More Pre-Reformation Support For Reformation Beliefs Among The Lollards

I've discussed their support for Reformation views in other posts, like here and here. And here's one about a book on Lollard heresy trials in the first half of the fifteenth century.

Support For Reformation Beliefs Among The Pre-Reformation Hussites (Part 3)

Murray Wagner refers to how Petr Chelcicky "denounced the doctrine of purgatory...Chelcicky's rejection of purgatory has its precedent among the Waldenses and Lollards and is paralleled in the Taborite demand that chantries for the dead and intercessory prayers to the saints also be abolished." (Petr Chelcicky [Scottsdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1983], 121-23) Wagner refers to how Chelcicky ridiculed "the veneration of saints" (127) and was "critical of prayers of intercession to the saints" (143). Craig Atwood refers to Taborite opposition to images (The Theology Of The Czech Brethren From Hus To Comenius [University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009], 118). Katerina Hornickova writes:

In reality, the view of saints’ merits and intervention in Hussite and Utraquist teaching varied among different fractions of the religious movement, from refusal by the radicals to acceptance by conservatives....

With the influence of Matthew of Janov, and wyclifite ideas on the Hussite theologians Jacobellus of Stříbro and Nicolas of Dresden, the radical Hussite party’s view of the contemporary Catholic cultic practices of veneration of saints’ relics and images was largely negative....

[quoting Nicolas Biskupec of Pelhřimov] "from the authority of the doctors it is clear that invocations and prayers are (forms of) cult that are appropriate only for God…Therefore we do not pray and invoke the saints, nor do we seek help from them and thus impede the cult that only God deserves"...

Nicolas’ ideas were developed in the writings of Petr Chelčický (c. 1390–1460), an original thinker, close to the radicals, in his writings of 1430s-1440s. The founding ideology of what came to be the Unity of Brethren takes on a similar critical view on the cult of saints, refusing the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the saints.

Some of the more radical Hussites were premillennialists for a while (Murray Wagner, Petr Chelcicky [Scottsdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1983], 33).

Atwood writes that "The churches that developed out of the Hussite reforms made congregational singing a central part of worship decades before Martin Luther set Protestant doctrine to tavern tunes." (The Theology Of The Czech Brethren From Hus To Comenius [University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009], 52)

Regarding literacy, education, and the reading of scripture: "The Czech Reformation had made lay reading of the vernacular Bible a key component of reform, but in Prague it was primarily the aristocracy and wealthy burghers who had this privilege. The Taborites extended biblical literacy to the common people. This ideal of an educated, active laity would bear rich fruit in the Unity, especially in Comenius's advocacy of universal education." (111)

The Suspicious Early Silence About Later Marian Dogmas

In a recent post, I discussed some of the evidence against concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, sinlessness, and assumption. Something to keep in mind when issues like those come up is that the lack of reference to those beliefs among the earliest sources carries some evidential weight against them. Think of the writings of Luke, for example. He wrote the longest gospel we have, said the most about Mary among the earliest Christians, and gave us our earliest church history. That church history doesn't end until the early 60s. Not only does he say nothing of concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, sinlessness, assumption, praying to individuals like Mary, venerating images of such people, etc., but he even repeatedly uses language that most naturally suggests that he opposed some of those concepts. See here for a discussion of some examples. Or see here for many other examples of early opposition to later Marian beliefs and practices. My main point here, though, is that we should keep in mind that there's a double problem for the advocate of something like a modern Roman Catholic or modern Eastern Orthodox view of Mary. There's a suspicious lack of reference to their view, a view they claim to be so important, accompanied by so many apparent contradictions of it. And that's in a context in which they claim to belong to the one true church founded by Jesus, passing on all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history, providing unity, providing doctrinal clarity, etc.

Adding Unjustified Qualifiers To Historical Sources

The Other Paul has posted a good video addressing some bad arguments often used by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and other proponents of the veneration of images. They often use the same kind of argumentation on other issues as well (e.g., praying to saints). They'll claim that a source, such as a church father, who's cited against their position is only criticizing a belief or practice in a narrower context, not in a broader context that's applicable to their position. So, for example, a church father's comments against the veneration of images are only meant to condemn a pagan form of image veneration, not the Catholic form. The Other Paul makes some significant points that should be taken into account whenever any issue like this comes up, not just with the veneration of images.

Thinking About The Veneration Of Images

The Other Paul and River Devereux recently produced a video on the Second Council of Nicaea and images that makes many good points. Gavin Ortlund interviewed a former Eastern Orthodox priest, Joshua Schooping, and the veneration of images is one of the topics they discussed. We have a lot of posts on the subject in our archives.

The History Of The Veneration Of Icons

Gavin Ortlund recently posted a video that provides an overview of how the veneration of icons was viewed during the first several centuries of church history.

The imagery of Revelation

The following is an excerpt from Richard Bauckham's The Theology of the Book of Revelation (pp 17-22). I don't necessarily agree with everything.

"We don't know what Jesus looked like"

In my experience, there are roughly three objections to "pictures of Jesus". One invokes the 2nd Commandment. That's an important objection, which raises a number of complex issues. I think it fails, but it needs to be taken seriously. 

Another objection is the "Nestorian" charge. That's a silly objection, and it could be countered by accusing opponents of Monophysitism.

The third objection is that we don't know what Jesus looked like. Here I'll make four brief observations:

i) Christians need to be careful about referring to Jesus in the past tense. Certainly there are contexts in which it's correct to refer to him in the past tense. When we talk about what Jesus said and did during his 1C ministry. It is, however, striking how often Christians automatically slip into the past tense when referring to Jesus, even though we believe he's alive. So even if the objection were correct, it should be expressed in the present tense: "we don't know what Jesus looks like," rather than "we don't know what Jesus looked like."

ii) I'd add that if Jesus continues to appear to people, then there's a sense in which they do know what Jesus looks like. I'm referring to reported visions of Jesus or heavenly near-death experiences. However, that's not something I'd emphasize because even if some of these are genuine, Jesus may be adapting his appearance to the viewer's cultural expectations to be recognizable to them.

iii) If the Shroud of Turin is authentic, then we have a body-length (front and back) photograph of Jesus. Indeed, a photographic reproduction with 3D information. 

I don't have a firm opinion regarding the authenticity of the Shroud. I just haven't kept up with the research. My point, though, is that it's not a given to say we don't know what Jesus looks like. 

iv) Finally, the objection is arbitrary. We don't know what biblical figures in general looked like. But in my experience, Christians who object to "pictures of Jesus" don't object to movies about Noah, Moses, King David, King Solomon, St. Paul, or the Patriarchs, &c. 

Crossing Jordan

Rivers are stock metaphors in Biblical eschatology. That has two sources of inspiration. One is the association of Edenic conditions with primeval rivers. The other is the fact that Palestine has little precipitation, so human life, animal life, and plant life depend on river water in that region. 

It's interesting to compare and contrast the role of rivers in Christian symbolism and pagan symbolism. In both cases, rivers can represent a natural barrier between life and the afterlife. Paradoxically, rivers can stand for life and death alike. 

If a river is sufficiently deep and wide, with a strong current, it will be impossible for a human to wade or swim across it. He will be swept downstream and drown. Rivers can also host animals that are dangerous to swimmers or waders, viz. crocodiles, anacondas, electric eels, bull sharks. 

That creates a symbolic potential where someone can be stranded on the wrong side of the river. Maybe he can see the lush, idyllic landscape on the opposing river bank. That's a tantalizing view. Out of reach, but not out of sight.

In Greek mythology, the river Styx is the conduit to the netherworld. Because heathen Greeks had such a dismal view of the afterlife, the Styx is a river of death rather than a river of life. Because the the abode of the dead has fateful and forlorn connotations, it can't be a river of life, even though the dead continue to exist.  

Contrast that with Christian symbolism about crossing Jordan into a land flowing with milk and honey. If we were to consistently elaborate the imagery, the river of life would be like a tidal river which is impassable at high tide, but passable at low tide. For a saint, death occurs a low tide. At that moment, the river ford is a dry bed. 

Theoretically, the Garden of Eden might have been fluvial island. That would naturally segregate tame animals from wild animals. That would form a natural barrier between the idyllic sanctuary and the surrounding wilderness. 

Mariolatry and images of Jesus

Here's an interesting comparison:

On the one hand, Puritans say it's wrong to make images of Jesus because (among other reasons) an image of Jesus can't represent his deity. So images of Jesus are Nestorian. 

On the other hand, Catholics say that if you deny that Mary is the Mother of God, that makes you Nestorian. 

Poses a bit of a dilemma for Puritans. 

What Set Christianity Apart In The Ancient World

A New Testament scholar, Larry Hurtado, recently published a book about how ancient Christianity differed from and changed the world of its day. The book is titled Destroyer Of The Gods (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2016), and I recently finished posting a series of quotes from it on Facebook. Here's a listing of some of the topics covered, with links to each post:

Introduction, Why Christianity Succeeded, Constantine's Motives

Monotheism, Exclusivism, How The Christian View Of God Differed From A Jewish View

How Roman Opposition To Christianity Differed From Opposition To Other Religions, Christianity's Economic Impact

Early Christianity's Contribution To Religious Liberty

The Literary Character Of Early Christianity, Apologetics

Images, Altars, Sacrifices, Priesthood, Buildings, Baptism, Weekly Meetings, Prayer

Abortion, Infant Abandonment, Violence, Sex, Gender, Slavery

Love

In Ancient Rome, the worship of ‘gods’ morphed into the veneration of ‘saints’

There is a “Catholic-Protestant Debate” group on Facebook. Recently a thread began with this question:

SHOULD BELIEVERS IN GOD BOW DOWN TO STATUES?

Exodus 20: 4: “You shall not make for yourself any carved image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5: YOU SHALL NOT BOW DOWN TO THEM or worship them;

Romans 1: 22: Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23: and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

That's a fair question, but soon the discussion got out of hand. At one point, I said, “In large part, in Ancient Rome, the household gods got swapped out for statues of ‘saints’.”

Someone said, “Can you show proof for that claim?”

Someone else said, “Correlation does not show causation.”

I don’t know if either of those were responses to me, but how about “if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it may be a duck”.

In many of the quotes that follow, I’m referencing “Survivals of Roman Religion”, New York, NY: Coopers Square Publishing, ©1963 by Gordon Laing (from the “Our Debt to Greece and Rome” series).

Weighing The Shroud's 1988 Carbon Dating

The best book I've read on the Shroud of Turin is William Meacham's The Rape Of The Turin Shroud (Lulu, 2005). Meacham is an archeologist who's worked at the University of Hong Kong, and he's one of the scholars the Roman Catholic Church has consulted on issues related to the Shroud in recent decades.

His book is especially good on the subject of carbon dating. Since carbon dating is the primary argument raised against the large amount of evidence we have for the Shroud's authenticity, it's important that we rightly gauge the significance of the carbon dating that was done in 1988. Sometimes, people will object to the Shroud by citing the 1988 carbon dating alone, as if that dating by itself is sufficient reason to dismiss the Shroud. Harry Gove, a scientist who had a prominent role in developing carbon dating technology and bringing about the 1988 dating of the Shroud, suggested that the 1988 tests allow for only about a "one in a thousand trillion" chance that the Shroud dates to the first century (Relic, Icon Or Hoax? [Bristol and Philadelphia: Institute of Physics Publishing, 1996], 303). Gove even jokingly compares the possibility that the carbon dating is wrong to the possibility that "the law of gravity is in error" (305). But Meacham writes:

Filming the Gospels

Pastor Ron Gleason invited me, or challenged me (as the case may be) to engage his argument against movies about Jesus (or "pictures of Jesus"):

http://gracepresbyterian.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/The-Second-Commandment-and-the-Modern-Christian.edited.pdf

Before delving in to the specifics, I'd like to make three general observations:

i) Actor Alec McCowen pioneered solo performances of Mark's Gospel. Other actors like Max McLean and Lance Pierson have followed his lead. You also have amateur solo performances of Mark. 

Does Pastor Gleason think a one-man performance of Mark's Gospel violates the 2nd commandment? If so, how is that essentially different from the public reading of Mark's Gospel in church? If not, how is that essentially different from filming Mark's Gospel?  

ii) There are different ways to make a movie about Jesus. One way is for a screenwriter to produce a pastiche of two or more Gospels. These will include many things from the Gospels as well as excluding many things from the Gospels. I think that's the least satisfactory way to make a movie about Jesus.

Yet another way is to focus on a particular part of the Gospel. A particular phase of Christ's life. LIke his passion, death, and resurrection. 

Yet another way is to film an entire canonical Gospel. You preserve the Gospel intact. There is still the challenge of translating one medium into another medium. One issue is what to do with the narrator. One solution is to reassign the narrator's statements to various characters in the film. Likewise, some narrative descriptions about the time and place would be replaced by showing the event. 

I think filming each Gospel is a better way of making a movie about Jesus. I don't know how long a filmed version of Matthew, Luke, or John would be. There are some very long movies, like Lawrence of Arabia and Gone with the Wind–not to mention Bondarchuk's 8-hour version of War and Peace.

However, assuming it's too long for one sitting, it could be a two-part miniseries. 

iii) A basic problem I have with Pastor Gleason's case is the absence of a consistent principle. He will begin by stating a principled objection to movies about Jesus. Or so it seems. But later he will qualify his objection. Yet in that case, he's rescinded the original principle and substituted a different principle. Indeed, a contrary principle. When the dust settles, it's hard to make out what's left of his original argument. He keeps switching principles. You can see what I mean as we proceed. 

iv) Due to the rambling nature of Pastor Gleason's case, it's difficult to know where exactly to begin. I've excerpted what I take to be his key arguments. 

The Passion, Son of God, or any film that attempts to depict or portray Christ faces the impossible task of manifesting Christ’s divine nature. 

That raise's some questions. How did Jesus manifest his deity during his public ministry? How do the Gospels manifest his deity? In a variety of ways. Statements Jesus makes about himself or his relation to the Father. Statements the narrator makes about Jesus. Statements made to Jesus or about Jesus by disciples, seekers, enemies, angels, demons, the Father, and the Devil. Various actions of Jesus, like performing miracles or forgiving sins. Showing how Jesus fulfills OT motifs about the coming of Yahweh.

A filmed Gospel will manifest the deity of Christ in pretty much the the same way as the Gospel it films. It's just a different medium. And it's easy to exaggerate the differences. For a filmed Gospel can contain all the same words as Gospel it films. To that great extent, it's the very same medium. A largely verbal medium with visuals. 

Pastor Gleason doesn't seem to take much effort to answer the question he asked. It isn't hard to answer if you give it much thought.

v) But as far as that goes, does every sermon manifest the deity of Christ? Don't most orthodox sermons about Jesus treat his deity as a presupposition? Every sermon about Jesus isn't making a case for the deity of Christ. 

It makes no difference if the movie is Mel Gibson’s The Passion, the upcoming Son of God, or any other effort to show the world what happened to Jesus, the audience only receives a bit of biography. 

"A bit of biography." You mean, like this:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (Jn 20:30-31).

Of course, Hollywood is smart enough to throw in a smattering of biblical references, which are tantamount to throwing a bone to the evangelical community. 

If a director films one of the four Gospels, from start to finish, is that just a "smattering of biblical references"? 

The cinematography might well be exquisite, the actors might play their roles flawlessly, and the biography might be more or less accurate, but at the very best the audience receives only part of the story. In fact, the most important part of the story cannot be told because “What is omitted is the meaning of the event.”7 

If a director films one of the four Gospels, including the dialogue and narrative exposition or commentary, how does such a film omit the meaning of the event? Once again, Pastor Gleason doesn't seem to be making much effort to anticipate obvious counterexamples to his objections. 

Now a word especially to my P.C.A. colleagues: An investigation of the Reformation and Puritan literature will not produce pastors who would consider taking an exception to the second commandment.

That tendentiously assumes that a movie about Jesus violates the 2nd commandment. Yet that's the very issue in dispute. 

Packer’s second reason against the use of various images is that “Images mislead us, for they convey false ideas about God.”

But the Bible and Bible history contain images of God. Take theophanies. Take visions of God. If, in principle, images of God mislead us by conveying false ideas about God, then the Bible conveys false ideas about God through theophanies and visions of God. 

Pastor Gleason will attempt to address this counterargument further down. But to do so, he must weaken (indeed, sacrifice) the original principle. 

[Packer]: “To make an image of God is to take one’s thoughts of him from a human source, rather than from God himself; and this is precisely what is wrong with image-making.” The last quotation rings true concerning The Passion of the Christ and it will also be true of the upcoming film Son of God. It is true of all movies attempting somehow to depict the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.

Is that a fact? Describing the baptism of Christ, the Gospels say the Spirit of God descended on Christ in the form of a dove. If a filmmaker depicts that scene, is he taking that image "from a human source, rather than from God himself"? Isn't it just the opposite? He's taking that image straight from the Gospels. 

Once again, why do men like Packer and Gleason overlook such obvious counterexamples to their strictures? Why don't they stop to consider if there aren't clear exceptions to their claims? They seem to be so conditioned by a traditional way of framing the issue that they view the issue through that prism rather than looking directly at Biblical examples to the contrary. 

The prominent reason given why God’s people were not to make images of people, animals, or the celestial lights is precisely that they saw “no form” on the day the Lord spoke to them.

Yet that objection is clearly too topical, for God does project a "form" on many other occasions, viz. visions and theophanies. 

Baal was worshiped in the form of a bull, a symbol of power...Every Israelite knew that Yahweh was invisible. If they had paused and thought about it for a moment they would have had to have concluded that if Yahweh is invisible, what happens when you look at the Dan and Bethel bulls?

Is filming one of the canonical Gospels equivalent to depicting God in the form of a bull? On the face of it, the comparison is so disanalogous that it's hard to detect any relevant parallel. If he weren't serious, it would be a parody. Certainly Pastor Gleason will have to flesh out the argument. 

After all, so the argument runs, Jesus took on a true humanity and people in his day saw him and touched him. They knew what he looked like. If we had had cameras, people could have taken pictures. Yes, if we had had them we could have, but we did not, did we? Few pause to reflect adequately on why the Lord God Almighty in his infinite wisdom chose not to have cameras during the Lord Jesus’ earthly ministry. Now no one knows and we are left not to know. It is that simple. Live with it.

Is it that simple? Or is that grossly simplistic? The existence of cameras presumes a certain level of technological development. It's not as if you're going to have an artifact of 20C technology embedded in a 1C culture. 

We raised an interesting point in the previous section that we need to address here. The “theophanies” (appearances of God in human or angelic form in the Old Testament) as well as the various dreams and visions were part of God’s sovereignty as he dealt with his people in the unfolding of the history of redemption. This translates into the fact that “God reserves for Himself alone the right to express and produce the images of Himself before which men must worship, through which men must conceive Him, to which men must respond in obedience to His own initiative in seeking fellowship with them.”94 It is crucial and essential that we take due note of the fact that it is God who decides when and how he will appear in a particular theophany. We also need to note that such theophanies were not commonplace, but occurred only at very special times.

i) Now he's shifting to a different argument, at the expense of his original argument. He's no longer contending that, as a matter of principle, images of God are false. He has to retract his categorical objection. 

ii) His new argument introduces a different principle: images of God are permissible so long as God produces the image. So he's conceded that, in principle, images of God are permissible. The real principle isn't whether to depict God, but who depicts God. 

iii) He adds the further caveat "that such theophanies were not commonplace, but occurred only at very special times." However, that's not a categorical distinction. That's a difference of degree rather than kind. 

iv) Finally, suppose we grant his new argument. If a director films one of the Gospels, he is reproducing the imagery that God produces of himself. It's a cinematic record of how God expresses himself in the Gospels. So how does that violate the essential principle? From start to finish, a canonical Gospel supplies the point of reference. 

Again, modern evangelicals view what transpires in the Lord’s Supper as a mere memorial event. As Presbyterian and Reformed, however, we believe the real presence of Christ in the Holy Meal through the agency of the Holy Spirit, who takes everything from the risen and ascended Lord and imparts that unto our hungry and thirsty souls unto eternal life. 

Is Pastor Gleason excluding Zwingli from the company of the truly Reformed? 

Does the New Testament not tell us that Jesus Christ is the “image of the invisible God” (cf. Col. 1:15)? In addition, Hebrews 1:3 reminds us that Christ is the exact imprint of God’s nature. When we combine this with the well-known verse in John’s gospel that states that the Word became flesh (John 1:14) and Jesus’ own words declaring that he who has seen him has seen the Father (John 14:9), do we not have some kind of license to portray Jesus since he was a man? By way of reminder, David Wells makes a solid and cogent case against such things in his distinction between the crucifixion and the cross.97 Recall that Wells argued against dramatic presentations of Christ’s life and death, such as on TV and in movies, because, he asserted they “so often miss the point. They give us the crucifixion, not the cross.... It leaves us with only a biographical Christ, who may be interesting, but not with the eternal Christ whom we need for our salvation.”98

If a director films one of the four canonical Gospels, how is a filmed Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and/or John "only a biographical Christ" whereas the Gospel it films is not "only a biographical Christ"? On the face of it, Gleason and Wells are arbitrarily dichotomizing the two media. 

The age-old problem of a painting of Christ is that we really don’t know what he looked like. Even if we did, how would the artist capture the godhead of Jesus in a painting? What would a portrait of grace, covenant, and forgiveness look like? With all due respect, a painted halo just does not hack it. It is insufficient, especially in light of the fact that halos are often painted over the heads of, say, Paul and Peter. When the time had fully come (Gal. 4:4) Scripture teaches us, God sent forth his Son. In that time, there were no cameras—digital or otherwise—and no portrait of Jesus has survived—I believe for very good reasons. I truly believe if such a painting were in our possession we would become even worse idolaters than we already are—if that’s possible.

This raises a number of issues:

i) Even if a painting of Christ may fail to "capture the godhead of Jesus," how does it follow that a filmed Gospel will fail to capture the godhead of Jesus? A filmed Gospel doesn't rely on halos. 

ii) Are theophanies and visions of God representational? Does God really look like the figure in Isa 6? Isn't that deliberately anthropomorphic? If Pastor Gleason is making resemblance or correspondence the condition of a true image, then Biblical images of God misrepresent God, for God isn't a physical being. 

iii) This exposes an equivocation or paradox in the Puritan objection. If the "age-old problem of a painting of Christ is that we really don’t know what he looked like," then is he objecting to a picture of Jesus because it is not a picture of Jesus? If so, what's objectionable to not depicting Jesus? After all, Puritans think it's wrong to depict Jesus. But if they think paintings of Jesus fail to depict Jesus, because we don't know what he looked like, then the painter isn't guilty of depicting Jesus. Does that mean he's guilty of not depicting Jesus? But according to Puritans, we're not supposed to depict Jesus. In that event, can't the painter plead innocent? "I wasn't depicting Jesus. You admit I wasn't depicting Jesus."

iv) What makes a "picture of Jesus" a picture of Jesus? What makes it about him? Suppose St. John had a Kodak. Suppose he snapped a picture of Jesus feeding the five thousand. What makes that a photograph of Jesus?

a) One explanation might involve a correspondence theory of truth. The photographic image resembles Jesus. It looks just like Jesus–from that angle, distance, lighting. 

b) Another explanation might be the act of photographing Jesus. On our hypothetical, this was taken of Jesus, where he was at the time, when he was feeding the five thousand. The camera captures the historical event. A snapshot of the actual incident. A direct, visual record in real time. 

But a painting of Jesus isn't a picture of Jesus in either sense. Rather, it's a representation of Jesus. 

v) Apropos (iv), an actor who plays Jesus in a filmed Gospel represents Jesus. Does that violate the 2nd commandment? If so, how so?

To revisit my earlier example, if actor gives a live performance of Mark's Gospel, does that violate the 2nd commandment? Is reciting statements Jesus made in the Gospels a violation of the 2nd commandment? Suppose you were to film the performance. Would that violate the 2nd commandment?

What's the essential difference between an actor in a business suit performing Mark's Gospel on stage (or in church), and an actor in period dress reciting lines from the Gospel in front of a cameraman? What makes the difference, if any? The beard? The robes? The sandals? 

vi) Finally, let's consider a painting. Take Da Vinci's "The Virgin and Child with St. Anne." This depicts the Christchild playing with a lamb. But what makes that a painting about Jesus? 

a) One explanation might be artistic intent. Da Vinci intended the child to represent Christ. Christ is the willed referent. 

Even if we accept that explanation, it means the identification is extrinsic rather than intrinsic. The painter assigns that religious referent to the child.

b) But there's a further complication. Recognizing that the child represents Jesus requires some knowledge of traditional European art on the part of the viewer. You could show that painting to millions of people, many of whom would fail to appreciate the religious significance of the portrayal. It wouldn't be a painting about Jesus for them, because they lack the requisite background knowledge to discern the intended referent. 

So it's relative to both the painter and the viewer. Even if you think paintings like this are idolatrous, for whom are they idolatrous? For whom do they violate the 2nd commandment? 

Consider different kinds of viewers. A devout Catholic. An atheist. A disapproving Puritan. Someone who doesn't even understand the painting. A Christian who admires the painting without "worshipping" the depiction. 

God tells us what is acceptable worship of him and in his love for his people he has made ample provision for the image he has given us in Christ. This obviously begs the question: Which image has he given to us? The answer is: An analogous image to what we find in the Old Testament. There, Yahweh gave his Word, Circumcision, and Passover. In the New Testament, he gives his Word, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. The continuity between the Old and New Testaments, which has been the mainstay of Presbyterian and Reformed theologians down through the centuries, retains the prohibition to making images and representations of the Lord. The Ten Commandments are still in effect for the believer.

i) Sacraments aren't the only images God gave us. 

ii) How is watching a movie about Jesus equivalent to "worship"? 

First, he argues, whoever attempts to make an image or likeness of God denies his freedom.108 This approach is tantamount to man’s effort to eradicate the Creator/creature distinction. In Douma’s words, “An image attempts to make the Incomprehensible comprehensible.”109 It is also an attempt to make the Incomprehensible God comprehensible to man—on man’s terms. Man makes God in man’s image and suddenly God takes on man’s attributes, likes, dislikes, and propensities. The Creator ends up acting, thinking, and speaking very much like the one who fashioned the image—whether the image is actually in physical form or in man’s imagination.

How does that characterization accurately characterize a filmed Gospel? 

The second reason Douma offers next to God’s freedom is his majesty.112 Another way of saying this is God’s sovereignty or transcendence. When the Lord thundered from Sinai, the Israelites saw no form but heard the terrifying voice (Deut. 4:11). In that same fourth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy Moses gives a summary of what happens to people who abandon following God’s plan and strike out on their own to fashion/imagine gods after man’s image, which is simply disobedience.

Once again, how does that characterization accurately characterize a filmed Gospel? 

Making images—any image—is a slap in the face to God. Why? Simply because, “The love that Yahweh bestows is despised. Instead of receiving life as a covenantal gift, people seek by means of serving images to secure life for themselves.”129

Why is there any reason to think that bit of armchair psychoanalysis is accurate? 

The problem is that modern Christians would rather get a “quick fix” at the movie theater or from a CD instead of being fed from the solid preaching of the Word. 

Why does Pastor Gleason deem it appropriate to libel millions of Christians he never met? How does he know what motivates them all? 

We justify making “innocent” images that are supposed to be helpful to and for our covenant children. Would it not be far more fruitful and productive to spend time catechizing our youth rather than providing images for them when they are young? Do we not realize that a time will come when our children become more conversant with Scripture that they, too, will question the propriety of images? 

Is he suggesting the catechism is a substitute for a chlldren's Bible? Should we not give our younger kids a children's Bible? Should we catechize them instead? 

First, the Law of God is still relevant and applicable for the New Testament Church. What Yahweh commanded in the Old Testament still applies for the New Testament saints.

There's some truth to this although it's clearly overstated. Surely Pastor Gleason would limit that to the "moral law" or "general equity." 

Second, New Testament Christians are still prohibited from making any image of the deity— even in a movie or in art. The reason is that it is impossible for any artist to depict the godhead or spiritual matters, but more importantly, no matter how necessary or essential we might believe a movie to be, God has said “No.” That ought to be more than sufficient for us.

Why assume the justification for filming a Gospel is because that's "necessary" or "essential"? Does Pastor Gleason think Christians are only allowed to do what's necessary or essential? 

Fishing trips

I'm not expert on the ins and outs of PCA policy and polity, so my post is more hypothetical, but I'm curious about this allegation:

With all of the hoopla in the evangelical world and the rising incidences of P.C.A. candidates for ordination taking exception to the second commandment we are observing a disturbing trend in modern Christianity. Somehow, we seem to have a type of spiritual amnesia forgetting that we do not carry the meaning of the cross “within ourselves, nor can we find it in this world. What eludes us is something we have to be given by God himself.”8 This is the essence of the debate surrounding “pictures of Jesus,” isn’t it? Why shouldn’t we allow children to look at pictures of Jesus in Sunday School material? Is it wrong to have any pictures of Jesus? What if we have no intention of bowing down and worshiping those pictures? Are we still violating the second commandment? 

http://gracepresbyterian.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/The-Second-Commandment-and-the-Modern-Christian.edited.pdf

I infer from Pastor Gleason's statement that during their oral and/or written ordination exams, PCA presbyteries are questioning ordinands on whether they think movies about Jesus violate the 2nd commandment. Which makes me wonder–unless the PCA has an official policy condemning movies about Jesus as a violation of the 2nd commandment, isn't it an abuse of authority for examiners to question ordinands on that issue? Isn't the purpose of the examination process to determine if the ordinand's theology is consistent with official policy of the denomination? Presumably, it's not a pretext  to conduct a fishing expedition to find out if an ordinand's views on movies about Jesus conflict with the private, unofficial opinion of the examiner.

If Pastor Gleason thinks the PCA should adopt the Puritan position, isn't the proper venue for that debate a resolution at the General Assembly rather than an ordination exam? As it stands, his allegation seems to be a veiled threat against prospective ordinands. He's accusing them for "violating" the 2nd commandment if they don't share his views on movies about Jesus. Doesn't that suggest he'd vote against an ordinand for giving the "wrong" answer to that question, even though the denomination hasn't ruled on this issue? Conversely, if he and other like-minded elders lack the votes to get a binding resolution passed at the General Assembly, then there's the appearance of subverting due process by trying to push through at the level of an ordination exam what can't be achieved at the General Assembly. But perhaps I'm not conversant with the relevant rules and regulations.

Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that the PCA was officially opposed to movies about Jesus, what practical form would that policy take? Would it forbid a pastor from viewing a movie about Jesus? Would it enjoin a pastor to forbid his parishioners to view movies about Jesus? Would infractions be subject to church discipline? 

Artistic interpretations of Christ

When artists depict scenes in the life of Christ, this is a theological interpretation–no less so than a creed, hymn, or sermon.

http://www.baroquepotion.com/2012/03/this-is-my-body/

The golden calf

In Exod 32, what does the golden calf represent? Yahweh? Heathen deities? The terminology is ambiguous.

i) In v4 the Israelites say: “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!”

a) In one respect that might seem to denote Yahweh. After all, Yahweh was the one who delivered them from Egypt.

b) But notice the consistent use of plural verbs, nouns, and pronouns to describe the divine referent (vv1,4,8,23). The actual wording is polytheistic.

ii) Moreover, bovine cults were common in Egyptian and Mesopotamian religion. Cf. J. Currid, Exodus, 2:271. So that leaves open two possibilities:

a) The golden calf stands for some heathen deity or pagan pantheon.

b) The golden calf stands for Yahweh, but Yahweh assimilated to pagan iconography. A pagan depiction of the one true God.

iii) Furthermore, they thought Yahweh had abandoned them (v1), so they might well be seeking the assistance of other gods to guide them in the journey ahead. 

The common thread is syncretism. Blurring the boundaries. Indifference to which God or gods delivered them. Any one will do. The more the merrier.   

The reason the terminology is confusing is because their theology is confused. 

What does the second commandment forbid?

What does the 2^nd commandment forbid? On the Puritan view, it forbids manmade images of Yahweh. But that’s not clear from the actual wording of the text, or syntactical relationship between the 1^st and 2^nd commandments.

What’s the intended referent of idols or images in the 2^nd commandment? Which “God” is represented? Whose image is proscribed? Puritans think it refers to Yahweh. That’s what is prohibited.

Maybe so. But if we consider the flow of the passage, coming right on the heels of the 1^st commandment, that isn’t obvious. The 1^st commandment forbids the worship of deities other than Yahweh. So it would be logical if the 2^nd commandment continues that train of thought. The 2^nd commandment might be epexegetical, amplifying the 1^st commandment, viz.

1^st commandment: Don’t worship deities other than Yahweh

2^nd commandment: Don’t worship other deities by means of using idols of other deities

Or it might distinguish between mediate and immediate pagan worship. Don’t worship heathen deities directly–or indirectly via physical representations of heathen deities.

This interpretation also makes sense of the divine jealousy motif. Yahweh is “jealous” of worship directed at other “gods.” That’s the nature of “jealousy.” It’s directed at a third-party.

It makes less sense to say Yahweh is jealous of images of himself. For that still takes Yahweh as the object of religious devotion.

Of course, it might be objectionable on other grounds, but the jealousy motif makes less sense on the Puritan view. 

Idolatrous photography

Is the following syllogism true or false?

i) It is forbidden to make an image of God

ii) Man is the image of God

iii) A photograph of a man (woman or child) is an image of man

iv) An image of man is an image of God

v) Ergo, it is forbidden to photograph a human being

Feedback:

DOMINIC BNONN TENNANT SAID:

“Prima facie, [iv] is highly counterintuitive.”

You’re trying to short-circuit exegesis. 

“That gives us good warrant for supposing that you've equivocated on the meaning of ‘image.’”

That doesn’t give you any exegetical warrant to suppose that I’ve equivocated.

“Ie, if ‘image’ means the same thing wrt God and man in the Pentateuch, you get prima facie absurdities in view of your argument.”

Such as?

“Thus, on the face of it, ‘image’ must have different meanings wrt God and man in the Pentateuch.”

That’s not an exegetical objection.

“This certainly seems born out by the fact that the command against creating an image of God refers to physical representation, whereas the creation of man in God's image refers to spiritual representation, since God is Spirit.”

That’s both exegetically and philosophically dubious.

i) You seem to be suggesting that what’s material can’t represent what’s immaterial. But what about, say, the exemplification of abstract numbers in time and space?

ii) In Scripture, spatiotemporal relations can symbolize aspects of the deity. For instance, you have the concept of sacred space in Eretz Israel and the tabernacle. Eretz Israel is holy compared to the nations outside her borders. The subdivisions of the tabernacle represent degrees of cultic holiness. So physical space symbolizes the holiness of God.

Likewise, the plagues of Egypt, by which God delivers Israel, concretely symbolize the omnipotence of God. 

iii) Gen 1:26-27 describes man as the image of God, using a word (selem) commonly employed for statues or idols (e.g. Num 33:52). Exod 20:4 (par. Deut 4:16) uses a different word (pesel), which is also a synonym for statues or idols.

So in Pentateuchal usage, both man and idols are religious images and physical representations. 

iv) In Gen 1:26-27, man in his totality is the image of God. 

“Unless you can show that spiritual representation and physical representation stand in a transitive relationship, your argument is fatally equivocal. (There's also the problem that an image of man is not an image of God. It is an image of an image of God. And it's not clear the Pentateuch forbids that!)”

We have that transitive relation on display in the relation between Gen 1:26-27, 5:3, and 9:6. The image of God is reproducible through procreation. 

An image of an image (e.g. Adam’s posterity) is still an image of God. 

Manichaean worship

I’m going to post my serial response to B. C. Hodge (primarily):

It's wrong because it's meant to represent Him, not depict Him.

That distinction is not self-explanatory. Are you using "represent" in a symbolic rather than descriptive sense? I.e. the image plays a surrogate function?

In biblical religion, YHWH replaces the images with what He speaks, so that people must have a relationship with Him through that instead. Apart from it, a false relationship is formed (and the Bible seems to set these as conflicting trajectories to where we would not be able to combine both together). This is then extended to Jesus (hence, He is called the Word, we are to listen to the words that He speaks, He alone has words of eternal life, we are to obey His commandments, a little while and we will see Him no longer--and then, through His words, we will really "see" Him, we are to be sanctified in truth,which is God's Word, etc.).

But in the Gospels we have event-media as well as word-media. Christ reveals himself through emblematic miracles as well as spoken words. Dominical miracles are a type of sign language. Concrete, enacted parables

The golden calf doesn't misrepresent the aspect about YHWH it attempts to convey. It's actually the perfect image for what God has been telling them thus far about Himself (He is strong and will bring them into a fertile land--i.e., strength and fertility are its primary aspects and they represent YHWH well). The problem is that they take men away from worshiping God in spirit and in truth (i.e., through what He has spoken).

But in Exodus-Deuteronomy, Yahweh also reveals himself through theophanies and emblematic miracles. Not to mention the tabernacle, furnishings thereof, priestly vestments, &c. So it's directed at the eye no less than the ear. As such, I don't see any trajectory away from the visual.

Likewise, take the Apocalypse. That's the capstone of progressive revelation, so it comes at the tail-end of any trajectory. Yet it's a throwback to visionary revelation. Yes, it's a verbal record, but the words form word-pictures. Appealing to the reader's imagination. And that includes pictorial descriptions of Jesus, beginning with the graphic Christophany in Rev 1, as well as the warrior-king in Rev 19.

Christ actually doesn't reveal Himself through event media (unless you're talking about His work on the cross as a communication of His love, etc., but we know of those works through the spoken Word, and they are interpreted therein for us, so even they are subject to the interpretation of ‘God's Word’ to us, i.e., we must come to them through hearing the Word, not through our sense of sight that takes hold of those events as they are).

i) A non sequitur if, in fact, a Christian illustrator is illustrating the Gospels. He is using the written record as his primary source of information.

ii) And actually, he does reveal himself through event-media. For instance, the miracle of Cana is explicitly said to be revelatory. To take a few more examples, the multiplication of loaves and fish illustrate the fact that Jesus is the bread of life. The healing of the blind man illustrates the fact that Jesus is the light of the world. The raising of Lazarus illustrates the fact that Jesus is the resurrection and the life.

So miracles like these reveal the person and work of Christ. That’s what makes them “signs.”

Without word, Jesus is just another miracle worker who was executed by the Romans.

That fails to take into account the metaphorical significance of dominical miracles, as well as their evocation of OT types and shadows.

Miracles point to Him as verification for those who already believe, but they do not reveal Him.

That’s reductionistic. Dominical miracles have a purpose beyond attesting Jesus (see above).

It is the message that accompanies those miracles.

You’re erecting a false dichotomy. Word and sign are mutually interpretive.

Finally, God's theophanies in the OT are not meant to reveal Him, they are meant to hide Him, and those narratives make that clear…

To the contrary, the narratives indicate the revelatory significance of God’s OT theophanies and miracles. The plagues of Egypt have an explicitly revelatory function (e.g. Exod 7:5; 9:16). The theophanic angelophany in Exod 33 is explicitly revelatory. Theophanies both reveal and conceal.

What you need to do, Steve, is show how your arguments above don't undermine what God is saying in Deut 4.

That’s reversible. You need to show how your arguments don’t undermine what God is saying about the revelatory function of miracles and theophanies in Scripture.

Moreover, I’ve discussed Deut 4 before.

Hence, the person who thinks he has a relationship with Jesus because he prays to a seventeenth century depiction of a Spaniard as representing Jesus isn't praying to Jesus, not because Jesus may not have looked like that Spaniard, but because Jesus doesn't accept that form of worship.

That’s a different objection. Moreover, that’s not the only potential motivation for artistic renderings of Jesus. For instance, an artistic rendering of Gospel scenes may be a visual interpretation of the narrative.

It must be through spirit (i.e., the unseen) and truth (i.e., via hearing).

That cuts against the grain of Jn 1:14.

That might be the case if people were merely attempting to represent Jesus' human nature, but they aren't. They are either attempting to represent Jesus' Person, and His Person is divine, not human, or Jesus as a whole (the God-man). So the divine Person of the Son is being represented (not depicted) with a human image.

Why assume an artist is trying to represent the person of Christ? What if he's merely attempting to illustrate an action of Christ recorded in the Gospels? In a sense, it's the action that represents the person of Christ via the work of Christ in the gospel narrative.

Likewise, why assume it's wrong to represent Christ with a "human image." After all, Christ projected a human image when he was here on earth. That's all the observers could see. His body. Corporeal actions.

I don't assume Jesus physically resembles Jim Caviezel. Likewise, I don't expect actors to physically resemble the historical figures they portray. For instance, I seriously doubt Cleopatra was the spitting image of Liz Taylor.

Suppose an East Indian director filmed the Gospel of John using native actors. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Same thing with a cinematic adaptation of John's Gospel using Aborigines, Amerasians, Cherokees, Chinese, Chinooks, Filipinos, Gypsies, Incas, Pygmies, or Polynesians.