earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Though it was The Man, Christ Jesus, who was hung on a cross. No matter how much we "try" to not have that image in our mind (A man hanging on a cross) it is there and it In my most humble opinion not sin.
Is a wooden cross hanging prominently in a sanctuary a violation of the 2nd
- Thread starter raydixon9
- Start date
- Status
Though it was The Man, Christ Jesus, who was hung on a cross. No matter how much we "try" to not have that image in our mind (A man hanging on a cross) it is there and it In my most humble opinion not sin.
Tim
Puritan Board Graduate
Earl, I acknowledge the difficulty in refraining from making images in one's mind, but what you have suggested is contrary to our standards:
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
I remain surprised by the assertion that seeing a cross naturally causes people to fashion an image of Jesus in their minds. I just don't see that this naturally follows, any more than seeing the communion table naturally causes one to fashion an image of Jesus reclining at the Last Supper, or seeing a fish naturally causes one to fashion an image of Jesus at the Sea of Galilee.
Also, there has to be a point where we acknowledge a difference between (1) a worship service where one is instructed, say, to look at a cross and actively imagine Jesus and what he looked like there and use that mental image as an aid to worship and (2) the fuzzier, non-specific images that naturally dance around in our brains when we hear or think about anyone, real or fictional, just because that's how brains work. The latter sort of fuzzy image doesn't naturally and necessarily pop into my head when I see a cross... but if it does happen (when I see a cross, or a communion table, or a fish, or whenever), it still doesn't feel like the same thing as "making" an image.
Also, there has to be a point where we acknowledge a difference between (1) a worship service where one is instructed, say, to look at a cross and actively imagine Jesus and what he looked like there and use that mental image as an aid to worship and (2) the fuzzier, non-specific images that naturally dance around in our brains when we hear or think about anyone, real or fictional, just because that's how brains work. The latter sort of fuzzy image doesn't naturally and necessarily pop into my head when I see a cross... but if it does happen (when I see a cross, or a communion table, or a fish, or whenever), it still doesn't feel like the same thing as "making" an image.
Tim
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes, I believe it does include a prohibition of making images of Jesus as Man. Consider this explanation from Thomas Ridgley's exposition of the Larger Catechism, Question 109 in A Body of Divinity
I was actually talking to some friends about how, on a Candidates & Credentialing committee, I can usually tell what Seminary a person went to when they offer that the 2nd Commandment cannot prohibit mental images of Christ due to the "impossibility" of avoiding it.
I usually offer two things to such candidates:
1. I don't find it impossible. It could be due to my lack of imagination. I grew up Roman Catholic and got a full dose of seeing images of Christ but I really don't picture a man every time I think of Christ. Nor do I form such mental images every time I see a cross.
2. Let's assume that it is not possible for some to avoid forming a mental image of Christ. Let's even assume none can. Is that really an argument? In other words, if, in my flesh, I find it impossible to fulfill the Law does that set the norm for the Law itself? I offer that we never question whether the other Commandments set impossibly high bars but, for some reason, find the notion that we could possibly break the 2nd Commandment an intolerable notion.
In other words, the argument for the impossibility of one of the Commandments is not, in itself, an argument for its validity. If, after careful exegesis and theological study, we come to the conviction that the Lord requires of us something we cannot perform in our flesh then the solution is not to discard it but to go to the fount of grace.
I usually offer two things to such candidates:
1. I don't find it impossible. It could be due to my lack of imagination. I grew up Roman Catholic and got a full dose of seeing images of Christ but I really don't picture a man every time I think of Christ. Nor do I form such mental images every time I see a cross.
2. Let's assume that it is not possible for some to avoid forming a mental image of Christ. Let's even assume none can. Is that really an argument? In other words, if, in my flesh, I find it impossible to fulfill the Law does that set the norm for the Law itself? I offer that we never question whether the other Commandments set impossibly high bars but, for some reason, find the notion that we could possibly break the 2nd Commandment an intolerable notion.
In other words, the argument for the impossibility of one of the Commandments is not, in itself, an argument for its validity. If, after careful exegesis and theological study, we come to the conviction that the Lord requires of us something we cannot perform in our flesh then the solution is not to discard it but to go to the fount of grace.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
Jack, a big difference in your examples is that God has commanded us to include one of them in our worship, but not the others.
As already has been said, far as I can tell, the majority are not saying there is an inherent problem with a bare cross; but it has been subject to abuse as much as anything has been and it is not wise to make it a focal point in the sanctuary. My church has as part of the architecture a 20 foot cross dead front and center; you can't ignore it, you can't miss it, and it is there to stay. One wishes more prudence had been shown 54 years ago in the design.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
I'm sure many of us are old enough to familiar with those paintings of our Lord that used to be hanging in church offices, and sometimes in schools. How times have changed. He is portrayed as very handsome and when I first read Isaiah 53:2 I was surprised at the description being so far removed from popular culture's depiction. Even now it requires an effort for me not to visualize some of those paintings in my mind's eye. Not in a sense of worshipping a graven image but just conditioning from childhood on. I don't think I've ever been to a church that did not have a cross behind the pulpit if not on the front of it. I'm not advocating that, just commenting on my own experience.
I've never seen one as big or as inescapable as in my church; it's just too much. It's unfortunate.
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
I see it as a symbolic written thing that means "Christian."
Human language expresses itself naturally in symbols. The dot above a dress = women's. The circle with the slash = "no." The star and the crescent = "Islam." The Star of David = "Jewish." The arrow to the right = "right turn." Etc. We communicate using symbols instead of words all the time.
So I see the cross as a symbol substitute for the word "Christian," and have no more objection than I would to seeing the word "Christian" spelled out in letters.
Human language expresses itself naturally in symbols. The dot above a dress = women's. The circle with the slash = "no." The star and the crescent = "Islam." The Star of David = "Jewish." The arrow to the right = "right turn." Etc. We communicate using symbols instead of words all the time.
So I see the cross as a symbol substitute for the word "Christian," and have no more objection than I would to seeing the word "Christian" spelled out in letters.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I totally agree the handsome Christ is so far removed from the reality of the image painted in scripture that I also have many times quipped to people as we look at a painting of the supposed Jesus. "Won't we all be surprised how different He looks when we see Him face to face in heaven". Now of course when I do this I imagine some image of a person that had "no beauty or majesty to attract us to him". In other words, a regular type of Joe that we could not identify in a police lineup. Here we have scripture "painting a portrait" of Jesus that pops in our mind by using words.
Last edited:
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I can't imagine someone not thinking of Jesus as a man without having at least the image of a generic image of male vs. female. Albeit I am not saying directly as to be able to identify him in a police line up, for no doubt many more would worship the image if it was such.
PS. I agree I do not draw the image in my mind every time I see a cross though no doubt I do when I read physical descriptions of Him....and if so is this sin?
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Humanity. Now in stating this In my most humble opinion this is the only way we will ever see God with physical eyes. Below is a topic that discusses how we ought to get used to this.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/beatific-vision-80410/
sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
Matthew 19:13
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray...
We're not supposed to visualize his hands? I imagine he had five fingers with callouses.
Matthew 17:2
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
We're not supposed to visualize his face? Granted, we have no idea what his face actually looked like. Can you visualize his raiment without imagining his body that wore it?
Matthew 14:25
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
We're not supposed to visualize him walking on the water?
John 20:27
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Am I to imagine his wounds without imagining his body? Jesus himself gives warrant for us to visualize his bodily wounds; thereby making it necessary for us to imagine a body like his and ours. He was a man Can there be be any doubt that a stereotype of a man just entered your thoughts just now? These visualizations we form should also incite devotion because of what he did for us; which comes very close to worship, but visualizing the person of Christ and worshipping those visualizations are, in my mind, two different things.
I don't put forth these images of him and worship those images no more than I worship bread and wine. Forming an image of him in our thoughts when we read the Scriptures is no more sinful than when we conceptualize his presence during the Lord's Supper. At the table, the bread becomes his body. To say that we have been given two visual aids for the Lord that makes unnecessary any other image of Christ really creates a problem. Would God institute idolatry in the first place? No. This is conundrum appears more nuanced than some would appear to allow in this thread. Therefore, not all visualizations of the Lord are sinful, as the communion table and the anthropomorphic language of the Scriptures bear witness.
The argument of the impossibility of not forming an image does not bear any weight on the matter. Rather, I see the necessity of visualizations bearing on the matter. It is necessary to visualize our Lord in order for us to have any concept of him at all; otherwise, the verses mentioned above make no sense. Is anyone going to tell me that I should not imagine the Lord's body as indicating the Lord's body in the verses mentioned above? Is his body, as described in the foregoing verses to be divorced from who represents himself to be in his own words? Can we imagine his person doing anything at all without forming a visualization of him? Am I not to imagine Jesus kneeling down to the children of shorter stature to pray for them? Don't be cray-cray already!
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray...
We're not supposed to visualize his hands? I imagine he had five fingers with callouses.
Matthew 17:2
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
We're not supposed to visualize his face? Granted, we have no idea what his face actually looked like. Can you visualize his raiment without imagining his body that wore it?
Matthew 14:25
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
We're not supposed to visualize him walking on the water?
John 20:27
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Am I to imagine his wounds without imagining his body? Jesus himself gives warrant for us to visualize his bodily wounds; thereby making it necessary for us to imagine a body like his and ours. He was a man Can there be be any doubt that a stereotype of a man just entered your thoughts just now? These visualizations we form should also incite devotion because of what he did for us; which comes very close to worship, but visualizing the person of Christ and worshipping those visualizations are, in my mind, two different things.
I don't put forth these images of him and worship those images no more than I worship bread and wine. Forming an image of him in our thoughts when we read the Scriptures is no more sinful than when we conceptualize his presence during the Lord's Supper. At the table, the bread becomes his body. To say that we have been given two visual aids for the Lord that makes unnecessary any other image of Christ really creates a problem. Would God institute idolatry in the first place? No. This is conundrum appears more nuanced than some would appear to allow in this thread. Therefore, not all visualizations of the Lord are sinful, as the communion table and the anthropomorphic language of the Scriptures bear witness.
The argument of the impossibility of not forming an image does not bear any weight on the matter. Rather, I see the necessity of visualizations bearing on the matter. It is necessary to visualize our Lord in order for us to have any concept of him at all; otherwise, the verses mentioned above make no sense. Is anyone going to tell me that I should not imagine the Lord's body as indicating the Lord's body in the verses mentioned above? Is his body, as described in the foregoing verses to be divorced from who represents himself to be in his own words? Can we imagine his person doing anything at all without forming a visualization of him? Am I not to imagine Jesus kneeling down to the children of shorter stature to pray for them? Don't be cray-cray already!
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Any attempt to disunite the body from the soul, the humanity from the divinity, of Christ is inherently Nestorian.
To imagine our Savior and not be drawn to worship makes no sense.
To imagine our Savior and not be drawn to worship makes no sense.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
A thought experiment. I suppose it would be sinful for brother B, who has yet to see the Lord, imagine Christ when brother B hears brother A's vivid account of seeing Christ preach the Sermon on the Plain. In other words, in NT times, I imagine (no pun intended), that it wouldn't have been sinful to picture Jesus in the mind's eye if one had already seen him.
It's amazing since repenting and leaving Rome how the "hard copy" images of Christ have just disappeared from my life automatically without a deliberate Karlstadtian crusade. Almost a month after embracing the Christ of history years ago there was hardly a trace of statues or images in my personal life. I kept one picture of Jesus and a Rosary, that were gifts years before, in a closet until about a year ago when my conscience wouldn't allow it. We don't have a cross hanging in our house nor fish on our cars. It's not been deliberate, just sort of automatic.
I find this tread most convicting. I've never really considered my thought life and images of Our Lord the way describe in this thread though I've read the Commandment and the Confessions on this matter I don't know how many times. There are pastor/teachers such as R.C. Sproul and Jerram Barrs whom I respect and God has used so much to train and edify the saints but on this matter I think they are wrong.
It's amazing since repenting and leaving Rome how the "hard copy" images of Christ have just disappeared from my life automatically without a deliberate Karlstadtian crusade. Almost a month after embracing the Christ of history years ago there was hardly a trace of statues or images in my personal life. I kept one picture of Jesus and a Rosary, that were gifts years before, in a closet until about a year ago when my conscience wouldn't allow it. We don't have a cross hanging in our house nor fish on our cars. It's not been deliberate, just sort of automatic.
I find this tread most convicting. I've never really considered my thought life and images of Our Lord the way describe in this thread though I've read the Commandment and the Confessions on this matter I don't know how many times. There are pastor/teachers such as R.C. Sproul and Jerram Barrs whom I respect and God has used so much to train and edify the saints but on this matter I think they are wrong.
To paraphrase Thomas Vincent, if an image stirs to worship God, it is a violation of God's second command, if it doesn't stir up to devotion, it is a violation of the third.
Several important pages are missing from the IA copy of Erskine's book. See this GB version (a bit in the gutter, but can interpolate). Erskine cites LC109, WCF and SC.
Faith No Fancy: Or, A Treatise of Mental Images, Discovering the Vain ... - Ralph Erskine, James Fisher - Google Books
Faith No Fancy: Or, A Treatise of Mental Images, Discovering the Vain ... - Ralph Erskine, James Fisher - Google Books
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Thanks Chris!
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I am not disuniting the body from the soul or the humanity from the divinity, any more than when Jesus said "If you have seen Me you have seen The Father."
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
OK did I just cause many to sin by highlighting the above? Tell me the truth can you read any of the above an not imagine an image of Jesus as portrayed in His Word?
OK did I just cause many to sin by highlighting the above? Tell me the truth can you read any of the above an not imagine an image of Jesus as portrayed in His Word?
Last edited:
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
So from John Murray and his thoughts on the subject.
"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."
Why not expand on what those that walked with The Lord and how they were indeed sinning if they did what Murray says they did?
"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."
Why not expand on what those that walked with The Lord and how they were indeed sinning if they did what Murray says they did?
sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
You're not supposed to be imagining what Jesus looks like when you read those verses, Earl. Where it says, "his hairs were white like wool," you may only imagine white, wool, hairs, and him, but not Jesus. Okay? Besides, only those who are more gifted than you and I are able to not form an image of Jesus in their minds when reading those verses.
DISCLAIMER: A tongue and cheek response was given to the foregoing post in order to prove a legitimate point not adequately addressed in this thread and should be regarded as friendly; even happy and smirky too. It should neither be quoted out of context nor without regard to the spirit of the intent without hazardous repercussions for the well being of the church and it's poster non-extraordinaire.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I hope you point is as well received as I took it. Of course I in no way want to disrespect any here who have a more scrupulous view of God's law than myself. I mean that in all sincerity and with no rancor at all for those that disagree with moi.
sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
Sometimes, to get the hornets to sting the intended subject, one has to stir up the nest. While I am not trying be stung in the fray, I am certainly asserting my untested thoughts to the scrutiny of the PB nest. I may not find an adequate answer on this forum. I may need to come across the answer by a careful inquiry in another context.
I realize that sorting the dross from the gold reveals a razor's edge between truth and blasphemy. Israel's worship of God through the golden calf and the worship of Christ through the institutions of his word and sacraments is proof of that, and I don't suppose for one second that God sanctioned idolatry in the Lord's supper or the descriptions of Jesus in his word. Like I said in an earlier post on this thread, the subject appears more nuanced than some would appear to make it. To put it simply, I cannot imagine how descriptions of Jesus in the Scriptures are there only for God to forbid the use of them for the purpose of relating to our Savior. If we are to conceptualize the Scriptures for our use, visualizations of Jesus becomes a necessity; otherwise, descriptions of him are mute point in the word meant for us to gloss over with non-thoughts of what we read concerning his physical appearance. Hands, face, tears, feet, and hair all become subjects of inquiry that are forbidden. Hair white as wool becomes an unavoidable incitation to sin; and that from God himself with no clear mandate otherwise. To say that Jesus is a man necessarily forces one to form a stereotypical image of what a man is. To exclude base thoughts of Jesus' manhood from our thoughts reduces him to a concept to which no one can relate. We don't suppose him to be, God forbid, a squirrel. Well, then, what is he? He is a man. What does a man look like? Does such a man look like a couch? No. A man looks like us. Now, as you noted above, did I make anyone sin? I cannot figure how some on this board can read of Jesus in the Scriptures and avoid forming an image of him in their minds. Proof of that is the fact that all would readily confess that he must have had two eyes, a mouth, and hands like ours; all of similar shape and number. How does one come to this conclusion without forming some sort of stereotypical image? Have I caused anyone to sin just now?
Someone, please! If I need to be corrected, then be a brother a sanctity me with somethings cuts through the dross.
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
Actually, we do in the Revelation description, which is quite descriptive.
Why are there details about his eyes, hair, feet if we aren't to mentally visualize those details? I get a rather blurry idea, no detail as to shape of nose, mouth, skin type, height. . .I am not defending setting ink to paper to draw it out, but to pretend there is no image in your mind when reading this description strikes me as just that, pretend. Presuming that all details in Scripture have purpose, what is the purpose of these details? It seems to me to give us a reasonable mental visual.
Why are there details about his eyes, hair, feet if we aren't to mentally visualize those details? I get a rather blurry idea, no detail as to shape of nose, mouth, skin type, height. . .I am not defending setting ink to paper to draw it out, but to pretend there is no image in your mind when reading this description strikes me as just that, pretend. Presuming that all details in Scripture have purpose, what is the purpose of these details? It seems to me to give us a reasonable mental visual.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes. But it doesn't describe what Christ looks like, or looked like in His time on Earth, in comparison to any other man. So e.g. His facial features, stature, etc, are complete unknowns. Besides, the description in Revelation is somewhat symbolic of His glorified and exalted state, and not to be taken literally, like the rest of the book e.g. a sword proceeding from His mouth, etc.
- Status