Nativity Scenes?

Do you allow or have nativity scenes in your home?

  • No, they are idolatrous.

    Votes: 26 59.1%

  • No, for other reasons.

    Votes: 5 11.4%

  • Yes, you're crazy.

    Votes: 13 29.5%
  • Total voters
    44
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. But I didn't vote because the third option would require me to say something derogatory about a brother, i.e., "you're crazy".
 
I think the only one in my mother's collection of decorations has the babyjesus broken out of it; wonder how that happened....
Here is the relevant text of LC109 from what I have so far on the critical text for that question (work done through the Scottish critical texts of RP 1725, Dunlop, and Lumisden & Robertson 1728).

Larger Catechism 109.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
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) ....
a NUM 15:39.
b DEU 13:6-8.
c HOS 5:11; MIC 6:16.
d 1KI 12:33 [Maxey; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX. 1KI 11:33. Dunlop added back 1KI 12:33 and since then the traditional text has retained both references. However, it seems clear 12:33 is correct and sufficient and the 11:33 is present only because of an error in Rothwell. This was not star’d (*) by Rothwell but is so by Dunlop (L&R etc). RPc typo: 1KI 11:32, 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 [THIRD and COX drop REV 2:20 in reference but have actual text. In MAX between the DEU and ZEC texts there appears: “vide ” and this appears in RothB as well. THIRD changed this to “vide (g)” but has “(g)” at the appropriate place as well at the next proof. FOURTH has “vide (b)” but COX “vide (g)”. Obviously MAX was directing the reader to see the iteration of some of the same DEU verses in reference “b”. THIRD mistook the for another reference and changed it to “g” but kept the order when “g” appeared subsequently. FOURTH corrected this but COX went back to the “g”. Dunlop and L&R simply drop all partial text cited from DEU 13 and direct the reader to “b” thus correcting the confusing and using “see” rather than the Latin “vide.”
g DEU 4:15-19; ACT 17:29; ROM 1:21-23, 25.
 
After a while, the sheep start to stink, and it is hard to sleep with all that bleating. The hay is a mess to clean up, not to mention what the animals...the answer is, "No, A." :)
 
Last edited:
I am not ashamed to say yes, or that I am crazy. I actually enjoy seeing the different Nativity scenes from the nations. There is a local seminary nearby that has quit a few.

Oh, by the way we are not worshipping or praying to our Nativity scene. :)

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 10:25:06 EST-----

I was thinking of starting a thread asking if one could celebrate Christmas without violating the second command according to:
Larger Catechism 109.
What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
The sins forbidden in the second commandment, are, all devising, (a) counseling, (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) ....

How can we celebrate Christmas without thinking of the baby Jesus? As a tradition we always read the birth of Jesus story from Luke's gospel and it is hard not to imagine what is happening like I do every time I read something. Couple that with all the old Christmas music that is Christ centered it is hard not to imagine what is being celebrated.

I guess we could make it all about ourselves like the secular people do.;)
 
I have had to fight this issue in my current church. Several years ago, a member came back from Israel (!) with a beautiful hand carved nativity scene and donated it to the church. He died a few years after that, so obviously it is difficult to do anything with the scene (on display in the lobby) without being viewed as desecrating the memory of a much beloved member. My compromise on the issue was to allow the display, minus the baby (since it's idolatry) and the Magi (since it teaches error, In my humble opinion, that they arrived on the night of the birth). I've also made it a point of preaching during this year that Christ is no longer in the manager (nor on the cross nor in the tomb) but enthroned in heaven. He is not longer in His estate of humiliation but exaltation.
 
Our OPC had a Christmas play, with the choir, kids dressed up as shepherds and angels. Little Mary and Joseph first went out, then kneeled down next to an empty crib. The next day I coincidentally had come to the 2nd Commandment in catechism with the youngest, and asked why the crib was empty. They said it was explained at church during the practice for the play, and obviously the crib had to be empty :)
 
Joshua said:
Of course, it's idolatry, regardless of the intentions of those who set it up. Why wouldn't the 2nd Commandment apply? Does it change if Christ is depicted as an infant? No.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to hear some more background (i.e. scriptural background) on this line of reasoning with reference to e.g. paintings showing Jesus.

God gives an explanation of this commandment in a parallel passage:

Deu 4:15 "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,
Deu 4:16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
Deu 4:17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air,
Deu 4:18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.
​

Most commentators I've read emphasize that the graven image prohibition is in reference to the facts that (a) we can't truly represent the appearance of a spiritual God, and (b) we are not to create a visual representation for worship purposes, as Exodus 20:5 goes on to clarify.

First, when we come to the Lord Jesus' human incarnation, it is completely orthodox to believe that he was a normal-looking human being. There was nothing unrepresentable about his appearance for someone who saw him in person. Therefore it's easy to see how somebody could regard part (a) above as non-applicable here (with exception perhaps of John's apocalyptic vision and the transfiguration, when Jesus looked decidedly different from an ordinary person).

Second, obviously many Christians believe that a painting of a religious scene that happens to include a respectful and ordinary portrayal of Jesus would not violate part (b) above, due to not itself being an object of worship.

Many Christians believe that an across-the-board application of the 2nd commandment to images of Jesus' ordinary human appearance would be inappropriate, and perhaps show a lack of recognition of what a drastic and novel event the Incarnation was.

Does anybody have some further scriptural insight on this?

It is certainly helpful to show the teaching of catechisms, and to point to learned Divines who held such and such a view; however I am confident that some individuals around here can make a scriptural argument directly.
 
Joshua said:
Okay, here's the Scripture, my emphases added (from Exodus 20, can't remember the exact verse, just writing from memory):
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
Click to expand...
The 2nd Commandment is very clear:

1. Do not make them.
2. Do not worship them.

Thou shalt not make them. Don't do it. Notta. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
Click to expand...

This is not a flippant question, but wouldn't "or that is in the earth beneath" preclude photographs in avatars? If this is a categorical exclusion of all images not only of that which is in heaven, but also that which is on earth, does that exclude the graphical representation of any creature?
 
Joshua said:
Okay, here's the Scripture, my emphases added (from Exodus 20, can't remember the exact verse, just writing from memory):
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
Click to expand...
The 2nd Commandment is very clear:

1. Do not make them.
2. Do not worship them.

Thou shalt not make them. Don't do it. Notta. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Joshua.

Note -- don't get me wrong here, I'm not really advocating the other position, even if it looks like I am. Just trying to be thorough in considering this. :^)

What if someone objected that the prohibition on representing God was a prohibition on representing God as a spiritual being, since the only visual representations he's provided prior to Christ have been mysterious visions like Isaiah's?

What if a Christian did not regard the physical appearance of Christ as a representation of God, in a second commandment sense.

For example, if somebody asked you what God looked like, and you answered that he looked like a 1st century Jewish man, you would be very right in one sense and very wrong in another sense. Many Christians regard the commandment as forbidding attempts to represent the latter sense only.
 
Joshua said:
TsonMariytho said:
Joshua said:
Okay, here's the Scripture, my emphases added (from Exodus 20, can't remember the exact verse, just writing from memory):
The 2nd Commandment is very clear:

1. Do not make them.
2. Do not worship them.

Thou shalt not make them. Don't do it. Notta. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Joshua.

Note -- don't get me wrong here, I'm not really advocating the other position, even if it looks like I am. Just trying to be thorough in considering this. :^)

What if someone objected that the prohibition on representing God was a prohibition on representing God as a spiritual being, since the only visual representations he's provided prior to Christ have been mysterious visions like Isaiah's?

What if a Christian did not regard the physical appearance of Christ as a representation of God, in a second commandment sense.

For example, if somebody asked you what God looked like, and you answered that he looked like a 1st century Jewish man, you would be very right in one sense and very wrong in another sense. Many Christians regard the commandment as forbidding attempts to represent the latter sense only.
Click to expand...
What if, shmat if ...

They would be wrong. The 2nd Commandment didn't change, nor was it abrogated. Is Christ God? Yes. Is God to be depicted, portrayed, or represented other than by the Bread & Wine at the Lord's Table? No.
Click to expand...

Your logic is impeccable, but is open to the charge of being too simplistic.

For example:

[rank heresy]
- Christ is a man (we know this from scripture).
- God is not a man (we know this from scripture).
- Therefore, Christ is not God. (yikes, this is wrong)
[/rank heresy]

Obviously in the Incarnation, something changed. God became man. The one who had no form he was known by, suddenly was "seen and touched" in the form of a man.
 
Whitefield said:
Would a dove or a flame be included in this prohibition?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean in a painting of the relevant Biblical stories...

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing about the burning bush.

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 12:22:16 EST-----

Joshua said:
No, because then God would have been causing those who made the temple, ark of the covenant, etc. to sin by commanding them to create certain images. The whole point is the context in which God makes this commandment: anything that's intended to represent, portray, or otherwise depict him. That's what's being prohibited in the 2nd Commandment.
Click to expand...

On further thinking about it, I believe your response above was inadequate.

Exo 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.
Exo 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,[etc.]​

The plain meaning of the text forbids making a graven image of a frog, even if you don't consider the frog to be Yahweh God, if that frog is an object of worship.

You are condensing this down to the idea that you can't make an image of God. But the text doesn't explicitly state that. It says you can't make an image of anything, and then worship that image.

This text standing on its own doesn't explicitly forbid making an image of God that is not used for worship. If it did forbid such, then it would also forbid making an image of any frog, even if it was not used for worship, because there is no distinction between God and the frog in the text -- unless you posit the view that an image of God can only be made for worship.

I think you have to pair this passage with supporting passages such as I quoted above, where God says "you saw no form" to make a biblical case against making an image of God.
 
Last edited:
Some longer previous threads on the subject of images/pictures of Jesus.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/images-Christ-27205/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f121/ol...ng-images-Christ-my-mind-while-praying-38128/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/john-piper-2nd-commandment-36910/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/wha...s-impact-world-since-violates-2-comand-36837/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/were-not-worshipping-images-36720/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/worshipping-churches-violate-2nd-commandment-32989/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/idolatry-29006/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/movies-about-Jesus-violate-2nd-commandment-25698/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/pictures-Jesus-sinful-art-22552/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/pictures-Jesus-9922/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/images-2nd-commandment-3707/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/second-commandment-Paul-fred-discussing-3633/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/passion-Christ-186/
 
Joshua said:
I don't have to do anything. Further, if you want to see the multitudinous times this has been discussed on the PB just do a search. I can take the 2nd Commandment at face value and see very plainly that it prohibits the creation of "any likeness of any thing," and that within the context of the right God being worshiped rightly.

See this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/attention-reminder-all-pb-members-41401/
Click to expand...

Joshua, you do not have to interact with me on this issue, and you do not have to allow the issue to be discussed on these forums.

However, if you are accusing me of personally holding an unconfessional view or of discussing opposing perspectives with any more vigor than a full theological exploration requires, then I would appreciate an apology.

Your point that it's been discussed before was apropos, and duly noted.
 
Yeah yeah yeah, but many will say that they aren't MAKING the images or WORSHIPPING them, how do you respond to that?
 
Thomas Vincent on the Second Commandment:

Q. 5. Is it not lawful to have images or pictures of God by us, so we do not worship them, nor God by them?

A. The images or pictures of God are an abomination, and utterly unlawful, because they do debase God, and may be a cause of idolatrous worship.

Q. 6. Is it not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, he being a man as well as God?

A. 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.
Click to expand...
 
TsonMariytho said:
Joshua said:
I don't have to do anything. Further, if you want to see the multitudinous times this has been discussed on the PB just do a search. I can take the 2nd Commandment at face value and see very plainly that it prohibits the creation of "any likeness of any thing," and that within the context of the right God being worshiped rightly.

See this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/attention-reminder-all-pb-members-41401/
Click to expand...

Joshua, you do not have to interact with me on this issue, and you do not have to allow the issue to be discussed on these forums.

However, if you are accusing me of personally holding an unconfessional view or of discussing opposing perspectives with any more vigor than a full theological exploration requires, then I would appreciate an apology.

Your point that it's been discussed before was apropos, and duly noted.
Click to expand...

There is no debate that if you are advocating for pictures of the 2nd person of the Trinity that this is certainly uncofessional. LC 109:

Q109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A109: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,[1] counseling,[2] commanding,[3] using,[4] and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;[5] tolerating a false religion;[6] 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;[7] all worshipping of it,[8] or God in it or by it;[9] the making of any representation of feigned deities,[10] and all worship of them, or service belonging to them;[11] all superstitious devices,[12] corrupting the worship of God,[13] adding to it, or taking from it,[14] whether invented and taken up of ourselves,[15] or received by tradition from others,[16] though under the title of antiquity,[17] custom,[18] devotion,[19] good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever;[20] simony;[21] sacrilege;[22] all neglect,[23] contempt,[24] hindering,[25] and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.[26]

1. Num. 15:39
2. Deut. 13:6-8
3. Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16
4. I Kings 11:33; 12:33
5. Deut. 12:30-32
6. Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20, Rev. 17:12, 16-17
7. Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23, 25
8. Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8
9. Exod. 32:5
10. Exod. 32:8
11. I Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11
12. Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23
13. Mal. 1:7-8, 14
14. Deut. 4:2
15. Psa. 106:39
16. Matt. 15:9
17. I Peter 1:18
18. Jer. 44:17
19. Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14
20. I Sam. 13:11-12; 15:21
21. Acts 8:18
22. Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8
23. Exod. 4:24-26
24. Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13
25. Matt. 23:13
26. Acts 13:44-45; I Thess. 2:15-16

If you sepnd some time reading through the Q&A and also, in their entirety, the prooftexts provided, you will greatly profit from it and come to understand the Reformed view.
 
The burning bush was in no way to be understood as a representation of the Godhead. It represented none of his divine attributes. The burning bush, like the back side of God's glory that Moses also witnessed, was a manifestation of God's presence and nothing more. The pillars of fire and smoke were not God, they were merely a manifestation of his presence.
 
I voted no, because I believe God's Word to be abundantly clear in the Second Commandment.
 
mangum said:
There is no debate that if you are advocating for pictures of the 2nd person of the Trinity that this is certainly uncofessional.
Click to expand...

....

mangum said:
If you sepnd some time reading through the Q&A and also, in their entirety, the prooftexts provided, you will greatly profit from it and come to understand the Reformed view.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed info. As I made rather abundantly clear above, my interest was to ensure that this thread discussed and refuted common objections to the confessional position using clear scripture. The confessional position was already made quite clear in this thread by Chris / NaphtaliPress. Being of a Puritan frame of mind myself, I respectfully requested that some people around here whose prowess at directly handling the Word of God I have reason to respect very highly could hammer the point home further. However, I am now getting a pretty strong hint that this is a scriptural exploration the site admins to not want to see [repeated], so I expect I will drop it.

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 01:13:47 EST-----

BobVigneault said:
The burning bush was in no way to be understood as a representation of the Godhead. It represented none of his divine attributes. The burning bush, like the back side of God's glory that Moses also witnessed, was a manifestation of God's presence and nothing more. The pillars of fire and smoke were not God, they were merely a manifestation of his presence.
Click to expand...

But a drawing of Moses' vision from the cleft of the rock would be inappropriate, wouldn't it? One who didn't know better could read your response above and conclude that you'd allow it -- which I can't imagine anyone here would.

As I'm considering it right now, I lean against the permissibility of drawing the burning bush. Surely the fire represents something about God's divine attributes?
 
TsonMariytho said:
mangum said:
There is no debate that if you are advocating for pictures of the 2nd person of the Trinity that this is certainly uncofessional.
Click to expand...

....

mangum said:
If you sepnd some time reading through the Q&A and also, in their entirety, the prooftexts provided, you will greatly profit from it and come to understand the Reformed view.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed info. As I made rather abundantly clear above, my interest was to ensure that this thread discussed and refuted common objections to the confessional position using clear scripture. The confessional position was already made quite clear in this thread by Chris / NaphtaliPress. Being of a Puritan frame of mind myself, I respectfully requested that some people around here whose prowess at directly handling the Word of God I have reason to respect very highly could hammer the point home further. However, I am now getting a pretty strong hint that this is a scriptural exploration the site admins to not want to see [repeated], so I expect I will drop it.
Click to expand...

If I misunderstood you, then my apologies. It appeared you were advocating making images God / Christ.

Those people who would argue from the Bible would argue from those prooftexts I provided. That's why I provided them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

shackleton
  • Locked
Nativity scenes violation of second command?
Replies
13
Views
5K
etexas
E
Marrow Man
  • Locked
The RPW, The Second Commandment, Nativity Scenes, and Romans 14
Replies
7
Views
5K
Scott1
Scott1
Back
Top