"If you have seen me..."

Scripture is emphatically clear that no man has ever seen God (Exo 33:20; John 1:18; I John 4:12). This is the reasoning behind the second commandment which is against making a graven image. In Deuteronomy 4:15-19, Moses warns the Israelites to make sure that they keep this command by reminding them that when the Lord spoke to them out of the midst of the fire in Horeb, they saw no "form" of God. Therefore, they should not try to replicate or represent God in any way. 

In the upper room on the night before Christ's death, he told his disciples that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one can come to the Father except through him (John 14:6). One of his disciples must have been a bit confused, because he responded by saying to Christ, "Show us the Father, and it will be enough." After expressing a bit of frustration at the fact that even his closest friends still didn't get, Jesus responds, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (v.9). In other words, what God didn't do on Mount Horeb with the Israelites so many years prior, he did do in the incarnation of his only begotten Son.  Jesus Christ is the revelation of God for all the world to see. 

Having this understanding, we can now ask the practical question: "Are images of Jesus Christ permissible?" This question is further complicated when we consider the fact that we have no idea what Jesus looked like. There is no authentic portrait or description of him that we have, nor did he or the gospel writers see the need to provide us with one. When people attempt to portray Jesus, they usually produce a stereotypical "Jesus" (i.e. a white man with a beard and long hair). If I, as a married man, carried a picture of another woman in my wallet and showed it to people when they asked to see my wife, you would think I was insane!  If people really wanted to know who my wife is, an accurate picture, and not just of some random girl, must be used. Likewise, when Jesus says, "If you have seen me..." it must really be Jesus that we see. 

When Peter writes, some 30 years after the Ascension of Jesus, to Christians living in Asia Minor he says concerning their Lord, "Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory" (1 Peter 1:8). You see, Peter has no problem with Christians not having ever seen Jesus or even knowing what he looks like; they still can have a relationship with him. But that is not all there is, because Peter also speaks of a "blessed hope," which includes nothing less than seeing the risen Lord upon his return in glory. As John reminds us in his first epistle "We know that when he appears we will be like him, because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). Having a desire to see Jesus is not wrong, on the contrary, it is to be commended. However, now is not the time, but we must eagerly await the day.  

For more on this issue see: "Iconoclasm, Incarnation, and Eschatology: Toward a Catholic Understanding of the Reformed Doctrine of the 'Second' Commandment," David VanDrunen, International Journal of Systematic Theology, vol. 6 number 2 (April 2004).

For a discussion of how God has provided visible means of grace for us, you can read a new book written by my pastor, Daniel R. Hyde, entitled In living Color: Images of Christ and the Means of Grace, Reformed Fellowship Inc. (Grandville, MI: 2009). 

Get the picture?

The second commandment forbids the manufacturing of any image for the purpose of worshiping it. If the first commandment condemns worshiping false gods, the second commandment condemns worshiping the true God in false ways. Certainly, in our culture at least, idolatry has taken on a more subtle, yet still prevalent, presence.  Everyone knows that God is invisible and that he cannot be imaged. But what about images of Jesus? Since Jesus was a man and men are portrayable, are we allowed to have images of him? If one would observe the home of even a typical Evangelical family in America, he would no doubt find numerous pictures of Jesus: perhaps a children's Bible with him on the cover, or a sentimental painting on the wall, or some sort of Jesus movie, or on a T-shirt, and the list goes on. The Reformers, on the other hand, were very emphatic in their denunciation of any attempt a of portrayal of Jesus Christ, and they did so on the authority of the second commandment. For most Christians today, however, the typical reformed argument seems to be a non sequitur. In other words, the argument: "God may not be imaged in any way, Jesus is true and eternal God, so, Jesus may not be imaged," does not seem to be very persuasive to the vast majority of Christians.  

A common response to the question of whether pictures of Jesus are permissible is that they are alright, as long as we do not worship them.  This is, however, a slippery slope to be on. At what point does the admiration and inspiration one derives from pictures of Jesus cease to be just that and not also some sort of worship and devotion. If indeed, Jesus is a wonderful person and deserving of praise, how are we to clearly divorce in our minds the feelings we get when we view a picture purporting to be Jesus and when we are really offering up worship to him? This is, no doubt, further complicated with those who are coming out of a Roman Catholic background where images of Jesus are expressly given devotion and prayed to.

Another response is that pictures of Jesus should be tolerated to serve as teaching aids for children and the unlearned. This is an identical argument employed by the Roman Catholic church during the Reformation in defense of the stain-glass windows and other images displayed in their churches. They called them "books for the laity," since most parishioners were illiterate and unable to read the Biblical stories themselves. To this argument I can respond with the Heidelberg Catechism #98: "We should not be wiser than God..." In other words, if one observes the entirety of Scripture, he will find that God never instructs his people to produce images to help educate their children in spiritual matters. Rather, what he has ordained is preaching, thus placing emphasis and efficacy in the hearing (not seeing) of the word. 

coming soon... how the incarnation effects our understanding of the second commandment.

God in a Box

Cessationism is the belief that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit that were given to Christians (including such things as the power to heal, speak in another language, prophecy, etc.) have ceased to exist since the closing of the apostolic era. Charismatics, those who hold to the perpetuity of supernatural gifts, often chide their fellow cessationist brothers in the Lord for being guilty of "putting God in a box." Who are we to say what God can and cannot do? Is He not sovereign? If God wants to work in miraculous ways among his people, is it not sinful to try to limit him? Furthermore, Charismatics challenge cessationists to produce a single verse from Scripture that explicitly states that miraculous gifts will cease at a particular time in redemptive history. As a result, I Corinthians 13:8-12 is often twisted to prove things that it never was meant to say in the first place. 

Of all the objections against cessationism, this has to be the most valid. As forceful as the historical and experiential arguments are, no cessationist would have a leg to stand on if it were not proven in Scripture. We are, after all, people of the Book.  A full and detailed Biblical argument in favor of cessationism is not even close to what you are reading now (for a good start, check out Perspectives on Pentecost, by Richard Gaffin, Jr. [P&R publishing]), but suffice it to say, that not all Biblical doctrines are proven from explicit statements found in Scripture, but rather, are rightly deduced from inductive observations. One clear example is the doctrine of the Trinity.  One would search in vain in Scripture if he was trying to find a single "proof text" that would summarize all the various aspects of the doctrine we know today as the Trinity (e.g. that there is only one God in three distinct Persons). Orthodox Christians, however, have rightly held to this believe in all times and in all places. What I am trying to say is that the Bible can clearly speak on a certain subject without addressing it directly.  

When it comes to the subject of miracles, the uniform testimony regarding them in Scripture is that they are given to validate new revelation given by God. When Moses was at the burning bush, for example, he asked how he would prove that he was not just crazy, but that people would really believe him (Exo 4).  God responded by giving him miracles to perform. When Elijah and Elisha prophesied against to the Northern kingdom of Israel who had all but abandoned belief in Yahweh in favor of Baal worship, they were given the ability to work miracles to show that their God was superior (e.g. Baal was the storm god who brought rain and Elijah brought a drought for 3 1/2 years!). In the New Testament we find another deluge of miracles with the ministry of Christ and the apostles in the Gospels and Acts. In short, we find clusters of miracles given in Redemptive History whenever new and significant revelation of God is proclaimed. This is confirmed by the writer to the Hebrews who speaks of the new revelation given by Christ which was in turn "attested by those who heard" (i.e. "the apostles") and then to validate the message, we read, "God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will" (2:3-4). 

Here we find a clear Biblical teaching on the purpose of miracles: they are given to validate new revelation. If we rightly believe that the canon is closed and no more new revelation is being given by God, what purpose remains for supernatural gifts? 

Can God work miracles today? Yes, he can and he does. Are we putting God in a box? No, we are only trying to have a Biblical perspective on  how he has revealed himself and his actions. 

How'd you like another black eye?

Popular treatments of the Reformation have latched onto the sensational story of the burning of Michael Servetus in Calvin's Geneva. Indeed, this has become a proverbial "black eye" for those who identify themselves as Reformed Christians; it is not something we're terribly proud of.  Well, it may or may not come as a surprise to you to learn that this was not the only case of well-known and influential Reformers being involved in the execution of a heretic.  

To make a long story short: Johann Sylvan was a minister and superintendent in the Palatinate during the 1560's till the early 1570's. He had made the transition from a Roman Catholic priest to a Lutheran to nominally Reformed over the course of about ten years. Although there is no evidence concerning his involvement with the formation of the Heidelberg Catechism, he did take part in the translation of the  New Testament for the Heidelberg Bible.  Although his aloofness as a pastor led to popular resentment, it was the controversy over the introduction of a presbyterial church government that revealed his religious dissent. It became clear that Sylvan not only favored the Zwinglian style of church government (controlled by the magistrate), but he also revealed affinity for Zwingli's purely memorial view of the Supper. He feared that even Calvin's view of a "Spiritual presence" led to idolatry due to God's utter transcendence. 

Sylvan's demise was further solidified with his association with those who held anti-trinitarian beliefs. One of these men, Adam Neuser, was, at one point, minister of St. Peter's Church in Heidelberg. Neuser had authored a confession of faith in 1570 which explicitly denied the Trinity, labeling it unbiblical and an invention of the early church fathers. He ended up fleeing to Turkey where he converted to Islam and also was an alcoholic. Sylvan was also planning an escape, but he was not so lucky. Once in custody, Fredrick III was torn about what to do with him.  While the civic judges favored corporal punishment for Sylvan, religious leaders, including our own Olevianus and Ursinus, wanted to make an example out of him. Johann Sylvan was beheaded on December 23, 1572 in the Heidelberg market square, even after making an apparent recantation of his views. To his credit, Fredrick III vowed to care for Sylvan's wife and child.

As modern-day readers, we may be at a loss about what to make of all of this. First, I think it is important to not judge these individuals with the same standard that we have today. While not excusing their sin, understanding that these were men of their times helps us to see that their actions were not out of the ordinary or especially heinous. Heresy was often a capital punishment as it also was viewed as a type of treason against the throne, especially for those who held public office. Religious dissent was not handled all that well (to say the least). 

Secondly, it is important for us to keep in mind that the church of Christ, as it is manifested here on earth, has never been without sin or fault. This is, of course, because God has so chosen to govern his church with sinful men. There has never been, nor will there ever be in this life, a so-called Golden Age of the church where everything is pure and pristine (even the first-century church had its problems!). As Christians we should pray for those sinful men that God has chosen to rule his church that He would lead them to all truth by his word and Spirit.  

Why Six Days?

I used to think that the main reason why we are told in the opening chapters of Genesis that God created the world in six days was to be able to contradict the evolutionist's claim that it happened over billions of years. In retrospect, however, it seems a tad anachronistic to think that Moses could have been polemicizing against a theory that wasn't developed until over 3,000 years later! While Moses was indeed polemicizing (not plagiarizing!) against other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths, it is his masterful way of narrating the creation account that draws our attention. 
I would like to briefly discuss the literary aspects of the opening chapters of Genesis. If one focuses solely on the chronological details of Genesis 1, they may miss what I think is one of Moses' main points in his six day outline. For example, the first three days of creation describe the creation of light & darkness, waters & sky, and earth & vegetation, respectively. 

The next three days describe the creation of the sun, moon & stars, fish & birds, and animals & man, respectively. When placed side-by-side, one can see how the first three days correspond to next three. What we see in the first set of days are the creation of different realms and in the second set we see the creation of the respective rulers of those realms. The sun, moon and stars rule the heavens, the fish and birds rule the seas and skies, and animals and man rule the land. The fact that the creation of man takes place on the final day of creation highlights man's supremacy over the rest of creation. Certainly, the way Moses describes the creation of man in God's image sets him apart from the rest of God's creation. Indeed, God, as it where, saved the best for last when he created man to be the great ruler over all the rest of his creation  and thereby mirror the dominion that the Triune God exercises over all things. 

Indulge me for a while.

I recently read in the news that the practice of the Roman Catholic Church offering indulgences is making a resurgence (read about this here). As I read the article, I began to wonder what Martin Luther would have thought. As many of you already may know, it was the issue over the selling of indulgences that Luther initially launched his public criticisms of the Roman Catholic church. Indulgences are defined as the removal of temporal punishment for sins that have already been forgiven. You see, since Rome distinguishes between the removal of guilt and the actual punishment for sin, there remains a necessary step in the Roman Catholic system that Christians must undergo prior to entering heaven (hence: Purgatory). In order to limit one's time spent in Purgatory, the church offered, for the right price, indulgences. As Johann Tetzel, the famed indulgence preacher said, "When a penny in the coffer rings, a soul from Purgatory springs!" This as you can imagine, was a huge money-making enterprise, and also, no doubt, part of the motivation for its modern-day reinstitution.  

But as heinous as this practice may seem to be, it was not the major issue over which the Reformation grew. The move to morally reform corrupt church practices did not begin with Luther, nor did it end with him. As a matter of fact, the Catholic Reformation (A.K.A. Counter Reformation) was all about moral reform, and it was quite successful in cleaning up Rome's act, so to speak. The major issue which the Reformation was all about is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This is the teaching that Luther, whose theology had matured since the publishing of the 95 Theses, said the Church stands or falls upon. The Reformation was primarily motivated by theological concerns (soteriology in particular) and only secondarily, did moral, political, social, etc. concerns enter in.  Rome's answer to the Reformation, the council of Trent, understood this well. Trent did much to reform corrupt practices within, but perhaps its most emphatic denunciations were reserved for anyone who holds the doctrine of justification by faith alone (they receive an anathema).  This is what sets the Reformers apart from Rome as well as the Anabaptists; both denied any notion of imputation of Christ's righteousness in favor of a realist notion of salvation (i.e. God declare you righteous, only if you are really righteous). Moral corruption is nothing new (or unique to Rome, for that matter), what is important, however is the gospel. 

Sacraments and Discipline

We've already seen the inter-connected relationship that preaching has with the administration of the sacraments and discipline (see below), but what relationship, if any, do the sacraments have with godly church discipline? These two marks of a true church have much to do with one another in that they both are essential aspects of the Christian communion. 

Baptism, as it was instituted by Christ in Matthew 28, is obviously an initiatory rite for those entering into the church. Its covenantal significance is seen in Christ's choice of the preposition "into" (eis, in Greek). When we were baptized, we were not just baptized "in" the name, that is by divine authority, but we were also baptized "into" the name of the Triune God. This terminology is freighted with covenantal significance. In the ancient world, the name of the god that one worshiped would be called out durning one's initiation; it was said that the divine name was placed "upon" the devotee. This is the same language used of the Aaronic benediction in Numbers 6, when God says in verse 27, "So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them." In other words, when we were baptized, we were baptized into a relationship with God, where he promises that he will be our God and we will be his people (the essence of the covenant). 

If baptism gets us into the covenant people of God, so to speak, the Lord's Supper provides us sustenance once we are in. Unlike the act of baptism, which need only be done once, the Lord's Supper ought to be taken regularly in order to continue to nourish our souls to eternal life. It is a means of assurance for the believer because we know by faith that as certainly as we eat the bread and drink the wine, so certainly has Christ died for our sins. It is given to us because of our sin and failure to assure us of God's love and to strengthen us in our resolve to do good. 
With these things in mind, let us remember that godly church discipline is for those who are within the covenant community (Heb 12:6).  Discipline is not some arbitrary and judgmental task that consistories do to flex their spiritual power, rather, it is done in love and humility in order to restore a fallen brother. It is not for those who are outside, but is a necessary gift from God for his children. We should be thankful for discipline, for it is God's means to keep us in his church. Here we can see the intimate relationship that discipline bears to the sacraments. Discipline is only for baptized members of the covenant community who have gone astray in doctrine or life. Further, the consequence of Christian discipline is to be suspended from the table of the Lord's Supper. This means of assurance salvation is withheld from those who refuse to repent of their sins. Once a brother is brought to a place of repentance and restored, the Lord's Supper is once again offered.  

We see, therefore, that the three marks of a true church as defined in Belgic Confession  art. 29 are non-negotiable.  They are not three random aspects of church life that someone 500 years ago decided that everyone must agree upon. Rather, they are essential character traits that a church must have in order to faithfully carry out God's will. Further, I hope that I have shown how important it is for a church to not just have one of the marks, but all three, in that they bear such intimate relation to each other that in order for a church to carry out one task, the other two must also be present.