Joseph Scibbe
Puritan Board Junior
Is a picture of a cross (minus a pic of "Jesus") consisered a violation of the 2nd commandment?
Cross and 2nd commandment
- Thread starter Joseph Scibbe
- Start date
- Status
Julio Martinez Jr
Puritan Board Freshman
This is a great topic. I was currently in a nightly debate with some people on the subject. I think the second commandment is violate for conceptual reasons--Biblical too but we'll work on the conceptual. Conceptually speaking, the opposing side says that a cross reminds them of Jesus and causes--that's a key term here--them to worship. My point was to show that the act of it causing veneration is by its use a medium of worship. I added that it reminds us about the thing signified and causes one to worship. Had the thing only reminded the perishoner about the crucifixion, then I think the second commandment would not be breached. But because it carries religious significance and therefore creates a worshipping spirit, I would have to say that it does breach the Law. Now there are a couple things that I am assuming: (1) The abiding validity of the Law (Convenant Theology), (2) the contintuity of the covenant of works--which is part in parcel part of (1) but with qualifications, and (3) the philosophical nature of things signified and linguistical certainty.
The Greeks and Language
I want to explain number three because it can be a little confusing. There is a philosophical view of language that the Greeks believed that has to be addressed, namely because people who espouse this view of language and pictures--they say that speaking about the cross alone creates a mental image. The Greeks held that all language is replete with images. I simply have to disagree. When I say that Law exists, I am using language without the reality/signification of pictures or images. So for the Reformed, language isn't always laden with photographs.
The immediate critique from the opposing side then retorts, "You have a physical symbol called the Lord's Table." They even begin to quote Jesus when he said that it is a remembrance of this sacred institution. Firstly, Christ institutes the sacrament, so the sheer act of institution debunks that position. He does not institutes systemic idolatry. Second, as a remembrance, it does not have the function of worship from me to God. It works the other way around. God is feeding the soul of the communicant as a means of grace. The case in point here is that I think the strength of the argument has a lot to do with language and the function of symbols. If the symbol causes you to worship in some form or way, it is being used as a medium and is therefore breaching the second commandment. I believe this makes a good case for inconolasm.[1]
Your thoughts?
[1] a breaker or destroyer of images, esp. those set up for religious veneration.
The Greeks and Language
I want to explain number three because it can be a little confusing. There is a philosophical view of language that the Greeks believed that has to be addressed, namely because people who espouse this view of language and pictures--they say that speaking about the cross alone creates a mental image. The Greeks held that all language is replete with images. I simply have to disagree. When I say that Law exists, I am using language without the reality/signification of pictures or images. So for the Reformed, language isn't always laden with photographs.
The immediate critique from the opposing side then retorts, "You have a physical symbol called the Lord's Table." They even begin to quote Jesus when he said that it is a remembrance of this sacred institution. Firstly, Christ institutes the sacrament, so the sheer act of institution debunks that position. He does not institutes systemic idolatry. Second, as a remembrance, it does not have the function of worship from me to God. It works the other way around. God is feeding the soul of the communicant as a means of grace. The case in point here is that I think the strength of the argument has a lot to do with language and the function of symbols. If the symbol causes you to worship in some form or way, it is being used as a medium and is therefore breaching the second commandment. I believe this makes a good case for inconolasm.[1]
Your thoughts?
[1] a breaker or destroyer of images, esp. those set up for religious veneration.
It certainly can be. I'm not fond of crosses hanging at the front wall of a church where everyone is facing, up really high where people often look when they're singing.
In other contexts, it might be harmless or useful for remembering what was won for us on the cross, but in the kind of context I mentioned, it has the potential to be dangerous if we try to use it as a medium for worship.
Ultimately, I do not think crosses play a huge role in what is wrong with American Christianity today. I can think of so many things that need to be rooted out, and that one isn't even on my top 100. But it could be a problem, for sure.
I question whether this should be absolutized.
A "cross" could be shorthand, it could simply be a replacement for the words "church building."
In other words,, just because some people do wrong things with symbols, doesn't mean symbols per se, nor a particular symbol is wrong. There must be other considerations brought to bear.
A "crucifix" contains an illegitimate representation of one Person of the Godhead--ergo, it is idoatrous, and forbidden in any circumstance. Someone could make an argument that a bare "cross" is not appropriate inside a Christian worship service, because it is distracting, or could be used (in some way?) for worship--I don't agree, but it is an argument.
But one of those roadside monuments--three crosses on a hillside? Sinful? Please. I need more than a simplistic rejection of mere symbolism to convict me.
A "cross" could be shorthand, it could simply be a replacement for the words "church building."
In other words,, just because some people do wrong things with symbols, doesn't mean symbols per se, nor a particular symbol is wrong. There must be other considerations brought to bear.
A "crucifix" contains an illegitimate representation of one Person of the Godhead--ergo, it is idoatrous, and forbidden in any circumstance. Someone could make an argument that a bare "cross" is not appropriate inside a Christian worship service, because it is distracting, or could be used (in some way?) for worship--I don't agree, but it is an argument.
But one of those roadside monuments--three crosses on a hillside? Sinful? Please. I need more than a simplistic rejection of mere symbolism to convict me.
Julio Martinez Jr
Puritan Board Freshman
Symbolism wasn't the gist of what I was mentioning. I think that all language could be comprised of symbols, but the etiology of worship, if galvinized by the symbol, becomes a breach of the second commandment. Would you agree there?
No way, since we do not worship it. More than that, in our culture, where the Protestants are in the minority (less than 1 per cent of the population) and most of the people are religiously ignorant, it is the only way to say we are Christians, not "sectants" like JW.
carlgobelman
Puritan Board Freshman
If it were, you'd have to dismantle an awful lot of church steeples.
-----Added 10/26/2009 at 02:08:36 EST-----
I think there is a lot of wisdom here. When many churches aren't even preaching the cross, we don't want to waste time on whether or not people are depicting crosses.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Should buildings intended for worship, built in the shape of a cross (or with a seating layout in that format) be bulldozed?
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
There is an awful lot of strawmen being tossed in the flames in this thread.
proverbs31woman
Puritan Board Freshman
Wow, Julio. I have never thought of it like that. Thanks, i will have to continue a in-depth study. I'd be interested in any further information,as I do not come from a background that shares the same idea. Thanks!
Nathan Riese
Puritan Board Freshman
If we're going to evaluate whether having a cross violates the 2nd commandment, maybe we should all take a closer look at the 2nd commandment instead of assuming so many things. I haven't seen anybody actually make any case for or against while using the actual words of the 2nd commandment. Why not?
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou 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;
If we take verse 4 by itself, then that would mean any statue or ANYTHING made in the image of anything that is on earth or in heaven or in the water would be evil.
Looking at verse 5 we see that it's the worship of those things that makes those things idols.
shouldn't that make the answer clear? If you worship the cross rather than the one who died on it, then it is wrong. If you do not worship the cross, then where is the violation? All of the philosophical arguments laid here so far do not answer that. It is the worship of the cross itself that would be the only thing wrong in terms of the 2nd commandment.
I do no know of any church or person who worships the cross itself. Do you?
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou 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;
If we take verse 4 by itself, then that would mean any statue or ANYTHING made in the image of anything that is on earth or in heaven or in the water would be evil.
Looking at verse 5 we see that it's the worship of those things that makes those things idols.
shouldn't that make the answer clear? If you worship the cross rather than the one who died on it, then it is wrong. If you do not worship the cross, then where is the violation? All of the philosophical arguments laid here so far do not answer that. It is the worship of the cross itself that would be the only thing wrong in terms of the 2nd commandment.
I do no know of any church or person who worships the cross itself. Do you?
One thing to bear in mind here is that the commandments have further application than at first appears because we need to examine our hearts and see if we break them in more ways than we realize (cf. the sermon on the mount). Perhaps few people intentionally worship the cross, but I don't think anybody was asserting that it would be on purpose if it happens. We worship many things unintentionally - just saying.
That said, I stand by my earlier comment about the relative lack of a problem of "cross-worship" in the church today. I don't think most Christians are worshipping crosses just because they have them as church decor. However, that doesn't mean we have no need to examine our use of these things. It might be worth thinking about.
That said, I stand by my earlier comment about the relative lack of a problem of "cross-worship" in the church today. I don't think most Christians are worshipping crosses just because they have them as church decor. However, that doesn't mean we have no need to examine our use of these things. It might be worth thinking about.
Last edited:
Julio Martinez Jr
Puritan Board Freshman
Nathan, you have a good idea as far as idol worship goes. However, since we live in a climate of diverse groups who lay claim to "Christian orthodoxy" and venerate crosses and religious symbols, we need to revise the arguments in face of opposition. My position is that if there is some form or way in which the symbol is used to galvanize the worship--the idea of something being done THROUGH the symbol--it is breaching the second commandment. These symbols were not instituted as systemic forms of worship by either the Apostles or Jesus himself. We are given only the means of grace, which are roughly:
- Reading of Scripture
- Faithful preaching of the Word
- Prayer
- The Sacraments
- Psalm singing (or praise or spiritual song to the vocabulary of Paul)
proverbs31woman
Puritan Board Freshman
Wow, my head is spinning. This is awesome! Thanks for everyones responses!
charliejunfan
Puritan Board Senior
I would like to think that Christ and Christians should only be represented by scripture preached/read, obedience, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. I find it hard to say that having a cross on a building is bad though....I don't know...
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
So then you are saying there is no prohibition against making images? Only the worship of them?
BertMulder
Puritan Board Junior
while there is a prohibition of making images of God (including Christ in His human nature, as it is inseparable from His divine nature),
there is no prohibition against making images of anything else, except if they be used in worship.
Nathan Riese
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes. For, the making of images could be anything that is made. That would include stuffed animals, pictures of any kind, the making of anything that represents anything on earth would be prohibited.
For, if one makes a cross for the sake of making a cross with no meaning to it whatsoever, how is that breaking a moral commandment? The commandments are deeper than that. The commandments are summed up into two: love God and love your neighbor.
The 2nd commandment is obviously a "love God" commandment, making the love of the graven image made to be the breaking of that commandment, not just the making of the image itself, but the motive. The commandment is about what you love: is it God or is it the graven image?
In having a cross it should be about: do you love God, or do you love the image of the cross?
If you argue for the fact that the image itself is evil, then that is a stipulative argument, meaning you can stipulate the the neglecting of allowing anything to be made that resembles anything God made (i.e., pictures, statues, stuff animals, etc.)
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
What I mean is, are you saying that there is no prohibition against making images of God?
We need to distinguished outright idolatry from things abused to the point of superstition and idolatry. One concerns the nature of a thing; the other the use of a thing. See A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies by George Gillespie (Naphtali Press, 1993).
Nathan Riese
Puritan Board Freshman
No, I'm not saying that, but I think that there would need to be some strong argumentation to prove that a cross is an image of God.
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
Nathan Riese
Puritan Board Freshman
I understand this statement, but I have a hard time seeing the argument that because others have misused the image of the cross that that makes anyone's use of the cross to be contra-2nd commandment.
I do think it would apply to the principle of expediency, though. That having a cross in a culture in which people venerate crosses would be sin in causing others to stumble in their disobedience to the 2nd commandment, but one's own sin of having that cross would be different than the other's sin in worshipping that cross.
What I was arguing for was that, hypothetically speaking, if you were on an island completely remote from the rest of the world and you had a church and you put a cross on that steeple, that if you and your congregation did not worship that cross, then that does not make it a violation of the 2nd commandment. That was it.
In applying the expediency principle, I do believe that it is sin to cause others to sin and that it is not a good idea to make a cross if you yourself may even desire to worship it.
I think there may need to be clarification here.
I do not believe it is wrong to have something remind you of the grace that was given at the Cross. However, I think that that is different from having something galvanize the worship. The latter I do agree is a breach of the 2nd commandment
Julio Martinez Jr
Puritan Board Freshman
I think that is my initial point. Though the very existence of crosses bears no breach of the Law, when used as a medium for worship becomes idolatry regardless of its existence. This could be said of any religious symbol. If it is used to stir-up, galvanize or motivate me to worship as a means as a medium, it becomes idol worship. I am simply following the Reformed formula of the RPW: that which is only required for worship is prescribed. We are not allowed to worship God in the ways we please because God stipulates proper worship and adds injunctions against false worship. False worship is commensurate to idol worship. This is why I am cautious about religious symbols at all, because man is an "idol factory." The thing in itself has no bearing of evil or good, but the mind of man that gives it meaning makes it sinful.
Sidenote
On a side note, Dr. Godfrey recently gave some lectures here in California for Calvin's 500. The lectures were amazing and very informative. He gave some points from his new book, John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor, and explained the reasons why Calvin whitewashed the churches in Geneva. This is the argument that I am using. Now that's not to say that I am not being Biblical. I believe there are Biblical foundations to the systemic approach that I am proposing here. After all, this isn't an "original" idea that I came up with. I am basically following what the Westminster Standards, The Three Forms of Unity, and other Reformed confessions have stated in the past. More importantly, I am setting forth the Biblical ideas which I believe were championed by Peter and Paul, and all the apostles. With that said, I know everyone here is automatically thinking that every one in this room believes that in his conscience that what he believes is Biblical too; and I am not saying you, the reader, are not being Biblical. However, I am trying to shed some light on a common disagreement among the faithful, that symbols could be employed as long as we don't bow down to them. I would further suggest that the very existence and the subconscious veneration they cause--because we are idol factories--makes them a violation of the second commandment. To put it conceptually, we are "bowing down" to the thing because of what it causes: lofty thoughts of remembrance which cause worship through them.
- Status
