# Christians and art.



## etexas

On thing I have always wanted to put on the PB table is this and I do ask this in a broad sense so forgive me that from the get go. OK, Megan and I have a coffee table book called "Jesus Christ in Art", it covers everything from early mosaics to the Dutch masters. I was looking at it and wondered...is there a distinction between false images forbidden as best as I can see to prevent worshipping them, and things like stained glass windows, Dutch masters and other almost "devotional" work, made to stir the soul with a deeper love of Christ, not to be bowed to of themselves. Would greatly love any input on this topic. Idols Versus Art. Grace and Peace


----------



## etexas

trevorjohnson said:


> I feel a second commandment debate coming on here....
> 
> 
> Watch out brother, it was debated not too long ago here on the PB whether the big lion in Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe was a 2nd Cmmdnt violation because he was supposed to symbolize Christ.
> 
> If this sort of weird debate occurrs, you can be assured that many here will accuse you of gross idolatry.


Been there! Actually I hope to keep it "nice", in regard to the 2nd commandment I want to focus on purpose: Bad purpose, make an image of ANYTHING for the purpose of bowing down in worship to it is wrong and a violation of said commandment. Good purpose (at least in my view) is a simple silver cross I wear on my neck, my wife gave it to me. I do not worship it! To me it is like the soldiers dog-tags! It is also a small tangible reminder of what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour did for us. If it were an object of worship, then I would be violating the 2nd commandment, yet seeing that that is not the purpose or intent, an idolatry "charge" would be quite difficult. In any event I want this to be a a discussion of tact and love a discussion of what might be viewed as legitimate Christian art and what is gross idol worship. I just want a "feel as to when and where it should be made.


----------



## SRoper

The second commandment forbids making any image whatsoever that purports to be of God. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth." Full stop. There is no right use of an image of God (in any of his persons) as all such uses are strictly forbidden.

The second commandment goes on to say that worshipping any image (which would include images that aren't intended to be of God) is also forbidden.


----------



## Richard King

A good book along these lines is 'Art for God's Sake" by Phillip Graham Ryken.

Our pastor had us read it for an elder training class.


----------



## etexas

SRoper said:


> The second commandment forbids making any image whatsoever that purports to be of God. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth." Full stop. There is no right use of an image of God (in any of his persons) as all such uses are strictly forbidden.
> 
> The second commandment goes on to say that worshipping any image (which would include images that aren't intended to be of God) is also forbidden.


So would you say an old Church with a steeple with a cross atop it is an Idol. Not a symbol....despite the fact that after being there....say 97 years no one has worshiped it or even thought about worshipping it. And when you say anything on Earth....would that include a Piggy Bank or a child's doll.


----------



## etexas

By the bye....an extreme version on this issue would forbid ANY artwork in a Christian home! Figurines, paintings, vases with fish designs (under the sea remember), plates with painted artwork. You name it. Unless it is not the intended use to replace the TRUE LIVING GOD as the focus of worship.


----------



## LadyFlynt

My understanding is "anything used to represent God". This follows with the pope as well. Vicar of Christ means one who stands in the place of Christ, directly translated as 'anti-Christ', not meaning against, but rather in place of. So any item, picture, statue, person used to represent or in place of is a breaking of the 2nd Commandment.


----------



## etexas

OK, how about TV, you are watching.......The History Channel, and it has a special on the Sistine Chapel. Is it OK to watch for the sake of Historical interest or would that be defiling.....even if you are not worshipping the ceiling. Which I hope no one would do! Ceiling worship is silly and evil.


----------



## Richard King

SRoper said:


> The second commandment forbids making any image whatsoever that purports to be of God. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth." Full stop. There is no right use of an image of God (in any of his persons) as all such uses are strictly forbidden.
> 
> The second commandment goes on to say that worshipping any image (which would include images that aren't intended to be of God) is also forbidden.




Is the image in your avatar something of God?


----------



## bwsmith

Richard King said:


> A good book along these lines is 'Art for God's Sake" by Phillip Graham Ryken.
> 
> Our pastor had us read it for an elder training class.



Art and the Bible (L'Abri Pamphlets) (Paperback)
by Francis A. Schaeffer


----------



## JohnV

Art is symbolic. What you mean to ask, Max, concerns the use of human form in a generic sense to depict Christ, though not to try to depict His exact image. In other words, what the figure is doing or standing for in the picture is the focus, not the image of Christ Himself. The painting of Christ ascending, with hands outstretched giving blessing and benediction to the disciples, has no intention of depicting our Lord, but of depicting the promise of return. The clouds forming, the expectant faces of the disciples, the elevating movement in the painting, all these depict our Lord's departing in the sense of the gospels. The human form of Christ is merely a necessary object in the painting, not intended to depict Him in any particular way, except to emmanate His assuraces; and not intended to be an object of worship in and of itself. No sane person would think that an art master living many centuries later would actually know what Christ looked like, or have a photograph to work from; so no one actually believes that this image is a replication of any kind. It is a depiction of the event, an attempt to put part of the gospel into a form that can be seen and felt, that can inspire a person to long for Christ Himself, and for His return. 

Is this still a breaking of the second commandment?

Is that what you meant to ask?


----------



## Civbert

I follow Jesus said:


> So would you say an old Church with a steeple with a cross atop it is an Idol. Not a symbol....despite the fact that after being there....say 97 years no one has worshiped it or even thought about worshipping it.


I'd say _is_ a symbol, and a symbol for Christianity - not a symbol for God. 



I follow Jesus said:


> And when you say anything on Earth....would that include a Piggy Bank or a child's doll.


If it's presented as representing God.


----------



## bwsmith

I follow Jesus said:


> On thing I have always wanted to put on the PB table is this and I do ask this in a broad sense so forgive me that from the get go. OK, Megan and I have a coffee table book called "Jesus Christ in Art", it covers everything from early mosaics to the Dutch masters. I was looking at it and wondered...is there a distinction between false images forbidden as best as I can see to prevent worshipping them, and things like stained glass windows, Dutch masters and other almost "devotional" work, made to stir the soul with a deeper love of Christ, not to be bowed to of themselves. Would greatly love any input on this topic. Idols Versus Art. Grace and Peace



I _love_ my religious art & architecture books! Sometimes they have been the goad for a good conversation. However if a created thing is confusing my worship, then by all means, I must lay it before the Lord, and let HIM direct my steps. (Psalm 139:23-24) 

I have a great affection for many artists whose “religious art” is technically excellent and inspiring. Henry Ossawa Tanner and his paintings of the annunciation, and other Bible stories, is one, as well as Handel and Mendelson, and John Bunyon and John Newton. And I love looking at, studying their works – and wondering about the God who stirred so many souls, that HE would stir mine. I am in an art class with many unbelievers – and I felt led ( I trust by God) to design a mosaic with the cross as a central theme. That decision sparked a few conversations among fellow students. 

I also love to write – and I wonder how fiction can be used for God’s glory, and not some idol.


----------



## eternallifeinchrist

I love to try to find the gospel in most written works. It helped me pass the time in secular universities. Most teacher's didn't like it, but hey! interpreting literature is up to the person doing it. Write all you can to advance the gospel and kingdom of heaven. I much prefer reading about Christian things than trying to find Christ in non-Christian works. This makes me think of Shakespeare's sonnets. I found that they are very Christian if you look at them that way. Most pagan critics try to sensualize his work rather than find the God-glorifying beauty in it. 

Many believers cannot even have Bibles in their homes due to persecution and lack of funds much less an idol. 

I think most Pier One shoppers are more likely to buy a Buddah figure to adorn their living rooms than a Christian fish symbol-a shrine in your house or a sanctuary? 

I pray that the eyes of their hearts are open to the great grace of salvation in Christ Jesus' death and resurrection that saves us from our sin.


----------



## bwsmith

eternallifeinchrist said:


> I love to try to find the gospel in most written works. It helped me pass the time in secular universities. Most teacher's didn't like it, but hey! interpreting literature is up to the person doing it. Write all you can to advance the gospel and kingdom of heaven. I much prefer reading about Christian things than trying to find Christ in non-Christian works. This makes me think of Shakespeare's sonnets. I found that they are very Christian if you look at them that way. Most pagan critics try to sensualize his work rather than find the God-glorifying beauty in it.
> 
> Many believers cannot even have Bibles in their homes due to persecution and lack of funds much less an idol.
> 
> I think most Pier One shoppers are more likely to buy a Buddah figure to adorn their living rooms than a Christian fish symbol-a shrine in your house or a sanctuary?
> 
> I pray that the eyes of their hearts are open to the great grace of salvation in Christ Jesus' death and resurrection that saves us from our sin.



A side bar – PBS did a wonderful special, In Search of Shakespeare” and their was a companion book – it conjectured that given the perilous times in which Shakespeare wrote, his art was a well disguised attempt to debate the old faith with the new. (RC-ism vs. Protestantism)


----------



## etexas

JohnV said:


> Art is symbolic. What you mean to ask, Max, concerns the use of human form in a generic sense to depict Christ, though not to try to depict His exact image. In other words, what the figure is doing or standing for in the picture is the focus, not the image of Christ Himself. The painting of Christ ascending, with hands outstretched giving blessing and benediction to the disciples, has no intention of depicting our Lord, but of depicting the promise of return. The clouds forming, the expectant faces of the disciples, the elevating movement in the painting, all these depict our Lord's departing in the sense of the gospels. The human form of Christ is merely a necessary object in the painting, not intended to depict Him in any particular way, except to emmanate His assuraces; and not intended to be an object of worship in and of itself. No sane person would think that an art master living many centuries later would actually know what Christ looked like, or have a photograph to work from; so no one actually believes that this image is a replication of any kind. It is a depiction of the event, an attempt to put part of the gospel into a form that can be seen and felt, that can inspire a person to long for Christ Himself, and for His return.
> 
> Is this still a breaking of the second commandment?
> 
> Is that what you meant to ask?


Thank you! Perhaps You did a better job of expressing my question than I did. 
And yes that is the qiustion that I put on the table.


----------



## etexas

bwsmith said:


> I _love_ my religious art & architecture books! Sometimes they have been the goad for a good conversation. However if a created thing is confusing my worship, then by all means, I must lay it before the Lord, and let HIM direct my steps. (Psalm 139:23-24)
> 
> I have a great affection for many artists whose “religious art” is technically excellent and inspiring. Henry Ossawa Tanner and his paintings of the annunciation, and other Bible stories, is one, as well as Handel and Mendelson, and John Bunyon and John Newton. And I love looking at, studying their works – and wondering about the God who stirred so many souls, that HE would stir mine. I am in an art class with many unbelievers – and I felt led ( I trust by God) to design a mosaic with the cross as a central theme. That decision sparked a few conversations among fellow students.
> 
> I also love to write – and I wonder how fiction can be used for God’s glory, and not some idol.



 Thank You. Those are good points about illustrations in Christian literature. You see, I personally cannot conceive how that could be viewed as a graven image for the purpose of bowing to and worshipping. Good thoughts.


----------



## etexas

trevorjohnson said:


> A strict reading of the 2nd COmmandment does not just forbid any graven images that are meant to represent God, but ANY graven images at all...
> 
> The 2nd Commandment then also forbids making any graven image of ANYTHING. THUS - NO ART.
> 
> We must become Wahabi Arabs and revert to only using calligraphy.
> 
> It says ANYTHING in heaven, on earth or under the earth... THis means you cannot draw blueprints for your house, definitely cannot make a statue of a man (you can only depict half of a man anyway, you cannot engrave his soul), nor can you have your tacky littel yard gnomes or pi nk flamingos. These are all forbidden.
> 
> ..UNLESS, you see these things as prohibitions against making any IDOL.
> 
> Shouldn't the Hebrew word read "idol" instead of graven image. An idol's only purpose is worship - thus, this is forbidden.
> 
> Many graven images of fruits, angels, birds, etc adorned the temple.... GOd Himself trasngressed the 2nd Commandment the way some would read the 2nd Cmmndmdnt.


Profound point! If you read it with a confusion of say a picture of Grandma and true IDOLS, then logic says throw out picture of family, snip pictures out of the paper before it comes in the house! The list would never end. Those with children could not have picture of their kids anymore, as a husband I could not have a picture of my wife anymore. The second commandment MUST be understood within the context of intent! Good Points Trevor. Thank you.


----------



## etexas

trevorjohnson said:


> ON the opposite note, I guess if you were far eastern you might be tempted to honor your ancestors with pics of old dead relatives. In this case, this would be a 2nd cmdt violation and the pictures must be dealt with in a way to prevent this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also another point many bring up is this: You cannot picture Jesus becasue you can only paint his humanity not his divinity - thus it is wrong to paint Jesus.
> 
> But, when you paint a man or a women you also only paint the body. You cannot paint the soul of man.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the 2nd Commandment either says, that we are both not to make anything graven AND also not to bow down before them, or we are not to make anything graven for the purpose of bowing down before them (i.e. an idol).
> 
> It really makes more sense to see this as a prohibition against making idols...not merely pictures, etc. IF a prohibition against any graven images is made, so much for DOra the Explorer and so much for illustrations for medical and anatomy books outlining muscles, etc.
> 
> I would agree that trying to picture God the Father is foolishness because God is spirit. But the Son became flesh and flesh can be pictured. (NOTE: but if you are tempted to worship it or entice others to worship it, then you shouldn't have it).
> 
> 
> 
> A final (weird) point: It really is difficult to picture Jesus in your mind as empty space. We always picture him as man. And if this is idolatry, then so is the empty space that is supposed to be picturing him, is it not?


There is a Dora the Explorer cult started by my niece!


----------



## JohnV

trevorjohnson said:


> A strict reading of the 2nd COmmandment does not just forbid any graven images that are meant to represent God, but ANY graven images at all...
> 
> The 2nd Commandment then also forbids making any graven image of ANYTHING. THUS - NO ART.
> 
> We must become Wahabi Arabs and revert to only using calligraphy.
> 
> It says ANYTHING in heaven, on earth or under the earth... THis means you cannot draw blueprints for your house, definitely cannot make a statue of a man (you can only depict half of a man anyway, you cannot engrave his soul), nor can you have your tacky littel yard gnomes or pi nk flamingos. These are all forbidden.
> 
> ..UNLESS, you see these things as prohibitions against making any IDOL.
> 
> Shouldn't the Hebrew word read "idol" instead of graven image. An idol's only purpose is worship - thus, this is forbidden.
> 
> Many graven images of fruits, angels, birds, etc adorned the temple.... GOd Himself trasngressed the 2nd Commandment the way some would read the 2nd Cmmndmdnt.



The point of asking the question honestly is not so that we can present other views dishonestly, Trevor. It is one thing to say that those who interpret the second commandment more strictly are not being consistent, but it is another to portray them as ruling out all images of every kind. After all, some of these guys also use these nice little smilie faces in their posts, and see nothing wrong with that. If you are going to interact with them then interact with what they really hold to, without exaggerating their stance. 

There was a debate about the second commandment on the PB a few years ago. It was well done, although it is likely the case that the pro-image side was misrepresented to some degree. But even at that, I don't think for a moment that this led to an unfair presentation of the anti-image side. Nor did it overstate the side so as to depict it as "strict", in the sense of ruling out family pictures and such. 

I would refer Max to this discussion. I think you will likely find it if you search for "second commandment", or if you ask one of our more computer-able members to link it up for you.


----------



## etexas

I think I stand by my original stance. I think that we as Western Christian should and indeed must make clear that art is not alway Idolatry. Heaven knows I am a Christian man, I do not want violations of the commandment. But before I turn in I leave with an example I began with : The small silver cross(not crucifix), my wife gave me. I do not worship it. It is NOT an image of God; Father , Son, or Holy Ghost. It represents my faith, it is a reminder of what the Wonderful Lord Jesus did for me. Nothing more. This is an imperfect example, but for you Americans, do you look at or flag and see a symbol of our nation. Or do you look at the US flag and get very confused and decide that Flag is Nation. If I carry the Stars and Stripes to Iran and stand on it I am standing on America. What a silly notion! My cross is like the flag in the sense that I do not confuse it with what it stands for. I know some disagree (and I respect you in Christ for your stance, truly), I simply hope you can see where I stand as well. Grace and Peace.


----------



## Civbert

trevorjohnson said:


> ...You do remember the post a while back debating whether the Lion in Lion, Witch and Warbrode was a 2nd Cmndt violation don't you?



But in that case, the Lion was not meant to represent Christ, it was a part of parable of Christianity. It was a pattern or shadow of Christ. It's still debatable since we are not to represent God in the form of anything of the earth (cow, fish, lion), but I think this the Lion not intended to be a direct symbol or image of God. But I could go either way. 




trevorjohnson said:


> ...
> I have seen some Presbyterian kid's Bibles with Jesus as a white blob and no face. But even this is a likeness is it not? A fish bumper sticker too.



It is a likeness. But a fish bumber sticker is a symbol of Christianity - not the God/Christ. The point is we are not to try to represent God (and by implication Jesus) in any earthly form - not as a person, or as a cow. God's attributes, and Christ's divine nature, will always be falsely represented when depicted in the form of of anything of earth. Even if we had perfect photo of Christ, it would be a sin. It coveys a lie, that Jesus was merely a man. 

The same would be true for pictures representing events, it conveys Jesus as not fully God. It's a lie. 

The cross is not a symbol for Christ. But put one at the front of a church and it confuses. Suddenly it seems we are praying to the symbol. Put one one a chain around your neck and it says you are a Christian - at least it used to mean that. Now it means your cool.


----------



## SRoper

I follow Jesus said:


> So would you say an old Church with a steeple with a cross atop it is an Idol. Not a symbol....despite the fact that after being there....say 97 years no one has worshiped it or even thought about worshipping it. And when you say anything on Earth....would that include a Piggy Bank or a child's doll.



No. A cross, a piggy bank, and a child's doll do not purport to an image of God.



I follow Jesus said:


> By the bye....an extreme version on this issue would forbid ANY artwork in a Christian home! Figurines, paintings, vases with fish designs (under the sea remember), plates with painted artwork. You name it. Unless it is not the intended use to replace the TRUE LIVING GOD as the focus of worship.



That would indeed be extreme. No one here is advocating that.



Richard King said:


> Is the image in your avatar something of God?



I don't quite understand your question. I don't think anyone is confusing the picture of me with a picture of God. In creating that picture, I never thought that for a second.



trevorjohnson said:


> A strict reading of the 2nd COmmandment does not just forbid any graven images that are meant to represent God, but ANY graven images at all...
> 
> The 2nd Commandment then also forbids making any graven image of ANYTHING. THUS - NO ART.
> 
> We must become Wahabi Arabs and revert to only using calligraphy.
> 
> It says ANYTHING in heaven, on earth or under the earth... THis means you cannot draw blueprints for your house, definitely cannot make a statue of a man (you can only depict half of a man anyway, you cannot engrave his soul), nor can you have your tacky littel yard gnomes or pi nk flamingos. These are all forbidden.
> 
> ..UNLESS, you see these things as prohibitions against making any IDOL.
> 
> Shouldn't the Hebrew word read "idol" instead of graven image. An idol's only purpose is worship - thus, this is forbidden.
> 
> Many graven images of fruits, angels, birds, etc adorned the temple.... GOd Himself trasngressed the 2nd Commandment the way some would read the 2nd Cmmndmdnt.



You are right except as you note elsewhere God authorizes the creation of representations of created things. Nowhere does he authorize the creation of representations of the creator. In the command do not make an image or likeness the indirect object "of God" is implied.

As to your other point, the first commandment is actually where idolatry is forbidden. An idol is any object that is worshipped in place of God whether it is manufactured by hands or not. If you assert that the second commandment is prohibiting idolatry, then you have the second commandment repeating what the first just said. This is what the Romanists believe which is why they take what we call the first and second commandments and combine them into one commandment. The reformed view is that the second commandment is not about the object of our worship but about how we are to worship.


----------



## SRoper

trevorjohnson said:


> The Bible represents Christ as a lamb. The early church symbolized Christ as a lamb. They never bowed before it or focused their prayers to these art symbols.



If they indeed made a picture of a lamb and called it Christ they were wrong to do so.



> Every photo of every man, except a dead man, would thus be a lie - becasue you can only picture half of a man, the mortal and physical part. You cannot picture a man's soul, therefore every photo is a lie.



This assumes that man is made of two substances which I won't get into here for fear of sidetracking this thread. Even if I grant you that man has an immaterial substance that cannot be pictured, so what? One, we are making a picture of a creature; it need not be perfect. Two, we are still representing the person's only nature (that of a human). An image of Christ can only represent his human nature; his divine nature is wholely severed from his person. "We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation." Images of Christ are not Chalcedon compliant.



> Jesus was God in flesh, people saw Him in the flesh. They were not seeing a lie, though many did not recognize His full character.



No doubt, but this has little do with the lawfulness of making images of God.


----------



## Civbert

trevorjohnson said:


> The Bible represents Christ as a lamb. The early church symbolized Christ as a lamb. They never bowed before it or focused their prayers to these art symbols.



That's a metaphor, not a symbol.


----------



## LadyFlynt

How does a picture of you get confused with a "picture" of God???? I just thought that was you?


----------



## Civbert

trevorjohnson said:


> Every photo of every man, except a dead man, would thus be a lie - because you can only picture half of a man, the mortal and physical part. You cannot picture a man's soul, therefore every photo is a lie.


Jesus is not merely a man. 



trevorjohnson said:


> Jesus was God in flesh, people saw Him in the flesh. They were not seeing a lie, though many did not recognize His full character.


 But seeing, they did not believe the truth. They saw a prophet or a leader or a teacher. They did not know they were looking at the the Son of God. Seeing Jesus physically actually did nothing to help people know who He was. Only his words told them the truth.


----------



## Civbert

trevorjohnson said:


> _Of this I am certain, that God desires to have his works heard and read, especially the passion of our Lord.
> 
> But it is impossible for me to hear and bear it in mind without forming mental images of it in my heart. For whether I will or not, when I hear of Christ, an image of a man hanging on a cross takes form in my heart, just as the reflection of my face naturally appears in the water when I [Vol. 40, Page 100] look into it. If it is not a sin but good to have the image of Christ in my heart, why should it be a sin to have it in my eyes? This is especially true since the heart is more important than the eyes, and should be less stained by sin because it is the true abode and dwelling place of God._
> 
> Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 40: Luther's works, vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.



Even Luther made bad arguments. He assumed: (1) it is impossible to think of Christ without forming a mental image of a man, (2) that it is not a sin to have this image in his mind (3) that there is a difference between the heart and the mind, (4) that the "heart" is less stained then the mind. 

(1) is false. I can understand the difficulty of anyone raised in the Roman church have trouble _not_ imagining an image of Christ when thinking of Him, but it is not impossible. I rarely imagine a person walking around when I think of Christ nature. 

(2) if it's a sin to make graven images of God, then how is it not a sin to have the image in our minds. All sin occurs first in the mind, when we decided to sin. 

(3) the heart/mind dichotomy is not found in Scripture. The heart_ is _the mind in the Bible. 

(4) and how would this be true? I just think Luther is rationalizing his want to have images. His logic does not work. This is not Luther at his best.


----------



## Civbert

trevorjohnson said:


> When a preacher describes Jesus with the women at the well in John 4, how does this pastor not sin if he tells the congregation to imagine Jesus talking to this women and pointing to the well, etc. He is appealing to people to make mental images of Jesus....2nd commandment violations.



You assume he is not sinning?


----------



## Civbert

trevorjohnson said:


> My point is that to read the Gospels with any mental imagery at all would encourage all sorts of 2nd Commandment violations. Every narrative involving Jesus would promote sin on part of the reader.


 Only if they have images of Christ in mind. It is not necessary. 



trevorjohnson said:


> To read about Christ ascending into heaven is to imagine Christ ascending into heaven...doh, another sin (if this be a violation).



To read about Christ ascending into heaven is _not _to necessarily imagine Christ ascending into heaven. Mental images are not necessary for thinking. Some people have no image memories - they can not consciously recall sensations, images, smells, etc. This is not unusual. 

But even if this is difficult - it is also hard for a man to look at on a some women without lust. It is hard not to feel jealousy or envy in some situations. It's a fact that we have failed to keep God's commands completely or perfectly. A day does not go by where we have not sinned in thought, word, or deed.


----------



## Richard King

SRoper said:


> I don't quite understand your question. I don't think anyone is confusing the picture of me with a picture of God. In creating that picture, I never thought that for a second.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I admit I didn't make a very clear point. This question reminds me when my oldest son went hyper charismatic or bi polar or something and began ripping the wall paper off his rental apt. because it had pictures of grape vines on it. He pointed out
> Exodus 20:4
> “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
> 
> using this as a law he must obey he threw out his wife's valuable art books, he threw out pictures both painted and photographed. I was flashing back to that day when I saw a picture of you in the avatar and considered it a likeness of something that is on the earth.
> That is where the argument I think you are making will take you.
> Explain if I am wrong.


----------



## etexas

Richard King said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite understand your question. I don't think anyone is confusing the picture of me with a picture of God. In creating that picture, I never thought that for a second.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I admit I didn't make a very clear point. This question reminds me when my oldest son went hyper charismatic or bi polar or something and began ripping the wall paper off his rental apt. because it had pictures of grape vines on it. He pointed out
> Exodus 20:4
> “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
> 
> using this as a law he must obey he threw out his wife's valuable art books, he threw out pictures both painted and photographed. I was flashing back to that day when I saw a picture of you in the avatar and considered it a likeness of something that is on the earth.
> That is where the argument I think you are making will take you.
> Explain if I am wrong.
Click to expand...


----------



## Civbert

Richard King said:


> Explain if I am wrong.



Your son misunderstood what the Scripture was saying. He was right to obey God's Word, but he did not understand what was being commanded. 

If God's Word said, you shall not wear any green shirts, then throw them all away. But God's word does not say that, and neither does it say we can not make any images. But we are not allowed to make images of God, or make any any object or image an object of worship as if it were God. 

[bible] Exo 20:4-5[/bible]


----------



## eternallifeinchrist

*Gracias*



bwsmith said:


> A side bar – PBS did a wonderful special, In Search of Shakespeare” and their was a companion book – it conjectured that given the perilous times in which Shakespeare wrote, his art was a well disguised attempt to debate the old faith with the new. (RC-ism vs. Protestantism)



Thank you so much! I hope I can find it!


----------



## SRoper

trevorjohnson said:


> When a preacher describes Jesus with the women at the well in John 4, how does this pastor not sin if he tells the congregation to imagine Jesus talking to this women and pointing to the well, etc. He is appealing to people to make mental images of Jesus....2nd commandment violations.



I believe he does sin. It would be the same if he told the congregation to imagine David taking Betsheba into his bed. (I hope by that last sentence I didn't make any of you stumble who claim not to be able to read without picturing what is being described.)



Richard King said:


> Well I admit I didn't make a very clear point. This question reminds me when my oldest son went hyper charismatic or bi polar or something and began ripping the wall paper off his rental apt. because it had pictures of grape vines on it. He pointed out
> Exodus 20:4
> “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
> 
> using this as a law he must obey he threw out his wife's valuable art books, he threw out pictures both painted and photographed. I was flashing back to that day when I saw a picture of you in the avatar and considered it a likeness of something that is on the earth.
> That is where the argument I think you are making will take you.
> Explain if I am wrong.





trevorjohnson said:


> It appears that there are two parts here: (1) making, (2) bowing down and serving them.
> 
> Therefore if each is a separate command we cannot make anything at all. If they are considered together then we can make anything which is able to be made as long as we do not bow down and serve it.
> 
> Thus, Jesus Christ coming in the flesh can be pictured as such. Unless, you say that this is undue temptation...which I might agree.



This has already been addressed. The first part of the 2nd Commandment appears to prohibit the making of any image just as "thou shalt not kill" appears to condemn all killing. However, I believe that the indirect object "of God" is implied as God elsewhere commissions the creation of images of created things. Your "considering together" the two parts of the commandment actually makes the first part meaningless. What purpose does "thou shalt not make" serve if in your view the commandment only means "thou shalt not bow down"?

What do you mean by "we can make anything which is able to be made"?


----------



## Civbert

trevorjohnson said:


> ... - but this line of argumentation makes more sense than making the 2nd Commandment say something it does not from its plain reading..



Scripture provides a system of knowledge. These verses do tell us not to worship false idols, but it also says not to worship images. But we need to consider the plain reading and the rest of Scripture together and see if there are implications beyond the surface. And I believe there are implications, that one is not to make any images of God. This is true for the rest of the commands and how the rest of Scripture relates to them.


----------



## Civbert

trevorjohnson said:


> ... It is only natural to imagine the scenes of Scripture and for those who had seen Jesus to remember him. This imagining and remembering Jesus seems not to be sin. How do we remember Scripture stories...we remember them by the story line, not by remembering a word only....



Envy and lust are also natural - and we sin when we have these thoughts. It is not impossible to avoid lust, envy, or imagining images of Christ - but it is very difficult and none is perfect in righteousness. The standard is high, and it seems we are doomed to sin by nature, But this should humble us before a gracious God for clothes us in the righteousness of our Savior.


----------



## Civbert

trevorjohnson said:


> ...This fails the test of possibility and common sense. You simply cannot read the Scriptures without imagining in your minds eye the scenes that are unfolding.



Yes, it is possible. For some people have no "images" when they read Scripture.


----------



## staythecourse

*Every image of God falls short so it's sin*

That was the final point of Albert Mohler's sermon on the 2nd commandment.

He's not the end-all-be-all in my book by any means but I sure agree with him there.

Here's a memorable experience in my life regarding images.

I go to a church that has zippo symbols or images and I don't think anyone wears a cross. Point being, we try to take all 10 commandments seriously. There's more to it, such as me getting out of the SBC for conscious' sake - namely when I tithe to them I am helping propogate Arminian church plants in many cases among other pretty serious doctrinal issues.

However, I do take classes at Southern (but interest is fading fast). Last semester I took a class on Spiritual disciplines and (you have to be me here - it was like not turning on the television for a year and then seeing an HBO special accidentally, if you get my drift) the professor turns on the overhead to show a picture of Christ hanging on the cross. My reaction took me by surprise as I saw the ludicrousness (how do you spell that?) of the thing. It was a primitive painting, he looked like a martian, and it didn't evoke "the right feelings" but rather contempt at such an inadequate depiction of a man, let alone the Son of God. I said nothing and even participated in the class discussion, to my shame, and left feeling sick to my stomach.

I spoke with some plain old holy people at church and they said "Bryan you should have said something." So I did. I went to him the next class and dispite the tension explained to him it was wrong to depict Christ and it violated the 2nd commandment. He told me to "chill" and that was about it.

Until, he and I made our way to chapel which immediately followed class. Mohler gave the above sermon on the sin of creating any image of God. His infiniteness, or spirit, or "non-creationness" is so out of our comprehension that to limit Him on paper/canvass is instant falsehood and misrepresentation of Truth in all its/His aspects.

To this day I swear Mohler looked me right in the eye as he said that for some reason (I was "in the front row" as they say). Our eyes locked, if my name ain't Bryan Wiley, till he finished forcefully stressing that one point. He also shook my hand before the sermon which I still don't get. But point being, Mohler and I were on the same page, the prof heard the same message from the pres within 10 minutes after a rebuke, and I said, "Whoa, this may be holy ground. I'd better watch my p's and q's for a bit as I'm a little nervous about now."

I talked with the prof later and he said that Mohler and he had different views - Mohler gave the same sermon right after the Passion so he takes it pretty serious.

So, no crosses for this fella, no paintings, sculptures, or anything else that might trick me into creating an image. And my faith is strong without them. It seems to reduce passing on faith to words, which is safe and biblical.


----------



## Bladestunner316

I totally agree that to make an image of Christ violates the 2nd commandment. on top of it they cant even get it right unless Jesus was a 30 year old white male.


----------



## staythecourse

*White, blue eyes and long hair, too*

It must be flowing and to the shoulders.


----------



## staythecourse

*I think you can get it at the seminary web.*

http://www.sbts.edu/resources/Audio_Resources/Chapel_Messages/Fall_2006.aspx

It has a place where you can go to chapel sermons. He's on 10 right now. He's lax on the Sabbath but extremely firm about this one.

Good night.


----------



## staythecourse

*Let me know what you think*

Mohler's a good orator. Tell me how the sermon/argument sounds.

B


----------

