If memory serves, you subscribe to the Westminster Standards. Yet you say there is “the divinely sanctioned way in which we see Christ: the Bible and the sacraments. We see Christ in Scriptures, and we remember him and his death not through small metal symbols or statuettes but through the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper.”
This appears totally inconsistent with the answer to Q. 109 of the Larger Catechism, and it seems also to border on violating the teaching of WCF XXIX:V. Would you care to explain how it is that you are authorized to “see” Christ in any way whatsoever? How, exactly, do you think of Christ, and if you do think of Him, are you not “making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever,” emphasis mine? And if you are not authorized to “see” Him by any mental means, what is the meaning of your claim of adherence to the doctrine of the Bodily Resurrection and continued abiding of our Lord in His glorified bodily state of existence? Mustn’t you form some mental image of Him if you profess the truth of that doctrine?
5 Comments
April 5, 2009 at 2:51 pm
TF replied, and I posted the following in response, although it will likely be a while before it’s published, if in fact it gets approved (which I do not doubt):
TF said, “[T]here is a difference between a representation and a likeness.”
This may be. But your standards say you are not to make “any representation… in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever.” You seem convicted by your own words of violating this; the bronze serpent, the animal sacrifices, and the Lord’s Supper are, to you, representations. Yet they are representations of God in the likeness of created things. Furthermore, you also intimated (no; you actually stated it outright) that you “see” Christ in the Bible: “… it does take your eyes away from the divinely sanctioned way in which we see Christ: the Bible and the sacraments. We see Christ in Scriptures, and we remember him and his death not through small metal symbols or statuettes but through the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper.”
So, it would appear that you are letting your senses deceive you: those Bibles are paper and ink, perhaps with leather covers, perhaps not, but they are not the One Person with two distinct natures. Those sacramental elements are, as I pointed out, bread and wine, and your standards make that explicit. Yet you appear to be letting “your eyes” be taken away from the Christ, Who is a Person of divine and human natures, not wood pulp and jet, not wheat bread and vintage.
Earlier you said, “Thus, while belief in the resurrection is a core belief of Christianity, we can recognize that it is totally unnecessary to have a picture of the physical appearance of Jesus (either in stone or in our heads) to hold such a view.” Perhaps you can explain to me how to go about not thinking of green elephants once presented with the concept. I presume you’re familiar with that children’s game. You must necessarily utilize created imagery in order to properly think of Jesus since the Incarnation occurred in history. Or did God directly implant the Platonic form “Jesus” in your head? I didn’t say you had to have an accurate portrait of Jesus; I said you necessarily have to utilize created imagery to accurately conceive of Him. Such conception violates WLC 109. There isn’t any way around that, and your ad hoc distinction between “representation” and “likeness” doesn’t help you, as I pointed out above. Now, if you wish to engage in some higher-level semiotics, I’ll be happy to take a look at what you mean by “The right way to represent it is in the Lord’s Supper, through symbols not through likenesses.” Here’s a fun little question just as a thought experiment for you: are you authorized to use Jesus-shaped communion bread for your Lord’s Supper? It’s the symbol that matters, apparently, right?
April 5, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I want to ask a few follow up questions, so I’ll jot them down so I don’t forget:
1) When you see Jesus, do you worship Him?
2) If you see Jesus in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, do you worship Him in the Supper?
3) If the elements remain bread and wine, aren’t you the one worshipping a bread god?
April 5, 2009 at 5:54 pm
It is flatly impossible for a human being to avoid making a mental representation of Christ when reading the gospels (or hearing them read, for that matter), and it is special pleading to deny that those representations constitute an obvious contradiction of what the LC says (as you quoted). “Any representation;” “either inwardly or in our mind.” It is our very nature to conjure such images in our imaginations.
Well, I didn’t quite make it to the end of Lent with my sabbatical, did I?
Better luck next year. Anyway, good questions, Mike.
Peace,
RdP
April 5, 2009 at 7:57 pm
So glad to hear from you! Thanks. Here’s looking forward to the joy of Easter!
April 7, 2009 at 3:57 pm
TF responded:
“I don’t see what is confusing you Mike. The representations that we are not to make are alleged likenesses. This is really not a hard concept to grasp, so I’m having trouble figuring out what about it stumping you. I really don’t see what further clarification from my side could help, if you are sincerely confused.
Again, this sort of misunderstanding on your part is rather odd. Obviously, the Bible doesn’t look like Christ’s humanity, nor does it resemble the hypostatic union. That was never the claim. You’re not making any sense.
Again, as I pointed out, we can believe that Enoch was translated without having any mental image of him, and we can also believe that Christ was fully God and fully man without trying to create any mental image of what Christ’s humanity looked like. Why this surpasses your understanding is hard to fathom.
You’ve misrepresented me and the Westminster standards quite a number of times – I hope it was simply an innocent mistake on your part, but room for that interpretation is shrinking with each comment you are providing.
I have not seen the comments on the thread on your post. I do try to read the posts on your blog, but I rarely make time for the comments box (perhaps this is something I should re-think).”
Initially, nothing about the Reformed teaching is stumping me. In fact, I understand it quite well, although you do not appear to accept that.
The representations you are not to make and the representations you are (according to you) to make are both images and likenesses of created things, regardless of what you would have us believe.
You wish to create a distinction without a difference between a representation which does not resemble something and a representation which does resemble something. For one thing, the bronze serpent (which you acknowledge was a representation of Christ) was authorized (indeed, commanded). And it was in the likeness of a created thing. Despite the subsequent idolatry, this command did not violate the prohibition against graven images. God cannot contradict Himself. Therefore, the commandment of the first table doesn’t have the meaning iconoclasts attach to it. For another thing, there is no subsequent commandment not to create future representations of Christ. There is a huge leap from ordering the destruction of something which for one set of people had become an object of idolatry and the inferrence of a blanket prohibition of all representations. This, in and of itself, does not also imply permission to make representations, but more on that later.
Returning to your rejoinder, you said, “Obviously, the Bible doesn’t look like Christ’s humanity, nor does it resemble the hypostatic union. That was never the claim.” One wonders, because you seemed quite clear in your initial post that one’s “eyes” are “take[n] away from the divinely sanctioned way in which we see Christ: the Bible and the sacraments.”
Here’s the full quote for context:
“I know that won’t make me overly popular with the kind of Evangelicalism that is currently in collapse according to that same guy (link), but if I wanted to be popular I wouldn’t speak out against sin. I’m far less concerned by the appearance that the iMonk is Romanizing (though anyone who stays around my blog will realize that I’m no fan of Rome) and far more concerned that he doesn’t take the Scriptural prohibition on idols seriously. If one is going to point to a reason why the brand of Evangelicalism that accepts idols is going to perish, failure to heed God’s word in Scripture is (in my view) the number one reason.
No, having idols of Jesus whether in statute, crucifix, or icon form isn’t going to turn you into a Roman Catholic – but it does take your eyes away from the divinely sanctioned way in which we see Christ: the Bible and the sacraments. We see Christ in Scriptures, and we remember him and his death not through small metal symbols or statuettes but through the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper.”
There is room for latitude in interpreting a portion of your remarks to mean the so-called “eyes of faith,” rendering it something like this: “having idols [sic] of Jesus… does take your eyes of faith away from the divinely sanctioned way we are permitted to make representations of Jesus: in imagining we see Him in the Bible and the sacraments, particularly the elements of bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper.” However, this “eyes of faith” way of “seeing” Him was not stated as such. Be that as it may, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are still utilizing created things as aids or images to “seeing” Him. Even further conceding the divine origin of the Holy Scriptures, the printed texts we have are created things, and God communicates to us using created means and through likenesses, so your objection is what fails to meet the “making sense” criterion.
Perhaps you would care to elucidate how, exactly, using bread and wine, e.g., (which you presumably admit are created things) as a representation of Christ which allow you to “see” Christ (even with the eyes of faith) is qualitatively different from using created iconographic means to “see” Christ in wood and paint or marble statuary?
Further, perhaps you could elucidate why you think it is appropriate to think of an invisible Christ after the Incarnation? Why should you be permitted to use now false ideas of your creation when thinking of our Incarnate Lord?