Caesars Image...........

Discussion in 'The Gospels & Acts' started by Scott Bushey, Mar 24, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Puritan Board Doctor

    [quote:d6e5dc291a][i:d6e5dc291a]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:d6e5dc291a]
    I agree with you Patrick, on that note.

    However, Scot's question is still unanswered. [/quote:d6e5dc291a]
    Well, if it's ok for the civil magistrate to have his image on his currency, what does it matter what his sins are? Perhaps there is a confusion over the ordained office, and the sinful man who occupies it?
     
  2. Saiph

    Saiph Puritan Board Junior

    So we are down to three possible interpretations of the 2nd commandment:

    1. Do not make images of anything at all.
    2. Do not make representational images of God at all.
    3. Do not worship representational images of God, or images in general as God.


    I go with #3 . . . .
     
  3. Me Died Blue

    Me Died Blue Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    [quote:19b6b1587b][i:19b6b1587b]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:19b6b1587b]
    The fact that Christ says to "give to Caeser what is Caesers" I think simply honors Caeser as the civil magistrate. The coin has Caeser's image on it, it's the currency of his empire, and as subjects of that empire they are to follow the just laws, pay their taxes, and honor the king. This is not worship, it's God ordained civil order. The coin itself was not made for the purpose of worship, but for common use in the realm. Therefore the image on it as well, was not intended for worship, but to acknowledge who is the ruler of that land. [/quote:19b6b1587b]

    But the classical Reformed understanding of the second commandment (which is what Scott has been trying to compare this account with) is not merely that it is forbidden to make images [i:19b6b1587b]with the explicitly intended purpose of worship[/i:19b6b1587b], but rather that it is forbidden to make any images of God at all. It is in light of this interpretation that we are considering the account of Caesar on the coin, since Christ was apparently condoning the image of someone who was worshipped as a god, which would only be potentially questionable under the classical Reformed interpretation of the second commandment. [i:19b6b1587b]Of course[/i:19b6b1587b] there wouldn't be a possible discrepancy between the two passages if we took the non-Reformed understanding of the second commandment...

    [quote:19b6b1587b][i:19b6b1587b]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:19b6b1587b]
    I agree with you Patrick, on that note.

    However, Scot's question is still unanswered. [/quote:19b6b1587b]

    I actually gave my answer to it in the first part of my first post in this thread.

    In Christ,

    Chris
     
  4. mjbee

    mjbee Puritan Board Freshman

    Okay, I'm beating a dead horse here. We have all kinds of garbage on our currency, like a pyramid with an all-seeing eye. However, it would be quite difficult for believers to live without currency. I don't think Jesus was saying anything about Caesar's proclamation that he was God. He was saying that believers can use currency without feeling guilty that they're engaging in idolatry. How else are we to live? Move into a self-sustaining compound like the Branch Davidians? Just my :wr50: again. Bee
    Just tell me to shut up. It won't do any good, but tell me anyway.;)
     
  5. Me Died Blue

    Me Died Blue Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    [quote:232f983bd0][i:232f983bd0]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:232f983bd0]
    Okay, I'm beating a dead horse here. We have all kinds of garbage on our currency, like a pyramid with an all-seeing eye. However, it would be quite difficult for believers to live without currency. I don't think Jesus was saying anything about Caesar's proclamation that he was God. He was saying that believers can use currency without feeling guilty that they're engaging in idolatry. How else are we to live? Move into a self-sustaining compound like the Branch Davidians? Just my :wr50: again. Bee
    Just tell me to shut up. It won't do any good, but tell me anyway.;) [/quote:232f983bd0]

    It's not that Christ was [i:232f983bd0]explicitly[/i:232f983bd0] mentioning Caesar's claim to be a god and its bearing on the coin's relation to the second commandment--the issue is that by inevitable [i:232f983bd0]inference[/i:232f983bd0], by His instructions on payment, Christ was undeniably condoning the coin as acceptable, and in light of the fact that He also taught God's Law perfectly, He must not have thought the coin to be a violation of the second commandment. It is that inevitable implication of the account that warranted the discussion on its relation to the second commandment.

    Chris
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page