Good one! My keyboard and monitor are both soaked with Mountain Dew Code Red now.
Ugh...I'm not trying to be a "Pharisee" here, but at what point does a depiction of Christ and an irreverent imputation of jesting language to Him become an unholy violation of a whole host of Biblical commands?In this post it looks like the 2nd commandment has been broken [image], as well as the 3rd commandment [most expositors extend this prohibition to include even unworthy thoughts about, or unrighteous expressions of the Lord God], and finally irreverant, flippant words contra Eph. 5:4 have been attribted to the all-glorious King of kings and Lord of lords [adding to, taking away from God's Word Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:19].I want to emphasize that I really appreciate the Triabloggers, and I personally benefit much from your work; but I personally think this post does not serve to honor, or exalt, or bring God glory in any way, and therefore it comes across as strikingly out of place on this otherwise solid blog.In Christ,CD
Coram Deo said:In this post it looks like the 2nd commandment has been broken [image], as well as the 3rd commandment [most expositors extend this prohibition to include even unworthy thoughts about, or unrighteous expressions of the Lord God], and finally irreverant, flippant words contra Eph. 5:4 have been attribted to the all-glorious King of kings and Lord of lords [adding to, taking away from God's Word Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:19].Sorry, Coram Deo. I don't mean to be disrespectful toward the Lord or toward you. I certainly don't mean to break his commands.Of course, I don't think I am doing so. But maybe I'm mistaken.Perhaps we could both take a look at a book like John Frame's The Doctrine of the Christian Life for the ethical arguments about images and taking the Lord's name in vain, as well as good commentaries on the relevant passages (e.g. Doug Stuart, John Currid, Peter O'Brien), and see what we think. Also, Steve has written some helpful posts (e.g. here, here, and here). I will correct this post if it is indeed breaking God's commands and being sinful.Kind thanks.
Patrick,for all the right reasons, you offered an apology to Coram Deo.It is now on CD to receive your apology and forgive you and then cover you with God's Love.The dilemma CD raises, though, is a good one and from my seat I don't find any easy solution to it.You offered an apology.CD accepted it, I think and now should forgive you and cover you with His Love, not his?The problem is found here, I believe, and quite possibly, the solution as well?1Co 10:31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 1Co 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 1Co 10:33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.At the end of the day, both you and CD, will answer to God for the Faith you exercise daily in what you do to bring God Righteous Glory, which He is due, because:::>Rom 14:22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. Rom 14:23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.The question is two edged. Should you stop publishing cartoons like this one that gives a powerful message to those of us who are not offended by them because it offends others?Or, should CD now wisely be careful when he comes in here to see what's going on in Triabloguesphere, knowing that, you, by the same Faith once delivered to both of you, might be publishing cartoons like this one from time to time and not intending on giving any offense to the Jews, the Greeks or the Church of God Christ died for with His own human Blood on a tree of death and destruction?Quite a dilemma indeed?Well, now I go, "ugh...."!
I also want to voice my appreciation for Triablogue and the godly men that post here. You do much for the Kingdom of Christ and I appreciate your work. Coram Deo - I agree. I was quite shocked by the post as I did not expect to see a cartoon depicting our Lord uttering "flippant words". Patrick - You may have provided links to Frame and Hayes but haven't interacted with the scriptural proofs provided by Coram Deo. You have constructed a graven image of Christ and you have attributed words to Christ that he never spoke. Both of these are lies. Christ does not look like that (A charge that is leveled against any image of Christ) and never did He utter those words to the disciples.I would ask you to take it down and deeply consider the scriptural proofs givenIn Christ,David Yoder
I really appreciate this post. Yes, it is humorous, but it emphasizes the two meanings of the word "follow." To "follow" someone on twitter means just to know basically what they are up to, or what they say they are up to. Jesus does not call us just to kinda know what He did. He called His disciples, and calls us, to actually walk in his footsteps from day to day. This is a very powerful point, and well presented.
Thanks for your comment, Mr. David Yoder.Patrick - You may have provided links to Frame and Hayes [sic] but haven't interacted with the scriptural proofs provided by Coram Deo.Well, I thought since Frame and Hays (not Hayes) interact with the relevant passages in Scripture, it'd be fine to refer CD and others to their work. No need to reinvent the wheel, right? Especially when I haven't seen their arguments overturned. But perhaps you can offer a counterargument to their arguments? Again, I'm open to listen and learn.And, as I mentioned above, it'd be good to dig into a solid commentary on the relevant passages as well (e.g. Exo 20, Deut 5).You have constructed a graven image of Christ and you have attributed words to Christ that he never spoke.Actually, I wasn't the one who made the cartoon. Perhaps you could accuse me of disseminating it. But unless you have an idiosyncratic definition of "construction" which equates posting images with making them, I'm sorry to say you're mistaken in accusing me of constructing it.Both of these are lies.I don't see how it's lying. For starters, there's no intention to deceive. It's not as if this cartoon is trying to pass itself off as a historical event. It's not as if this cartoon is trying to pull a fast one on people and give the impression that this incident actually took place in the real world.Even, say, a political cartoon which is based on a real person and real events (e.g. see here) is not meant to be taken in the same way we take, say, a news report. Obama is not meant to be seen as ever having literally sat in a car in place of an engine. An auto mechanic did not really witness this scene take place and say to the owner of the vehicle: "There's your problem right there." Again, it's a cartoon, not a news report, not an eyewitness account, not history, etc. It's not trying to claim anything other than that it's a fictional cartoon. So I don't see how it's lying.Christ does not look like that (A charge that is leveled against any image of Christ) and never did He utter those words to the disciples.Again, the cartoon never claimed that Christ looked like that or that he uttered those words.At best you might say it unwittingly gave the false impression that this is how Christ looked like or the impression that he uttered those words. But that's not the same thing as intentionally deceiving.You're arguing that this cartoon is wrong because it's lying (in addition to breaking the second commandment). But would you say lying is always wrong?
I would ask you to take it down and deeply consider the scriptural proofs givenI appreciate CD's comment citing verses from Scripture. Sometimes prooftexting is perfectly fine. But in this case, it won't do. We also need to exegete the passage in its immediate context as well as understand what it means to make a carved image or take the name of the Lord in vain through the whole of Scripture. For example, the second commandment in Exo 20:4-5 reads: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God..." But in context this would mean we shouldn't make any image or likeness anywhere, for "anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" pretty much covers everything in the whole wide world. So that would mean we aren't to make sculptures or paintings or buildings or many other things which resemble things we see in the world. We can't even make things which look like people since people also fall under the umbrella of "any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." No more toy soldiers or stuffed animals or Disney characters or comic books. And so forth.We arguably aren't even to make certain websites since some websites contain things we see in the world. And, if we can't make them, then surely we can't visit them. Of course, you might reply that it's meant to say we can't make them to worship them. That is, it's okay to make them as long as we don't "bow down to them or serve them." So it deals with idolatry then. However, if this is true, then how would you say this cartoon which you contend violates the second commandment is being worshiped? How would you say this cartoon entices people to worship it?Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more to say. But, again, that's why I referred CD and others to the works by John Frame and Steve Hays for starters.
BTW, Steve recently posted a response.
1) Hays. Too much in a hurry to post. I apologize. Thank you for correcting my mistake.2) Thank you for this correction. You did only reposted the cartoon and did not create it. Please forgive me. Bearing false witness against you was not intentional on my part.3)It would be a lie in the sense that it does perpetuate the 'long haired white Jesus' lie. (and I will go ahead and give an advanced *eye roll* to the 'I don't see a white Jesus' comeback)4)Hays (knew I could do it) argues that "In that case, "pictures of Christ" would technically not be representations of God. They would be representations of God "as revealed in Christ," or—more broadly—pictorial representations of the truth that God became man." Christ is fully God as he is fully man. You cannot separate the two. It isn't as if you can depict the one and not the other. Yes, yes. I know."Technically, absent a theological interpretive context, pictorial representations of Christ only "depict" a human person"But Christ wasn't only a human person. He was the God-man and all pictures of Christ are depicting the God-man. Technically.5)We are not given scriptural warrant that it is now okay to make graven images of Christ.(Unless we are going to take a similar view that most Lutherans take to worship. If it isn't expressly forbidden then it is allowable)6)Regardless of your stance,thank you for taking it down. "Mr." David Yoder
A compilation of most if not all our posts on the topic of graven images and the second commandment can be found here.