The RPW, The Second Commandment, Nativity Scenes, and Romans 14

[Marrow Man]

I saw where Tim Challies linked this blog article concerning Nativity scenes.

The author of the article is a Sovereign Grace Ministries pastor and is therefore not bound by a confessional document such as the WCF. I did note that he is clearly defending a Normative Principle of Worship practice and raises the bugaboo of "legalism" (misspelled in the URL incidentally) against those who might differ.

The second command addresses making and worshipping visible images of God, i.e. mis-representations of God and worship. The ancient context wasa clearly about making an image like a Golden Calf to represent yahweh. But it says nothing about creche scenes. ...

There are thousands of applications of God's word not explicitly addressed in God's word. Go for the application before God by the Spirit! But do not take up the place of God and decree commands God did not see fit to decree. And keep learning God's word and applying it so that you can grow in holiness.

Can a Christian have a creche scene (nativity)? The Bible does not say. Can a Christian have a creche and worship it, or consider it a means of grace? That violates the second commandment, but it is also a matter of the heart.

So, hear me clearly -- to walk with God we must make those choices and do it knowing that we are pleasing to God. But Romans 14 says we dare not step into the role of law-giver and judge -- despising or judging. I am tempted to despise men who add to the Word of God. That is sin in my heart.

Read Romans 14 carefully -- stew in it, soak in it -- it is remarkable. In it, God answers ten thousand secondary questions. Paul was wise -- he knew that when we start into the answering of all those questions and application and start developing a list of appendices to the Law, we are on a path of diversion from the purposes of God and the freedom of the Gospel.

My question: how might one reply to someone with whom we might disagree but who has come up with a thoughtful position on this issue? And even though I disagree with him on images of Christ, might he have a point in the way we approach certain "divisive" issues here on the PB (such as Christmas celebrations)?

 

[Covenant Joel]

The 2nd Commandment explicitly says "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything ..." then goes on to rule out the possibility of making any kind of image intended to represent the Triune God. This applies to "baby" Jesus too. As for his reference to Romans 14, it is clear that Paul is speaking of things indifferent which, not of the right application of God's moral law.

Presumably by your bolding and underlining you are not saying that all art is wrong? In other words, the representation spoken of refers to representation for the purpose of worship, not art in general?

Regarding the 2nd commandment and baby Jesus, nativity scenes, etc., I definitely get where you're coming from, and I currently won't allow such in my home. But I also understand where he's coming from. I have yet to see a convincing reply to the question of pictures, mental images of Jesus in the minds of the disciples, people, etc., and how that relates to these things. But the point isn't to discuss the issue itself. I'll have to keep thinking on that one.

And I agree, Tim, that a lot more grace ought to be extended in the way we conduct these conversations. Horror over the lack of Christmas celebration and horror over the fact of Christmas celebration can equally lead us to treat our brothers and sisters with less than respect. We can have genuine disagreements even over the application of God's moral and yet still extend grace and have civil conversation over it.

 

[Notthemama1984]

That violates the second commandment, but it is also a matter of the heart.

This is a little off topic, but can someone explain to me what the author means by this statement?

 

[Covenant Joel]

Art intended to represent the Triune God. One must consider the context, which is "And God spake all these words saying I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me...." Then comes the 2nd Commandment. We're not to understand the commandment to forbid the making of all images, just the proscription of making images intended to represent the true God, who "brought [us] out . . . of the house of bondage.." If we were to assume the former, then we could say God commanded Israel to sin when he told them to make images for the Ark of the Covenant, etc. But we know that God doesn't command His children to sin. Ergo, according to the immediate context surrounding the commandment, as well as utilizing the Analogy of Scripture, we may rightly deduce that the commandment pertains to the making of images which are intended to be portrayals of God.

That's a helpful clarification. I figured that was your position, just wanted to make sure.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

There are several things, in my opinion, that are troublesome regarding nativity scenes. In most cases they present an erroneous view of the biblical narratives by placing the men from the east in the manger with the shepherds. Of course, this is not what God's Word says. Second, God did not tell us that the number of these men was three. Regrettably, I learned this Biblical fact from a Jehovah's witness about 35 years ago, and not from by own "Bible believing" Church. Extra-Biblical historical accounts tell us that this was quite a procession, such that frightened then King Herod and filled him with jealousy--it was an ambassage fit for a king, with tens of dignitaries, perhaps hundreds of animals, etc. This procession found the "house" (not the manger) where Christ was and offered their gifts.

As for the lawfulness of making or having purported images of Christ, I have learned much from this article from Professor John Murray. John Murray on Images of Christ

Finally, let us not give lip service only to our confessional standards. LC 109 is clear. If we disagree with it, let's be honest and say that we do, and let those over us in authority in the Church, who watch for our souls, do what they think best for our spiritual care. Our Westminster Divines were wise and judicious men, and we have adopted those standards as the confession of our faith. Let us therefore, following the command of Christ, let our "yea be yea, and our nay, nay."

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This was excellent Pastor Ruddell. Thanks...

Pictures of Christ

by: John Murray

The question of the propriety of pictorial representations of the Saviour is one that merits examination. It must be granted that the worship of Christ is central in our holy faith, and the thought of the Saviour must in every instance be accompanied with that reverence which belongs to his worship. We cannot think of him without the apprehension of the majesty that is his. If we do not entertain the sense of his majesty, then we are guilty of impiety and we dishonor him.
It will also be granted that the only purpose that could properly be served by a pictorial representation is that it would convey to us some thought or lesson representing him, consonant with truth and promotive of worship. Hence the question is inescapable: is a pictorial representation a legitimate way of conveying truth regarding him and of contributing to the worship which this truth should evoke?
We are all aware of the influence exerted on the mind and heart by pictures. Pictures are powerful media of communication. How suggestive they are for good or for evil and all the more so when accompanied by the comment of the spoken or written word! It is futile, therefore, to deny the influence exerted upon mind and heart by a picture of Christ. And if such is legitimate, the influence exerted should be one constraining to worship and adoration. To claim any lower aim as that served by a picture of the Saviour would be contradiction of the place which he must occupy in thought, affection, and honour.
The plea for the propriety of pictures of Christ is based on the fact that he was truly man, that he had a human body, that he was visible in his human nature to the physical senses, and that a picture assists us to take in the stupendous reality of his incarnation, in a word, that he was made in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man.
Our Lord had a true body. He could have been photographed. A portrait could have been made of him and, if a good portrait, it would have reproduced his likeness.
Without doubt the disciples in the days of his flesh had a vivid mental image of Jesus' appearance and they could not but have retained that recollection to the end of their days. They could never have entertained the thought of him as he had sojourned with them without something of that mental image and they could not have entertained it without adoration and worship. The very features which they remembered would have been part and parcel of their conception of him and reminiscent of what he had been to them in his humiliation and in the glory of his resurrection appearance. Much more might be said regarding the significance for the disciples of Jesus' physical features.
Jesus is also glorified in the body and that body is visible. It will also become visible to us at his glorious appearing "he will be seen the second time without sin by those who look for him unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28).
What then are we to say of pictures of Christ? First of all, it must be said that we have no data whatsoever on the basis of which to make a pictorial representation; we have no descriptions of his physical features which would enable even the most accomplished artist to make an approximate portrait. In view of the profound influence exerted by a picture, especially on the minds of young people, we should perceive the peril involved in a portrayal for which there is no warrant, a portrayal which is the creation of pure imagination. It may help to point up the folly to ask: what would be the reaction of a disciple, who had actually seen the Lord in the days of his flesh, to a portrait which would be the work of imagination on the part of one who had never seen the Saviour? We can readily detect what his recoil would be.
No impression we have of Jesus should be created without the proper revelatory data, and every impression, every thought, should evoke worship. Hence, since we possess no revelatory data for a picture or portrait in the proper sense of the term, we are precluded from making one or using any that have been made.
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.
Thirdly, the second commandment forbids bowing down to an image or likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. A picture of the Saviour purports to be a representation or likeness of him who is now in heaven or, at least, of him when he sojourned upon the earth. It is plainly forbidden, therefore, to bow down in worship before such a representation or likeness. This exposes the iniquity involved in the practice of exhibiting pictorial representations of the Saviour in places of worship. When we worship before a picture of our Lord, whether it be in the form of a mural, or on canvas, or in stained glass, we are doing what the second commandment expressly forbids. This is rendered all the more apparent when we bear in mind that the only reason why a picture of him should be exhibited in a place is the supposition that it contributes to the worship of him who is our Lord. The practice only demonstrates how insensitive we readily become to the commandments of God and to the inroads of idolatry. May the Churches of Christ be awake to the deceptive expedients by which the archenemy ever seeks to corrupt the worship of the Saviour.
In summary, what is at stake in this question is the unique place which Jesus Christ as the God-man occupies in our faith and worship and the unique place which the Scripture occupies as the only revelation, the only medium of communication, respecting him whom we worship as Lord and Saviour. The incarnate Word and the written Word are correlative. We dare not use other media of impression or of sentiment but those of his institution and prescription. Every thought and impression of him should evoke worship. We worship him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God. To use a likeness of Christ as an aid to worship is forbidden by the second commandment as much in his case as in that of the Father and Spirit.

Reprinted from Reformed Herald, vol. 16, no. 9 (February 1961), and from The Presbyterian Reformed Magazine, vol. 7, no. 4 (Winter 1993).

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

The master from Badbea had his moments. That was a good one.

 

[Scott1]

One thing that has been helpful to understand about sin.

It can be based on intention, in a subjective sense, as well as on ignorance. Both are sins in light of God's revealed will, and are basis for condemnation before a Holy God who requires perfect obedience to get into His Heaven.

That's why focusing on the "heart" intention is not the whole story.

The adage, "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse," comes to mind. God has the whole in view, outward action and inward motivation, and He alone sets the standard.

This underscores how important the Word is in understanding our God, obeying Him and seeking to bring Him Honor and Glory through our lives.

It also underscores how utterly dependent we are on faith in the perfect righteousness of Christ alone to justify us in God's sight.