When I was preaching through the Decalogue, that was my application for the 2nd Commandment: if someone says that he or she does not violate the Second Commandment when looks at pictures of Christ (or the Holy Spirit pictured as a dove) because he or she does not worship the picture, then the Third Commandment is violated because one is invoking the name of Christ (or the Spirit) without worshiping Him.
According to the confession He stated, it isnt depicting any person of the Trinity. So I wouldn't worry about the cross and I would personally encourage it.
I don't see any issue with crosses because it isn't depicting any person of the Trinity, or a false god, or something we are worshiping/meant to worship. I think this falls into the same category as the fish symbol used by the very early church.
I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve recently found a PCA church near me and been attending services there for a few weeks now. I love it and I think it’s the best Church service I’ve seen.
I think the hard part with the 4th commandment is trying expound the commandment to transfer from Saturday to Sunday. When the commandment clearing sets Saturday aside and not a 6 to 1 format.
I completely agree with the perspective shared by Pastor Matt here. I’ve ways struggled with the use of the “Jesus Film” as a tool of evangelism for these reasons. Though the actual words of Christ are used and His works “portrayed,” yet it is NOT the actual Jesus but an actor. It just doesn’t work and I believe it can and does become a stumbling block for people in general especially for those who might be more disposed to placing confidence or even worship toward the “portrayal” rather than the One who actually lived, spoke, died and rose again. He alone was and is “the image of the invisible God.”
Great video pastor Matt! If your use of creeds and confessions has stirred up controversy, why not make a Reformed View video on the use of creeds and confessions? I for one would love that vid!
This is a culture awash in the image, the shimmering flickering screen of the computer, smartphone, and television. This constant immersion of the eyes comes at a dear cost: instead of elevating literacy and the word, and most significantly, the Word, we abase language and thought in order to exalt appearances of every kind.
Stories such as the Jesus storybook Bible are seen under this as it is still a falling short of the picture of Christ and even with good intention are wrong. He talking about a similar part of this before where the eastern orthodox I think used pictures to help the "less smart" understand Jesus. Hope this helped and you can double check all this and tell me if I'm wrong. Thanks!
Hi Pastor Matt. I've really been enjoying your content. I'm new to the reformed doctrines, and I'm looking to buy a study bible to help me along my journey to discover the depth of God's word and teach it clearly. I've been looking at the Reformation study bible condensed edition as it is a lot cheaper here in South Africa. Would you say this is a good place for me to start to gain a higher understanding of the scriptures? Is it sufficient for study? I would love a response if you have the time to do so. Regards Nico Vosloo
I find myself agreeing with you about pictures and art. But can we not tell the biblical story using video? No movie telling the story written in the gospels?
A. I’m not offended. I agree in as much as these images are worshipped or even honored .... that is wrong. B. You give a good example in the stained glass windows story of the extent to which reform people will go to conform the simple message of Christ to a convoluted system of belief. I respect your right to hold to the reform viewpoint and really enjoy your videos. The points that you make so well, though, seem to demonstrate a dour Christianity not the joyful celebration of Christ having delivered us from the chains of sin. I’ve never felt comfortable in a reform church and I don’t get why what is actually a joyful doctrine of God’s love for us results in more and more limitations of the Spirit. Blessings, MikeinMinnesota
I think you need to be clearer about B. In general I know that many think that Presbyterianism is a "dour" religion. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean on this specific issue of images, this would take away your joy? If it's this second issue, I really don't understand.
@@philagon the first is what I mean. It’s the attitude toward images not images per se. I’ll give you an example. I once had a reform friend give me grief about a beautiful Byzantine icon of the apostle John back when I was studying Greek. If I were a “true Christian” I would not have such an “image” in my den. That’s silly. I wasn’t venerating Saint John. He may as well have asked me to remove my bust of Beethoven from my piano. Really I was “headed for hell” over that silly picture of my Gospel hero. That’s dour and I’m just expressing my opinion. If that gets your goat, well, sorry ‘bout that.
The issue I have is that the commandment forbids the images of Heavenly and earthly things, to not bow down to them. So if someone makes an image of an animal and bows down to it, serves it, that is wrong. But if someone makes an imsge of an animal and does not treat it as his god and doesn't worship it, then it isn't wrong. Similarly if someone makes an image to represent Jesus, and he doesn't treat it as actually being Jesus, then he isn't in the wrong.
The making and displaying of the image of Jesus, in itself, is "treating" the image like Jesus. By your logic the Israelites would be free to make images of God in the OT. But it was clearly a wholesale prohibition of likenesses of the divinity back then, and so it should be now. A separate mistake in your position is that you think it only concerns the person who has fashioned the image. This is just not true. Any idolatrous image causes others to stumble as well.
I don't agree that someone making an image of Jesus is treating it as Jesus. They aren't necessarily bowing down, praying to it, loving it, or offering anything to it. The Israelites were forbidden from bowing to any image, whether they said it was God or something else.
@@francsiscogThat’s the second part of the commandment. The first part of the commandment is clear that even the mere fashioning of the image is also a sin. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them”
Not sure if this is just me, but if it's not scripture then why do it. I'm not sure how some churches really just go against what Scripture states. I'm not a Presbyterian, and I agree with him.
Good Afternoon Pastor, I enjoy your content on Reformed Theology. I have come to more of a Reformed Soteriology and am exploring more Reformed Theology itself. I used to have a huge problem with images and am still a little uncomfortable with some. But, I am having some issues with the view that you can absolutely have no images at all. I wanted to try and respond to your 3 reasons not to have images if thats ok and hopefully, maybe I can see it from another perspective if responded to. 1) God does not see fit to be boxed or captured in a way that cannot contain the whole of His majesty. This seems to be false. I think you would have to say when we speak about God and His attributes, or Trinity, or Divine Simplicity, etc. we are speaking in ways that are not capturing the whole of His majesty and thus should not speak at all about Him. When we try to describe God (say in the confessions), are we not somehow "trying to capture" something impossible to capture? 2) We have a tendency towards idolatry. This is true. Calvin said we are idol factories. That being said, people, and Christians especially given our stance on abortion and children in general, are prone to worship family. I see in the video you have a picture of a child. Are you not prone to worshipping that child? I think you would have to say yes, as we all would. The second commandment says not to have ANY images of anything in heaven or earth or water. You have a picture of a whale behind you, and again a picture of a child. Furthermore, after the commandments God had them build a tabernacle with images on it. The Ark has images on it. To your point it is more of a defense mechanism than it is anything else it seems. 3) History shows that we cannot separate ourselves from worshipping in or through or to these things made by tge hands of man. This holds with the picture of your family. No matter how hard we try not to on your stance, and that we should visit a Catholic church. Again, they have statues of regular people (whom they call saints), keep pictures of them in their pocket (like you would a picture of family), and still worship them. This, in your words seems to be so dangerous to the soul of man. Well, people worship and pray to whoever they decide to say is a saint. So, it follows that having pictures of your family would be dangerous since it isnt just pictures of Christ people are praying to. Wouldnt it be better not to have any pictures at all? Thank you for your content and sharing your knowledge. God bless you.
I think your first point is invalid in the sense that language is something God has given us to communicate and tell others about Him, even to pray to Him => overall to glorify Him. Especially, when you look at "words" like the ones in catechisms or creeds, they do exactly that because they are based on God's perfect word. The difference with images is that the Bible specifically tells us not to do it in the 2. commandment. We have a similar commandment for words which is the 3. commandment. However, images are different because we created them. God gave us His word which is perfect and from it should flow our speech. But any image we create is imperfect. God has not given us a perfect image but a perfect word to start with. So in that sense we can't compare the two like you did. I think your point 2 and 3 are essentially the same point. But as far as I understood the video Matt is not saying all images are wrong. There is a place for art. But it becomes dangerous when art is worshipped and that goes for any art. So you are right any art can become an idol but that does not mean God has forbidden all art in the second commandment. Again the context is important which is a worship context and the focus is on God. So any art that tries to depict God in any shape or form is to be rejected whether bird, creeping thing, animal, male or female or anything else in creation. The distinction is between creature and Creator not between creature and creature. After all, one thing is important as well. The ten commandments are not a restriction of life (including our creativity) but actually they are there to do the opposite. To show us what the beautiful life looks like in the presence of a holy God. These commandments are not to be kept in a legalistic way in order to be saved. The Israelites were already brought out of Egypt and so they were free people, redeemed by God. Now God shows them how to live by faith the beautiful life of freedom in His presence. It starts with worshipping Him alone and then also also how to worship Him in a way that is worthy of God. It excludes all images of Him or any other images of other gods, or images that have become gods for you. So is an image of family wrong to have? No....as long as you don't make it an idol to compete with God. Is there a danger? Yes. Does that mean God forbid it once it has become an idol? Yes. Does God forbid images of Himself even if you don't bow down to them? Yes. just my 2 cents.
Talking about using images to teach children: as an unregenerate child, I hated the muppets and any movies in cartoon form! I thought they were stupid and trying to trick me! Hated Sesame Street! Electric company didn’t bother me as much😊 This carried into my adult life as an atheist. I was a film snob! It had to be Fellini or Bunuel and the like. I walked out on “Ferris Bueller’s day off” It was too beneath my intellect! LOL 😂 But anyway: “Exterminating Angel” directed by Bunuel is a must see!
Jesus Christ is the icon (image) of God. “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” Col 1:15. People from the Roman, Jewish, and Christian community recorded very early what Jesus looked like…where’s the problem?
True. It’s almost like Deuteronomy 4 was onto something… God showed no similitude, but gave His voice. It’s impossible for God to be represented physically because He is a Spirit, unless you want to say that all of us are what God looks like - since we’re all in the image of God. What again is being in God’s image? Not a physical appearance, but a nature, a character, and Jesus is truly God and truly man.
I see the images almost everyday here in Peru. It is really pitiful. Huge wooden crosses on every mountain side which are presumed to hold a special power to protect the crops of the Quechua people.
When I was preaching through the Decalogue, that was my application for the 2nd Commandment: if someone says that he or she does not violate the Second Commandment when looks at pictures of Christ (or the Holy Spirit pictured as a dove) because he or she does not worship the picture, then the Third Commandment is violated because one is invoking the name of Christ (or the Spirit) without worshiping Him.
Hello. I noticed a couple other viewers had the same question as I. Please respond.
What about the wearing of a cross as jewelry?
Thank you
I’d love a response on this as well. It has recently come up in my church
According to the confession He stated, it isnt depicting any person of the Trinity. So I wouldn't worry about the cross and I would personally encourage it.
I don't see any issue with crosses because it isn't depicting any person of the Trinity, or a false god, or something we are worshiping/meant to worship. I think this falls into the same category as the fish symbol used by the very early church.
I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve recently found a PCA church near me and been attending services there for a few weeks now. I love it and I think it’s the best Church service I’ve seen.
Most churches today negate the 2nd and 4th commandment.
I think the hard part with the 4th commandment is trying expound the commandment to transfer from Saturday to Sunday. When the commandment clearing sets Saturday aside and not a 6 to 1 format.
Really enjoyed your three points at the end. I wholeheartedly agree.
I don't have a problem with images and icons. It would seem most Christians don't. They were approved at the second council of Nicea.
Keep up the content brother! 100% agree on this one and much of what you say.
I completely agree with the perspective shared by Pastor Matt here. I’ve ways struggled with the use of the “Jesus Film” as a tool of evangelism for these reasons. Though the actual words of Christ are used and His works “portrayed,” yet it is NOT the actual Jesus but an actor. It just doesn’t work and I believe it can and does become a stumbling block for people in general especially for those who might be more disposed to placing confidence or even worship toward the “portrayal” rather than the One who actually lived, spoke, died and rose again. He alone was and is “the image of the invisible God.”
Great video pastor Matt! If your use of creeds and confessions has stirred up controversy, why not make a Reformed View video on the use of creeds and confessions? I for one would love that vid!
Thoughts about the cross - in the church, worn as jewelry, etc?
Would also be curious about the response to this.
I would be curious as well. I might be a year and a half too late though 😂
Me too
Excited for this!
Can you recommend any good books on the subject?
This is a culture awash in the image, the shimmering flickering screen of the computer, smartphone, and television. This constant immersion of the eyes comes at a dear cost: instead of elevating literacy and the word, and most significantly, the Word, we abase language and thought in order to exalt appearances of every kind.
What do you think about pictures of Jesus in Children’s Bibles and Bible storybooks etc?
Stories such as the Jesus storybook Bible are seen under this as it is still a falling short of the picture of Christ and even with good intention are wrong. He talking about a similar part of this before where the eastern orthodox I think used pictures to help the "less smart" understand Jesus. Hope this helped and you can double check all this and tell me if I'm wrong. Thanks!
Hi Pastor Matt.
I've really been enjoying your content. I'm new to the reformed doctrines, and I'm looking to buy a study bible to help me along my journey to discover the depth of God's word and teach it clearly.
I've been looking at the Reformation study bible condensed edition as it is a lot cheaper here in South Africa.
Would you say this is a good place for me to start to gain a higher understanding of the scriptures?
Is it sufficient for study?
I would love a response if you have the time to do so.
Regards
Nico Vosloo
I find myself agreeing with you about pictures and art. But can we not tell the biblical story using video? No movie telling the story written in the gospels?
Have you done a video on the Sabbath?
I’m wondering what the Presbyterian view on biblical cosmology is?
A. I’m not offended. I agree in as much as these images are worshipped or even honored .... that is wrong. B. You give a good example in the stained glass windows story of the extent to which reform people will go to conform the simple message of Christ to a convoluted system of belief. I respect your right to hold to the reform viewpoint and really enjoy your videos. The points that you make so well, though, seem to demonstrate a dour Christianity not the joyful celebration of Christ having delivered us from the chains of sin. I’ve never felt comfortable in a reform church and I don’t get why what is actually a joyful doctrine of God’s love for us results in more and more limitations of the Spirit. Blessings, MikeinMinnesota
I think you need to be clearer about B. In general I know that many think that Presbyterianism is a "dour" religion. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean on this specific issue of images, this would take away your joy? If it's this second issue, I really don't understand.
@@philagon the first is what I mean. It’s the attitude toward images not images per se. I’ll give you an example. I once had a reform friend give me grief about a beautiful Byzantine icon of the apostle John back when I was studying Greek. If I were a “true Christian” I would not have such an “image” in my den. That’s silly. I wasn’t venerating Saint John. He may as well have asked me to remove my bust of Beethoven from my piano. Really I was “headed for hell” over that silly picture of my Gospel hero. That’s dour and I’m just expressing my opinion. If that gets your goat, well, sorry ‘bout that.
The issue I have is that the commandment forbids the images of Heavenly and earthly things, to not bow down to them. So if someone makes an image of an animal and bows down to it, serves it, that is wrong. But if someone makes an imsge of an animal and does not treat it as his god and doesn't worship it, then it isn't wrong. Similarly if someone makes an image to represent Jesus, and he doesn't treat it as actually being Jesus, then he isn't in the wrong.
The making and displaying of the image of Jesus, in itself, is "treating" the image like Jesus. By your logic the Israelites would be free to make images of God in the OT. But it was clearly a wholesale prohibition of likenesses of the divinity back then, and so it should be now.
A separate mistake in your position is that you think it only concerns the person who has fashioned the image. This is just not true. Any idolatrous image causes others to stumble as well.
I don't agree that someone making an image of Jesus is treating it as Jesus. They aren't necessarily bowing down, praying to it, loving it, or offering anything to it.
The Israelites were forbidden from bowing to any image, whether they said it was God or something else.
@@francsiscogThat’s the second part of the commandment. The first part of the commandment is clear that even the mere fashioning of the image is also a sin. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them”
What catechism does your church use?
Not if you're Michelangelo, Donatello, or ANY of the Ninja Turtles.
Not sure if this is just me, but if it's not scripture then why do it. I'm not sure how some churches really just go against what Scripture states. I'm not a Presbyterian, and I agree with him.
You sound like a reformed baptist then a reformed Presbyterian.
Matthew, you need to speak more firmly about it. Don't say "maybe" it's wrong in our modern age. Just say it's wrong.
Good Afternoon Pastor, I enjoy your content on Reformed Theology. I have come to more of a Reformed Soteriology and am exploring more Reformed Theology itself. I used to have a huge problem with images and am still a little uncomfortable with some. But, I am having some issues with the view that you can absolutely have no images at all. I wanted to try and respond to your 3 reasons not to have images if thats ok and hopefully, maybe I can see it from another perspective if responded to.
1) God does not see fit to be boxed or captured in a way that cannot contain the whole of His majesty.
This seems to be false. I think you would have to say when we speak about God and His attributes, or Trinity, or Divine Simplicity, etc. we are speaking in ways that are not capturing the whole of His majesty and thus should not speak at all about Him. When we try to describe God (say in the confessions), are we not somehow "trying to capture" something impossible to capture?
2) We have a tendency towards idolatry.
This is true. Calvin said we are idol factories. That being said, people, and Christians especially given our stance on abortion and children in general, are prone to worship family. I see in the video you have a picture of a child. Are you not prone to worshipping that child? I think you would have to say yes, as we all would. The second commandment says not to have ANY images of anything in heaven or earth or water. You have a picture of a whale behind you, and again a picture of a child. Furthermore, after the commandments God had them build a tabernacle with images on it. The Ark has images on it. To your point it is more of a defense mechanism than it is anything else it seems.
3) History shows that we cannot separate ourselves from worshipping in or through or to these things made by tge hands of man.
This holds with the picture of your family. No matter how hard we try not to on your stance, and that we should visit a Catholic church. Again, they have statues of regular people (whom they call saints), keep pictures of them in their pocket (like you would a picture of family), and still worship them. This, in your words seems to be so dangerous to the soul of man. Well, people worship and pray to whoever they decide to say is a saint. So, it follows that having pictures of your family would be dangerous since it isnt just pictures of Christ people are praying to. Wouldnt it be better not to have any pictures at all?
Thank you for your content and sharing your knowledge. God bless you.
I think your first point is invalid in the sense that language is something God has given us to communicate and tell others about Him, even to pray to Him => overall to glorify Him. Especially, when you look at "words" like the ones in catechisms or creeds, they do exactly that because they are based on God's perfect word. The difference with images is that the Bible specifically tells us not to do it in the 2. commandment. We have a similar commandment for words which is the 3. commandment. However, images are different because we created them. God gave us His word which is perfect and from it should flow our speech. But any image we create is imperfect. God has not given us a perfect image but a perfect word to start with. So in that sense we can't compare the two like you did.
I think your point 2 and 3 are essentially the same point. But as far as I understood the video Matt is not saying all images are wrong. There is a place for art. But it becomes dangerous when art is worshipped and that goes for any art. So you are right any art can become an idol but that does not mean God has forbidden all art in the second commandment. Again the context is important which is a worship context and the focus is on God. So any art that tries to depict God in any shape or form is to be rejected whether bird, creeping thing, animal, male or female or anything else in creation. The distinction is between creature and Creator not between creature and creature.
After all, one thing is important as well. The ten commandments are not a restriction of life (including our creativity) but actually they are there to do the opposite. To show us what the beautiful life looks like in the presence of a holy God. These commandments are not to be kept in a legalistic way in order to be saved. The Israelites were already brought out of Egypt and so they were free people, redeemed by God. Now God shows them how to live by faith the beautiful life of freedom in His presence. It starts with worshipping Him alone and then also also how to worship Him in a way that is worthy of God. It excludes all images of Him or any other images of other gods, or images that have become gods for you. So is an image of family wrong to have? No....as long as you don't make it an idol to compete with God. Is there a danger? Yes. Does that mean God forbid it once it has become an idol? Yes. Does God forbid images of Himself even if you don't bow down to them? Yes.
just my 2 cents.
Talking about using images to teach children: as an unregenerate child, I hated the muppets and any movies in cartoon form! I thought they were stupid and trying to trick me! Hated Sesame Street! Electric company didn’t bother me as much😊 This carried into my adult life as an atheist. I was a film snob! It had to be Fellini or Bunuel and the like.
I walked out on “Ferris Bueller’s day off” It was too beneath my intellect! LOL 😂
But anyway: “Exterminating Angel” directed by Bunuel is a must see!
Hugs
Jesus Christ is the icon (image) of God. “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” Col 1:15. People from the Roman, Jewish, and Christian community recorded very early what Jesus looked like…where’s the problem?
sources for the description of Jesus's appearance?
True. It’s almost like Deuteronomy 4 was onto something… God showed no similitude, but gave His voice. It’s impossible for God to be represented physically because He is a Spirit, unless you want to say that all of us are what God looks like - since we’re all in the image of God. What again is being in God’s image? Not a physical appearance, but a nature, a character, and Jesus is truly God and truly man.
I see the images almost everyday here in Peru. It is really pitiful. Huge wooden crosses on every mountain side which are presumed to hold a special power to protect the crops of the Quechua people.