8 comments

1. Ok, since this same blog has posted an argument that we over-use the term ‘idol’, my question is, how do we reconcile the argument that ‘ idolatry’ is overused, yet at the same time every single representation of the very human Jesus is idolatrous?

   Reply ↓

   • As the author of the other article in question (at least, I’m assuming I understand your reference), I think it’s clear that any image of any person of the Trinity consistutes making a graven image, which is prohibited in the 2nd commandment. That would be literal idolatry. Many try to argue for an exclusively pedagogical use, but it seems obvious that there is no such thing. If you teach a child that this picture is Jesus, and then teach them to worship Jesus, how will they not have that picture in mind? One of my original arguments was that the overuse of figurative idolatry (idols of the heart) has distracted people from the very real problem of literal idolatry (making/ worshiping images of any deity, worshiping any deity alongside/besides the true God). Why is it more immediately obvious to so many reformed Christians that “money is an idol,” but it’s shocking for them to hear that an image of God the Son is an idol? The former was all but unknown to our reformed forebears, while the latter was one of their greatest concerns as they reformed worship.

     Reply ↓

     • Thank you for your response. I raise the question because it seems like the issue of using the word ‘idolatry’ applies in circumstances of art that depict scenes from the gospels, and not mere icons of a male figure that we are told is a representation of Jesus. An iconic image has no purpose outside of veneration, but a scene from the bible might express many things that are not intended or even perceived as idolatry by either the artist or the audience.
       Can one portray a scene of the sermon on the mount where there is a figure whose back is to the viewer, who may be inferred to be Jesus?
       Is it a violation of the 2nd commandment if we see a scene where a sinking Peter is being lifted from the water by a hand that we can assume belongs to the Savior?
       I believe DeYoung”s children’s bible might have been saved by utilizing such artistic devices. Do you think so as well, or do you think it wrong to even portray a finger, or a nail pierced foot?
       Your articles make a strong point; idolatry ought to be used where actual Worship is being given to someone or thing that is not God. I think you are correct. But perhaps what I am trying to articulate here conflates the concept of idolatry with the violation of the second commandment.

       Reply ↓

2. A coment and a question.
   While I have always opposed a depiction of God, both as Father and of Son, for some reason I have “excused” manger scenes. Good point. Now for the question.

   How far do we extend this? Do we limit ourselves to simply pictures and statues or should we extend it to videos and moving pictures, two media not envisioned when the Torah was given. Should we extend it to plays, pagents and the like? But then, jump back again.

   Torah never imagined “God in human form.” While we obviously do not know what Jesus looked like, God himself chose to come to earth as a physical, visible, tangible human. It is almostas if he was challenging his own revelation to Moses. So do we make an exception of sort, or discount these depictions of Jesus on this account? Can we say that Jesus’ birth, his taking on flesh, is a tacit approval to depict him in various ways?

   Reply ↓

   • Ron,

     The ancient Christian position and the confessional Reformed position was to oppose every image of God the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

     This is documented here.

     The apostles left no images. Jesus authorized no images. Any image is necessarily the product of our imagination, which is just what the 2nd commandment intends to forbid: making God after our image.

     As to whether the incarnation is tacit approval of images, Heinrich Bullinger answered this in 1566:

     Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come “to abolish the law and the prophets” (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets” (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (I Cor. 3:16). But “what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (II Cor. 6:16).

     As to mental images:

     https://heidelblog.net/2021/09/are-mental-images-of-god-unavoidable/

     Reply ↓

     • We do not know, of course, whether the Apostles left images or not. We can assume so, but there is much they said and did that we have no record of. Ditto what Jesus said or did not say. John make it clear that what he has written down is but a sampling of all that he spoke. (My paraphrase.) Am I suggesting that they did or may have? As they saying goes, the as=bsence of proof is not the proof of absence.

       Images were common long before the Reformation, going back as far as the year 300 or so. Michelangelo’s painting of the Sistine chapel was shortly before the Reformation. So obviously there was a broad acceptance.

       In this conversation we are, of course, referring in no small way, to human opinions. That is not to say that I disagree. I have never and will never use an image, common though they may be. At the same time I will insist that we be mindful of the fact that our thoughts and our ways are not to be confused with the Lord’s thoughts and ways. Hence I tend to be very careful in what I assert to be truth and with “proof texting.”

       Now to push this matter a bit futher, you may have heard that a Swiss congregation has an “AI Jesus” where you apparetly go into a confessional and there you will see an “image of Jesus” and are able to carry on some manner of discussion or confession. I cannot express how upset I was in hearing this. The breaking of the commandment taken to an extreme.

       Reply ↓

       • Neither do we know if the apostles condemned/believed in UFOs.
         IOW claiming there is no proof of a negative is a fallacy.

         Rather there is ample proof of what Christ and the apostles beleived regarding images in the apostolic scripture.

         If one denies the Second Commandment regarding images – though if Christ came to fulfill the law, it is highly unlikely that his apostles would do evil that good might supposedly result – there remains the analogy of faith.

         The Lord Jesus Christ is the Word become flesh John 1:14, the very image of the invisible God Col. 1:15. Saving faith in him – without which it is impossible to please God Heb. 11:6. – comes by hearing the Word, i.e. preaching Rom. 10:14-17. NOT pictures, plays or puppets.
         (That Michelangelo was a papist, if not the Pope/AntiChrist was his client, does not make the Sistine Chapel a cogent argument for the lawfulness of images or likenesses of Christ.)

         Moreover our reformed fathers understood that not only anything put in place of the truth was wrong, but also anything put alongside of the truth, was wrong. So pictures added too or accompanying the preaching of Christ.

         But such evidently is the level of theological discernment, if not outright ignorance of Scripture and the analogy of faith in Good Faith Subscription churches these days, who cannot long remain genuine P&R churches, their sincere good faith in latitudinarian subscription notwithstanding. Rather to whom much is given, much is required.

         Reply ↓

         • Well said, Bob!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.