# Idolatry



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 27, 2011)

Hi:

I believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship, and I take the view that it is founded upon the 2nd Commandment:



> Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven abov e, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments, Ex. 20:4-6.



I am also in full agreement with the Westminster Larger Catechism Question 109:



> _What are the sisns forbidden in the second commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any represnetation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed._



My conundrum is this: Both the Scriptures and the WLC make a distinction when it comes to this commandment. First, it seems to me that the Command forbids the making of any type of image of God, Ex. 20:4, and the WLC picks up on this by stating, "the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever...." The idea is that making a sculpture of a bird is not forbidden, for example, but to make a sculpture of a bird and call it "God" is what is forbidden. Secondly, the Scriptures then go on to forbid any type of worship of a false image (the Regulative Principle). That is how I am reading the Scriptures and the WLC, and I believe that the Reformed position is consistent with such a reading.

However, and this is the conundrum, I know of people who are good Reformed men who claim that the two parts are actually only one. That is, it is allowable to make an image of God as long as you do not worship it. This, I believe, is a Roman Catholic view.

If the WLC is correct, and I am reading it right, then images of the Trinity, such as the Triquetra, pictures of Jesus Christ, the Dove, the "Statue of God the Father" in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and anything else that intends to make an image of God is forbidden and idolatrous in nature.

The application of this would include children's Sunday school materials, Bibles, and Psalters that have pictures of Jesus, Trinitarian symbols, or any other type of representation of God are all idolatrous. I am aware of the argument that Jesus was both God and Man, but if you are only depicting the human nature of Jesus, then you are not depicting Jesus Himself. If you depict something like the image of God in your picture of Jesus (like a halo), then you are depicting God, and I believe the 2nd Command applies.

Am I wrong in such an understanding?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## au5t1n (Sep 27, 2011)

Hi Rob,

Perhaps it can be thought of this way. We might see it as one command: Purported images of a deity are forbidden. However, there are two kinds of purported images of a diety: (1) a purported image of God (for any purpose), or (2) an image of a created thing which is worshiped as a god or as God. This allows one commandment (the Second) to forbid two classes of things.


----------



## nwink (Sep 27, 2011)

Andrew Barnes found some great quotes on the thread below:

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

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

Calvin: "We believe it wrong that God should be represented by a visible appearance, because he himself has forbidden it [Exodus 20:4] and it cannot be done without some defacing of his glory (Institutes 1.11.12)." and "Therefore it remains that only those things are to be sculptured or painted which the eyes are capable of seeing: let... See More not God's majesty, which is far above the perception of the eyes, be debased through unseemly representations (Institutes 1.11.12)."

"QUESTION 5: Is it not lawful to have images or pictures of God by us, so we do not worship them, nor God by them?
ANSWER: The images or pictures of God are an abomination, and utterly unlawful, because they debase God, and may be a cause of idolatrous worship.
QUESTION 6: Is it not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, he being a man as well as God?
ANSWER: 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 stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment." - Thomas Vincent, A Family Instructional Guide


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 27, 2011)

> If the WLC is correct, and I am reading it right, then images of the Trinity, such as the Triquetra, pictures of Jesus Christ, the Dove, the "Statue of God the Father" in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and anything else that intends to make an image of God is forbidden and idolatrous in nature.



I don't believe such things need to be destroyed according to the commandment, if that is what you are implying, but can be moved into museums along with pagan statues and images as anthropological curiosities. For there to be idolatry someone must be using them in an idolatrous way.



> pictures of Jesus



Christ is both God and the Image of God, and the way that we see Him is in His Word and by His Spirit. Thus any image of Christ or purported image of Christ is a purported image of the Image, and comes between us and the true Image of God i.e. Christ.

This needs to be explained to children who may use story Bibles with images of Christ, or books and children's Bibles without images of Christ should be used.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 27, 2011)

Hi:

Thank you for all of your responses.

Here is a hypothetical situation: If you were in a Bible Study, Sunday School, Evening Worship Service or Prayer meeting where the teacher consistently used images of Jesus to teach his points, then would it be right to boycott such classes without causing a problem? And politely point out to the teacher the idolatry of such presentations?

Thanks,

Rob


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 27, 2011)

I would cite the standards and request he not use them. If that does no good and there are no other circumstances that would require attendance, don't.
An RE in my old church, who was very keen against such idolatry (who sadly passed away suddenly this month--Rev. 14:13), raised this as an issue at meetings of Presbytery in 1994, where attendance is a duty of office, thus a more complex case; but see here for materials and background:
*The Blue Banner Volume 3 Issue 7-8. July-August 1994.
Coldwell: *Indifferent Imaginations? The Case Against Images at Meetings of N. Texas Presbytery.* Kik-Murray-Fisher-Vincent-Durham-Boettner: *Images of Christ A Violation of the Second Commandment: Supporting Documents.


CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Thank you for all of your responses.
> 
> ...


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 28, 2011)

Hi:

Thank you, Chris, for that reply. I am a little confused about this statement, "I would cite the standards and request he not use them." Do you mean that you would cite the standards and request that the teacher use them (the Standards) in his class?"

Blessings,

Rob

---------- Post added at 12:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------

Hi:

I got it - you mean that you would cite the standards, and request that the teacher not use images in the class.

-RPW


----------

