WLC 109 and Pagan Deities

[Theoretical]

I recently reread the Larger Catechism and was struck by this part of question 109:
Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed. (https://opc.org/lc.html)

---

This one was really interesting to me because of how routinely and uncritically the Golden Calf gets portrayed pictorally, or various historical or current pagan deities like Zeus, Venus, or the Hindu pantheon. Arguably/likely, it would also include Buddhas. The worship is (and should be) obviously forbidden, but until reading this, it never occurred to me that the same types of images as are forbidden of the real Godhead would of course also be forbidden of pagan deities even while I'd want nothing to do with them. In retrospect, it's pretty obvious, but is an example of why it's worth it to re-read the confession and catechism again.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I agree that we should not get creative and artistic (and perhaps entrepreneurial) and make representation of pretend gods. I question if the intent of the statement is meant to forbid also every factual presentation of what it is/was the practice of others with regard to their errant religious practice. If such a display encouraged the worship of the ancient golden calf or of a current idol, then in order not to tempt others we should prefer another perhaps verbal description. But a textbook or Sunday School materials with a conceptual rendering of the idol as an idol to be shunned runs counter to any notion of support.

If you attend the punctuation of the relevant clause, it begins where you bold the text following one (of several) semicolons that divide the main answer. The next two phrases that are marked by commas are thereby meant to be closely associated with the opening phrase of this clause; i.e. the latter are subordinate to the initial. The whole clause presents a single idea, and the worship... or service to the idol-gods must be united to the forbidden intent of making. The clause in question is succeeded by the next which forbids manufacture of articles like icons or statues of saints made for religious (supposedly Christian) veneration. We should not say, because of abuses of pictures or carvings that hence, none such should be permitted in any context. The Mslims go to this length, and much of the art in the Middle East is patterned and geometric because of it. Their blanket prohibition does not make it the wiser, safer course.

Destruction of the "monuments of idolatry" is the opposite virtue enjoined by the catechism answer. It "unmakes" and profanes and despises the so-called god. Israel kept the brazen serpent from the wilderness, but not for worshipping. Retaining the item was not foolish in and of itself; but when it became a public snare, this very figure God willed to be made for a good end was properly destroyed as an act of piety.

Previously idolatrous museum pieces that today may also be collected in picture books or other like media are not intrinsic offenses, being dead even to the imagination. Inert, these are not more likely than a certain living tree or hill or river or Haile Selassie or a floating concept to capture an idolatrous following.

 

[CGS]

The whole clause presents a single idea, and the worship... or service to the idol-gods must be united to the forbidden intent of making.

To clarify...are you saying that WLC 109 does not prohibit both the 1) making of and 2) the worshipping of images, but rather that it just prohibits the making of images if they are for the purpose of serving/worshipping them?

Would it not be wrong just to make an image of Christ (even if not for the intent of worshipping it) ...for example, since no one knows what Christ looks like it would be a false image, etc.

So...some would argue that it is OK to make and display images of Christ (stained glass, paintings, etc.) in places of worship as long as no one is actually worshipping/serving these images. Would you agree with this argument? If not, how would you respond to people who hold that view?

 

[Simpleton Luke]

To clarify...are you saying that WLC 109 does not prohibit both the 1) making of and 2) the worshipping of images, but rather that it just prohibits the making of images if they are for the purpose of serving/worshipping them?

Would it not be wrong just to make an image of Christ (even if not for the intent of worshipping it) ...for example, since no one knows what Christ looks like it would be a false image, etc.

So...some would argue that it is OK to make and display images of Christ (stained glass, paintings, etc.) in places of worship as long as no one is actually worshipping/serving these images. Would you agree with this argument? If not, how would you respond to people who hold that view?

There are officers in my church who hold to the opinion that because an image of Christ can only speculate on his physical body, and not capture the divinity of his being, it is an incomplete image, is not Christ, and is an affront to who he is. There is at least some evidence of artists attempting to solve this problem in history as we can see from the Papists, in their icons of Christ beginning in the 4th century having a halo or by picturing Jesus revealing his "divine heart" to highlight his divinity and also his uniqueness within the pantheon of icons.

Regardless, their worship of these images is definitely a second commandment violation, but I would be hesitant to call out things like the early Church's depictions of Christ, for the sake of teaching/catechesis as heresy.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

To clarify...are you saying that WLC 109 does not prohibit both the 1) making of and 2) the worshipping of images, but rather that it just prohibits the making of images if they are for the purpose of serving/worshipping them?

Would it not be wrong just to make an image of Christ (even if not for the intent of worshipping it) ...for example, since no one knows what Christ looks like it would be a false image, etc.

So...some would argue that it is OK to make and display images of Christ (stained glass, paintings, etc.) in places of worship as long as no one is actually worshipping/serving these images. Would you agree with this argument? If not, how would you respond to people who hold that view?

Charles,
Maybe I misunderstood what your intent was in the OP. Your comment was not (as I read it) mainly in regard to images of the True God (so also the Person of Christ Incarnate), but to images of idol gods. It is impermissible to ever make any pictorial or physical representation of any of the Three Persons under any pretense whatsoever.

I will quote you: "routinely and uncritically the Golden Calf gets portrayed pictorally, or various historical or current pagan deities like Zeus, Venus, or the Hindu pantheon. Arguably/likely, it would also include Buddhas. ... it never occurred to me that the same types of images ... would of course also be forbidden."

Read at face value, it seems you might conclude that the Golden Calf (from Ex.32) should not be portrayed in a Sunday School page, and that on the basis of the 2nd Commandment. Nor Zeus, Act.14:12-13. Nor Dagon (Jdg.16:23; 1Sam.5:2), or Bel (Is.46:1), not even a photo of a statue made by idolaters millennia ago, now printed in a seminary textbook for the purpose of information. If you meant that, then I meant to push you to reconsider the extreme position. If you did not mean that, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

It isn't obvious to me that the Puritans and reformers of the 16th century intended to teach that any mental awareness in their own minds of what the Philistines thought of their visual representation of their idol god, was bound to scar their own minds and consciences. But they did intend to teach that no one should make such images (at all) to profit in them in any way--whether artistically, or aesthetically, or financially, or especially religiously.

Not all knowledge is profitable, 1Cor.10:23, but some awareness of even unprofitable facts may be needful in order to know what to avoid, or to help others avoid. Such an education can be profitable, not BY the corruption but occasioned by it. The idol does not profit, but if we recognize it and shun it, we have gained the profit by refusing the merchandise. For another example, consider that Adam and Eve would have profited absolutely from the Tree of Knowledge by obediently refusing to taste its fruit. Their ruin came by trying to make an illicit profit BY means of it, instead of its being the occasion of profit.

Thus, the depiction of the Golden Calf in the Sunday School material is not meant in the least to entice the children to admire it; but instead to execrate it, to despise it, to desire it should never have existed. That revulsion should not inspire the child to attack the picture on his handout, because he should know the difference between the picture of danger (like a picture of lit match) and the danger in reality (a physical match on fire). Recoiling from the former, as if it was the latter, may do less good and more harm in developing actual respect for the dangers fire presents.

Thus, I tried to agree with your sentiment in the OP for a ways, agreeing that no serious Christian should dabble with the nonsense and spiritual toxins attached to idols. We cannot "rehabilitate" idols, in order to make them comfortable or convenient; but should despise them along with the effort and any artistry that went into them. Yet, the Bible itself contains writing, descriptions, a bare/minimal knowledge passed on concerning some of these things. It does not encourage making the ordinary believer's habit investigating idol lore, thereby to be steeped in demonic knowledge. Mostly we should steep ourselves in true doctrine, so that there is natural discomfort and a "sense" of wrong whenever confronted by counterfeits.

If you should teach a Sunday School class to some adults, and draw a stick-figure Golden Calf on the whiteboard, this is not a sin, a violation of the 2nd commandment. I don't think you should draw a comparable stick figure or anything else meant to depict the Being of God. In that case you're better off using a placeholder like a "Theta" (Greek letter that starts the word for God) or "Chi" (Gk. letter starts the word for Christ). But the 2nd commandment does not allege a depiction of an IDOL (as nothing but an idol and false, 1Cor.8:4) is just as sinful as an attempt to depict the invisible God, Col.1:15; 1Tim.1:17.

When men manufacture divinity in their minds driving them to make a divine symbol before their eyes in order to venerate it, worship it, and serve it, are they DOING IDOLATRY. Also, if men even in the name of Christianity try to represent the true God falsely (i.e. using any image) they are MAKING AN IDOL, attempting to worship the true God in a false, unauthorized manner. It almost goes without saying that for a Christian to admire the monuments of idolatry, while protesting: "Hey, it's not MY religion/God, and I don't put stock in them," this evasion does not comport with his faith.

Hopefully you see that a Christian believer, with faith in the living and true God alone, and not ascribing any reality or spiritual value to any idol or any depiction of the idol or "god," and seeking no profit to himself or other by such depiction, is not violating the 2nd commandment by his irreligious or "secular" depiction of that which the idolaters adore.

 

[CGS]

Charles,
Maybe I misunderstood what your intent was in the OP. Your comment was not (as I read it) mainly in regard to images of the True God (so also the Person of Christ Incarnate), but to images of idol gods.

Hello, Rev. Buchanan - The OP is not mine. I was commenting on your response to the OP. Your comments seemed to be saying that it was OK to make images as long as they were not used for worship, but now I see that you were not referring to images of Christ...is that correct? I apologize for the confusion.

However, I do still have a question...I was told by an elder at a prior church (I no longer attend this church) that the session was not aware of any evidence of anyone at the church worshipping either the stained-glass window in the sanctuary (large image of Christ directly behind the pulpit) or the images in the Welcome Center (several paintings of Christ)...and therefore having those images was not a violation of the 2nd commandment or WLC 109. In other words...it's OK to make and display the images as long as they are not being worshipped. (I'm not sure how they could know that no one was worshipping them??) How should one respond to this type of argument?

 

[Theoretical]

Read at face value, it seems you might conclude that the Golden Calf (from Ex.32) should not be portrayed in a Sunday School page, and that on the basis of the 2nd Commandment. Nor Zeus, Act.14:12-13. Nor Dagon (Jdg.16:23; 1Sam.5:2), or Bel (Is.46:1), not even a photo of a statue made by idolaters millennia ago, now printed in a seminary textbook for the purpose of information. If you meant that, then I meant to push you to reconsider the extreme position. If you did not mean that, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Charles,
Maybe I misunderstood what your intent was in the OP. Your comment was not (as I read it) mainly in regard to images of the True God (so also the Person of Christ Incarnate), but to images of idol gods. It is impermissible to ever make any pictorial or physical representation of any of the Three Persons under any pretense whatsoever.

I will quote you: "routinely and uncritically the Golden Calf gets portrayed pictorally, or various historical or current pagan deities like Zeus, Venus, or the Hindu pantheon. Arguably/likely, it would also include Buddhas. ... it never occurred to me that the same types of images ... would of course also be forbidden."

Read at face value, it seems you might conclude that the Golden Calf (from Ex.32) should not be portrayed in a Sunday School page, and that on the basis of the 2nd Commandment. Nor Zeus, Act.14:12-13. Nor Dagon (Jdg.16:23; 1Sam.5:2), or Bel (Is.46:1), not even a photo of a statue made by idolaters millennia ago, now printed in a seminary textbook for the purpose of information. If you meant that, then I meant to push you to reconsider the extreme position. If you did not mean that, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

It isn't obvious to me that the Puritans and reformers of the 16th century intended to teach that any mental awareness in their own minds of what the Philistines thought of their visual representation of their idol god, was bound to scar their own minds and consciences. But they did intend to teach that no one should make such images (at all) to profit in them in any way--whether artistically, or aesthetically, or financially, or especially religiously.

Not all knowledge is profitable, 1Cor.10:23, but some awareness of even unprofitable facts may be needful in order to know what to avoid, or to help others avoid. Such an education can be profitable, not BY the corruption but occasioned by it. The idol does not profit, but if we recognize it and shun it, we have gained the profit by refusing the merchandise. For another example, consider that Adam and Eve would have profited absolutely from the Tree of Knowledge by obediently refusing to taste its fruit. Their ruin came by trying to make an illicit profit BY means of it, instead of its being the occasion of profit.

Thus, the depiction of the Golden Calf in the Sunday School material is not meant in the least to entice the children to admire it; but instead to execrate it, to despise it, to desire it should never have existed. That revulsion should not inspire the child to attack the picture on his handout, because he should know the difference between the picture of danger (like a picture of lit match) and the danger in reality (a physical match on fire). Recoiling from the former, as if it was the latter, may do less good and more harm in developing actual respect for the dangers fire presents.

Thus, I tried to agree with your sentiment in the OP for a ways, agreeing that no serious Christian should dabble with the nonsense and spiritual toxins attached to idols. We cannot "rehabilitate" idols, in order to make them comfortable or convenient; but should despise them along with the effort and any artistry that went into them. Yet, the Bible itself contains writing, descriptions, a bare/minimal knowledge passed on concerning some of these things. It does not encourage making the ordinary believer's habit investigating idol lore, thereby to be steeped in demonic knowledge. Mostly we should steep ourselves in true doctrine, so that there is natural discomfort and a "sense" of wrong whenever confronted by counterfeits.

If you should teach a Sunday School class to some adults, and draw a stick-figure Golden Calf on the whiteboard, this is not a sin, a violation of the 2nd commandment. I don't think you should draw a comparable stick figure or anything else meant to depict the Being of God. In that case you're better off using a placeholder like a "Theta" (Greek letter that starts the word for God) or "Chi" (Gk. letter starts the word for Christ). But the 2nd commandment does not allege a depiction of an IDOL (as nothing but an idol and false, 1Cor.8:4) is just as sinful as an attempt to depict the invisible God, Col.1:15; 1Tim.1:17.

When men manufacture divinity in their minds driving them to make a divine symbol before their eyes in order to venerate it, worship it, and serve it, are they DOING IDOLATRY. Also, if men even in the name of Christianity try to represent the true God falsely (i.e. using any image) they are MAKING AN IDOL, attempting to worship the true God in a false, unauthorized manner. It almost goes without saying that for a Christian to admire the monuments of idolatry, while protesting: "Hey, it's not MY religion/God, and I don't put stock in them," this evasion does not comport with his faith.

Hopefully you see that a Christian believer, with faith in the living and true God alone, and not ascribing any reality or spiritual value to any idol or any depiction of the idol or "god," and seeking no profit to himself or other by such depiction, is not violating the 2nd commandment by his irreligious or "secular" depiction of that which the idolaters adore.

I was the OP and was more writing out of surprise and curiosity as to the application after reading that section of the catechism than expressing a hard position. I am fully confessional when it comes to portraying images of any person of the Trinity, including Jesus in his earthly ministry. Where this caught me off guard was seeing something I'd implicitly assumed was in the 1st - Christian silversmiths should not be making Artemis statues for worship for example. Figuring out how the 2nd commandment applies to false gods already forbidden in the 1st was the main point of the inquiry.

Rev. Buchanan, I really appreciate the distinction you made between purported images of the true God and false gods. The dead image highlights the very deadness and worthlessness of the idol and should be despised as you discussed it. This wouldn't preclude something like the drawing of the golden calf or some other false god as an illustration of "this is evil and worthless to trust in."

I think this makes a lot of sense, and I think further reinforces the prohibition against images of the living God, precisely because those images would be dead and worthless when He most definitely is not dead and worthless.