitutes a weakening of the third Puritan Premise regarding religious
> images - that mental images of God are sinful. Edwards appears to be
> saying that vivid mental images which arise spontaneously as a result
> of truly gracious affections may be beneficial (at least to the ignorant).
> Those which result from elevated but non-gracious affections are deceitful
> and harmful because they induce a false assurance of salvation. That is a
> step in the right direction because if images are inherent in man's
> thinking, it is only possible to locate the sin of idolatry in the
> attitude of the imaging subject. But more must be said. He who accepts
> his images as visions from heaven, he who trusts in them and rejoices
> in them - that man is an idolater. Notice that such an interpretation
> entails a paradox. The man who appears to benefit most from a mental
> image of Christ is the one who benefits least, the one who may actually
> be destroyed by what he perceives. Thus, it seems impossible to allow
> Edwards' suggestion that imaginary ideas of Christ resemble Old Testament
> types. They are too dangerous for such a positive evaluation."
> (IMAG, pp. 198-199)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In his wrap up La Shell concludes in relation to the subject in question:
> 
> 
> 
> "The third contrast between Edwards and Erskine consists of different
> responses to the problem of mental idolatry. Actually, this aspect of
> the controversy is more clearly addressed by Robe than by Edwards. The
> study has suggested that Robe and Edwards hold a weaker view of the
> dangers of mental idolatry than many of their Puritan ancestors.
> Considering the wide variety of images which they defend as valid
> psychological experiences, it is difficult to know precisely which
> kinds of mental images they might have condemned. Erksine's steady
> rejection of all imaginary ideas of Christ seems far more in keeping
> with Puritan exposition of the second commandment. Reflection on the
> scriptural insights of Edwards, Erskine, the Puritans and Calvin
> prompts the formulation of guidelines which seem applicable to both
> external and mental images. The study suggests that portraits of any
> person of the Godhead ought to be rejected, while historical pictures
> of the life of Christ may have some limited validity." (IMAG, p. 219).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My assessment. Erskine's main fault is getting entwined in a defense of
> his view of occasionalism and innate knowledge. He evidently takes a
> beating there. However, Edwards and Robe really never safe guard their
> arguments from the fault of idolatry. La Shell favors Edwards' view of
> receiving imagery as a significant aspect of thought, which I know some
> will take issue with in relation to this discussion (IMAG, pp. 175-178).
> Dick Bacon for one would contend that the assumption needs to be proved
> (La Shell does not, but simply appeals to what appears to him to be
> reasonable) and disallows its relevance to the subject. However,
> despite the assumption of this theory or at least tipping the hat in
> favor of it, La Shell still concludes a very limited use of actual
> pictures and casts doubt on Edwards' and Robe's view of mental images.
> I've quoted La Shell previously on his personal experiences with how
> people feel about their pictures, so I won't repeat it but refer you
> back to my earlier post.
> 
> Some may be dismayed that Edwards at least in part supports or has
> conclusions that coincide with some of Tony Cowley's. Well, he can
> have Edwards and we can take Erskine<g>. My point in posting from
> La Shell is to show that aspects of what we've been discussing are
> not new. La Shell really should be in anyone's library who may be
> seriously tackling this issue in any way.
> 
> All in all, whether you agree or disagree with La Shell, or my take
> of him, I commend the study as a scholarly job well done.
> 
> Regards,
> Chris Coldwell
> naphtali
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

Wow, thanks for the above.....interesting.




BRUCE: No pea-shooting intended. But how abstract must an image be before a mental image or art becomes a symbol?

I remember a thread last year of someone asking about the Lion in the CS Lewis movie if it were idolatry since it was an image - or at least a symbol - of Christ. 

When early Christians drew a fish, they were drawing a representation of Christ, even if abstract, rigth? Does this mean that a realistic painting cannot be done, but perhaps a Picasso type representation of Christ can be done? 

What level of abstraction marks the difference between a picture and a symbol? Is a stick figure on a cross idolatry? 


What about a Reformed children's book I saw. It drew a white outline in the shape of Jesus' body. Instead of picturing a man dividing fish's and loaves, a weird white outline was holding the fish. Isn't this also a representation?



I agree with Edward's above that an essential part of imagination is mental imagery. Add this to the descriptions of Jesus' actions and even his white woolen hair and the Bible encourages this sin of mentally imagining Jesus.



It appears rather that the forbidding of idols (to bow down to) was the idea behind the 2nd commandment.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Isn't the Icthus more of an identity with the works of Christ and his people? It is not a representation of Christ but of his work. ( ie the miracles and His feeding us)


----------



## SRoper

Pergamum said:


> When early Christians drew a fish, they were drawing a representation of Christ, even if abstract, rigth? Does this mean that a realistic painting cannot be done, but perhaps a Picasso type representation of Christ can be done?
> 
> What level of abstraction marks the difference between a picture and a symbol? Is a stick figure on a cross idolatry?



I've never heard the fish symbol being used to symbolize Christ. I always thought is represented Christians.



> What about a Reformed children's book I saw. It drew a white outline in the shape of Jesus' body. Instead of picturing a man dividing fish's and loaves, a weird white outline was holding the fish. Isn't this also a representation?



Yeah, I don't think that is an adequate solution to avoiding images of God. It might be better to have him totally obscured by someone or something or just frame the picture so he is out of it altogether. I mean Adam and Eve always have something strategic obscuring their genitals they aren't just airbrushed out.



> I agree with Edward's above that an essential part of imagination is mental imagery. Add this to the descriptions of Jesus' actions and even his white woolen hair and the Bible encourages this sin of mentally imagining Jesus.



I suppose we can say that some passages might encourage lust. So what?



> It appears rather that the forbidding of idols (to bow down to) was the idea behind the 2nd commandment.



Then it is only a republication of the first commandment.


----------



## Davidius

SRoper said:


> Then it is only a republication of the first commandment.



Welcome to Rome!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it is only a republication of the first commandment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to Rome!
Click to expand...

Well, at least not Reformed. This would be the view of Episcopalians and Lutherans too wouldn't it?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> That fish symbol needs to go too, I guess?
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Since the fish symbol is not a representation of a divine person, then a case could be made for its retention.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Here is a Jewish understanding of the 10. And Yes lutherans and episcopalians split them like the rcc

I I am the Lord your G-d who has taken you out of the land of Egypt.
II You shall have no other gods but me
III You shall not take the name of the Lord your G-d in vain.
IV You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy. 
V Honor your mother and father. Y
VI You shall not murder. 
VII You shall not commit adultery. 
VIII You shall not steal. 
IX You shall not bear false witness. 
X You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.


----------



## danmpem

What about book covers and stained-glass windows with images of Christ on them?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

joshua said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about book covers and stained-glass windows with images of Christ on them?
> 
> 
> 
> _Anything._
Click to expand...


One year at the annual GPTS conference, I believe the one where the psalmody debate took place between Rev. Schwertley and Dr. Shaw, the subject of images of Christ came up. When the correct stance was forthcoming from, I believe, Dr. Piper, someone asked about the stained glass window in some part of the building. It was intimated that the cost would be very great to remove it. My informant and others immediately took up a collection. I believe the window was replaced. Someone may have a better telling of this; but that is as best as I remember how it was related to me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The conference that year (and the next) was held in a nearby baptist church, for the space requirements exceeded the seminary facilities. (The conference has since moved to a comparable PCA church, which is a bit further away).

At the school, one of the images (in the auditorium, where the baptistry once existed) I know was removed by the previous owners as part of the arrangement to sell to GPTS. As I think about it, there may have been a window in one stairwell that could be covered with a blind, and so was left alone for the meantime.

Chris, you may be right about that being raised as a question, and dealt with at that time. If so, it was providential. Why is money always tight at good Christian institutions? As soon as it isn't (I hate to say it) in come the termites!

What is more deplorable is the otherwise confessional *2nd PCA* (where Rick Phillips came to pastor) which for years has had a HUGE stained-glass image in the auditorium, behind the pulpit--hard even to avoid looking at it.  And another one prominently placed in one of the hallways. Gotta get rid of those things sometime...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Contra_Mundum said:


> The conference that year (and the next) was held in a nearby baptist church, for the space requirements exceeded the seminary facilities. (The conference has since moved to a comparable PCA church, which is a bit further away).
> 
> At the school, one of the images (in the auditorium, where the baptistry once existed) I know was removed by the previous owners as part of the arrangement to sell to GPTS. As I think about it, there may have been a window in one stairwell that could be covered with a blind, and so was left alone for the meantime.
> 
> Chris, you may be right about that being raised as a question, and dealt with at that time. If so, it was providential. Why is money always tight at good Christian institutions? As soon as it isn't (I hate to say it) in come the termites!
> 
> What is more deplorable is the otherwise confessional *2nd PCA* (where Rick Phillips came to pastor) which for years has had a HUGE stained-glass image in the auditorium, behind the pulpit--hard even to avoid looking at it.  And another one prominently placed in one of the hallways. Gotta get rid of those things sometime...


Yes; it was the one in the stairwell as I recall now. Too bad about 2nd; you want to meet me around the corner one moonless night, hopefully with the church lights on, with a pile of good throwing rocks?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Nope, won't work. Because they are so close to the downtown, and low-rent districts, all those colored-glass, thin paned windows for the BIG ROOM have a whole external plexiglass shield. Man this is 2007, not 1907!


----------



## danmpem

Hmm, does the Nativity reinactment or depiction with a baby Jesus violate the 2nd Commandment?


----------



## SRoper

danmpem said:


> Hmm, does the Nativity reinactment or depiction with a baby Jesus violate the 2nd Commandment?



Yes. Why would you expect a different answer for this question?


----------



## Pergamum

Could we change the nativity scenes and put a fish symbol in the manger instead?

I am serious.... Symbols are representations of reality that are abstract. What level of abstraction is needed before a portrait becomes a symbol and a fish becomes idolatry? Is Van Gogh or Picasso "real" enough? 



Also, why do many many PCAchurches and bookstore carry children's Bibles with Jesus? Is the PCA divided on this and have any PCA pastors come out and defended pictures of Jesus?

Finally, I think Ben Hur had the shadow of Jesus. Is the shadow okay. 

And some Reformed books merely have an outline of Jesus so that they would not have to draw him....but an outline is still a representation of our Saviour, is it not?


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> Could we change the nativity scenes and put a fish symbol in the manger instead?
> 
> I am serious.... Symbols are representations of reality that are abstract. What level of abstraction is needed before a portrait becomes a symbol and a fish becomes idolatry? Is Van Gogh or Picasso "real" enough?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, why do many many PCAchurches and bookstore carry children's Bibles with Jesus? Is the PCA divided on this and have any PCA pastors come out and defended pictures of Jesus?
> 
> Finally, I think Ben Hur had the shadow of Jesus. Is the shadow okay.
> 
> And some Reformed books merely have an outline of Jesus so that they would not have to draw him....but an outline is still a representation of our Saviour, is it not?



The PCA is basically a big tent denomination that tolerates a diversity of views on many subjects, including this one.


----------



## Pergamum

But can the PCA use pics of Jesus without violating the WCF? And does the PCA have a wing that supports art of Jesus? And have they written a position paper or anything to defend this diversityof views?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Pergamum said:


> But can the PCA use pics of Jesus without violating the WCF? And does the PCA have a wing that supports art of Jesus? And have they written a position paper or anything to defend this diversityof views?


The PCA does not hold to strict subscription; so it is up to each Presbytery to allow exceptions, and this is a common one to take nowadays. 
The PCA has not had any formal study papers pro or contra. The PCA merged with the old RPCES back in the early 1980s, and if that had not happened the RPCES was on a course to edit their version of LC109 to allow for such pictures. They have such a study paper which became part of the historical documents of the PCA but it has no constitutional status. This is online at the PCA Historical Center. Thankfully the editor made all the right qualifications in posting it.


----------



## SRoper

Pergamum said:


> Could we change the nativity scenes and put a fish symbol in the manger instead?
> 
> I am serious.... Symbols are representations of reality that are abstract. What level of abstraction is needed before a portrait becomes a symbol and a fish becomes idolatry? Is Van Gogh or Picasso "real" enough?
> 
> Finally, I think Ben Hur had the shadow of Jesus. Is the shadow okay.
> 
> And some Reformed books merely have an outline of Jesus so that they would not have to draw him....but an outline is still a representation of our Saviour, is it not?



Pergamum, your questions are a lot like the questions of one who discovers that Scripture forbids something like fornication. "Well how far can a man go with his girlfriend before it is fornication? Is it OK if he does this or that? That's not technically sex, is it?" If you are convinced that Scripture forbids making images of God, are you really going to be asking the kinds of questions that amount to "how far is too far"?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Is it not an act of blasphemy for a sinful man to pretend to be the Lord Jesus Christ?


----------



## Pergamum

Well SROPER, 

there's the rub... does Scripture forbid making images of a man? He took on human flesh, which is able to be pictured. The Scriptures say not to picture anything in heaven, earth or under the earth....for the purpose of bowing down before them.

The Decalogue forbids idols, but not representational art. So, I am trying to figure out how much and what is exactly forbidden.

Your analogy does not hold.

In fact, under your logic, you should take on the muslim stance of forbidding ALL representational art. All things in heaven, earth or under the earth should be forbidden since somewhere someone out there might be tempted to worship them...


There's no harm in searching into the limits of a matter. It is all part of my process of searching deeper into this topic. 

Have a little patience man, maybe you have already arrived, but I am still on the road looking for the exit sign.


How much wine must you drink before you are drunk. Sipping a little, it might be argued, is to take a few steps in the direction of drunkenness, and so we had better teetotal away since we should not be asking, "How far is too far..."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> there's the rub... does Scripture forbid making images of a man? He took on human flesh, which is able to be pictured. The Scriptures say not to picture anything in heaven, earth or under the earth....for the purpose of bowing down before them.



Yes, but the man Christ Jesus is also God; therefore, a picture of Christ is a picture of God and thus violates the second commandment.


----------



## Pergamum

From the PCA History site it appears the some have held to the WCF and allowed for images of Christ for teaching purposes:

RECOMMENDA TION
1. That the 159th General Synod recognize that Exodus 20:4-6 does not forbid making and using pictures of Christ for purposes of instruction, if such pictures have as their chief interest depicting events in the in-carnational life of Christ.


Does theWCF allow for any such leeway?


----------



## SRoper

Pergamum said:


> Well SROPER,
> 
> there's the rub... does Scripture forbid making images of a man? He took on human flesh, which is able to be pictured. The Scriptures say not to picture anything in heaven, earth or under the earth....for the purpose of bowing down before them.
> 
> The Decalogue forbids idols, but not representational art. So, I am trying to figure out how much and what is exactly forbidden.
> 
> Your analogy does not hold.
> 
> In fact, under your logic, you should take on the muslim stance of forbidding ALL representational art. All things in heaven, earth or under the earth should be forbidden since somewhere someone out there might be tempted to worship them...
> 
> 
> There's no harm in searching into the limits of a matter. It is all part of my process of searching deeper into this topic.
> 
> Have a little patience man, maybe you have already arrived, but I am still on the road looking for the exit sign.
> 
> 
> How much wine must you drink before you are drunk. Sipping a little, it might be argued, is to take a few steps in the direction of drunkenness, and so we had better teetotal away since we should not be asking, "How far is too far..."



I'm just suggesting that your line of questioning is not helpful at this time and is not going to get to the heart of the issue. I don't see how my comparison would mean I would forbid all representational art as I'm not in the no kissing, holding hands, or dancing before you're married crowd. I made the comparison because it is my observation that those who aren't convinced of the principle prefer to argue about the gray areas. Now there is a time to start drawing lines. If a man is convinced that fornication is wrong a discussion about what is permissible with his girlfriend could be profitable. However, if he is still thinking that the seventh commandment merely prohibits coitus with another man's wife then what is the point?

If you are convinced that we should not make images of God then perhaps we can draw some lines, but from what you have written I don't think that is the case.


----------



## Pergamum

I admit that I do not know where the lines are...hence the reasons for the questions.


----------



## SRoper

That's fine, I just think you are getting ahead of yourself. If you still have serious doubts that the second commandment forbids making an image of God for any reason (not just for worship), then it would be more profitable if we start there.


----------

