The Second Helvetic Confession Chapter 4
Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and The Saints
Images of God. Since God as
Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any
art or image. For this reason we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that
images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the
Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. Although Christ assumed human
nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for
carvers and painters. He denied that he had come to abolish the law and the
prophets (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets
(Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable
for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever
(John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body
would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us
by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (II Cor. 3:16). But what
agreement has the temple of God with idols? (II Cor. 6:16).
<In contrast to the conservative Reformed churches I do
not agree with this as written. The
directions for the construction of the temple came after the law.
Yet, the temple had Aimages@
both of the natural world, and the angelic figures atop the Ark of the Covenant.
Now God does not contradict Himself in anyway.
Yet the Law does say make no graven images.
Deut. 4 gives a fuller context of what is happening and the intent of the
commandment concerning images. The
context is the creation of images for the purpose of worshiping the image.
In the commandment proper we find the command in verse three flanked by
the context of verses two and four. To
wit: @Thou
shall have no other gods before me (3) and “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to
them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God ...” (5).
It is obvious that the intent of the image and its use are included and
the Lord did not forbid all images in all places at all times, but did forbid
any image of anything for the purpose of worship.
That any such image of God is a lie to include Christ since we are not
blessed with a first copy sketch of Him to draw others from is contradictory in
that the church has not labeled all images of all things for which we have no
physical proof a lie. I believe the
reformers up through the third generation at least over reacted to the error and
sin of Rome and forbade what God did not forbid.
If this is the only understanding, no images, there could be no picture
of anything at anytime anywhere present in the church.
Carried to the extreme this would include drawings or for modern man
photographs, for the words of the command are not to make any image. The clue is
the word graven and how it is used throughout the Bible to precede, that which
is an idol. It is wise to guard
against error of the weaker brother, but it is also error to deny the more
mature their enjoyment of life for the sake of the weaker.
There is a thin line to be walked here, unless on the one hand one
person’s maturity tempts another or the other hand the newborn set the rules
for the whole body. In passing I
might also ask how it is we think that God can be fully described in word as
well as picture? That portion of
this chapter concerning immensity is no argument.
Dr. P. N. Archbald in an Article entitled Pictures of Jesus traces
the history of the controversy over images of Christ.
Though he refers to this chapter of the Helvetic, he does not pick up
that all images of God are mere lies. Rather
he points to the inability of any image or picture to portray both the physical
which is mere speculation, but places the emphasis on the impossibility of a
picture to show in any way whatsoever the divine, thus it divides the person of
Christ as the God-man. I find this
more consistent since it cannot be a true picture it is the lie of the Helvetic
author and most others who echo this statement in the post-Bullinger
generations. However either we
forbid all images, and not just Christ or we have moved outside the commandment.
Any other treatment is inconsistent.
It is laudable in a pragmatic way to raise the Trinity above all other
things in excluding such images, but this is not what the Lord commanded. If the appeal is to the second commandment, let it be in full
obedience to that commandment. To
speak of Dr. Archbald=s
article again, he says to have such an image in the home is not necessarily sin,
but to have such pictures and justify them is sin. We cannot have this both
ways, it is sin to create and to have, and man’s arguments for or against do
not make the sin because sin is transgression of the law of God.
If we take the commandment as not being tempered by the context of intent
as I have suggested here, then all images are sin.
The intent is the context of idolatry and worship. The
Westminster Assembly chose the term “religious worship when dealing with this
issue. Religion speaks of a member
of a particular religious order. Religious status is defined as “a stable mode
of living in community in which the faithful bind themselves by vow to observe,
in addition to the precepts, the evangelical counsels of obedience, chastity,
and poverty.”
Worship is paying the proper respect and attention to another.
If we understand what we mean by religious worship, we can understand why
the first two commandments stand at the head of the law. So while it is not
technically idolatry we can move here to anything that stands between the
believer and God as taking to itself the glory of God and in this limited sense
idolatry. With this definition an object or any material thing to include
another person can be an idol. We even use this term to describe how some people
feel toward another, viz. he idolized her.
If we clutch the “binding” noted in the definition
above, with proper respect for, we have religious worship. This is what God
forbids. The truth then is that there are idols that have nothing to do with
images. God forbids all idolatry,
and if this were not the context of the first two commandments God would have
said so. It would also have been quite unnecessary for God to speak specifically
and say do not bow down to worship them. Instead of attempting to create dogma
where none exists, the church would be far better off trying to do the
exposition of the Scripture so all could understand what God has said. Knowing
the Bible is the very Word of God demands that mankind ask three questions
anytime this Word is approached: What does it say? What does it mean? What am I
going to do about it? The Bible is a living and dynamic Word that requires
translation into the vernacular of the audience. The original words meant
something to the first hearers and the duty of the theologian/teacher today is
to convey this meaning to the world that all might stand justified or condemned
by the Word of God alone.
Few would deny that we are free to have other
relationships. All would agree that even the most sacred human relationship,
marriage, is not to stand between a believer and God. The use of images is no
different in the test of obedience to God. That is was it created for worship?
Is it worshiped? The intent is in
no way to speak harshly of the reformers, Bullinger included. Yet, it is a fact
that they often took the opposite side of any argument than Rome. Thus, if Rome
did something, the reformers did not. The reformers also had a habit of
forbidding things where they could foresee such to be a stumbling block to any,
or which might lead to further decay of character. As we deal with areas like
this present one this tendency to react against Rome is a big part of the
doctrine of the church of the day. This does not exclude their opinions. This
fact however demands that we attempt to understand this nuance and properly
divide the Word of God today less we too be guilty of binding the conscience of
another outside the warrant of Scripture.
Calvin was equally hard-lined here. I believe from the
greater volume of Calvin we can see this tendency and gain insight into the
minds of all the reformers concerning both the reaction to Rome and acting
proactively to protect the sheep God had placed in their keeping.
With care and prayer some will still land where the reformers did. I do not
disagree with this position as such. I am saying that some of this is a matter
of conscience for the individual and we each should respect and tolerate each
other in the freedom we have in Christ. >
Images of Saints. And since
the blessed spirits and saints in heaven, while they lived here on earth,
rejected all worship of themselves (Acts 3:12f.; 14:11ff.; Rev. 14:7; 22:9) and
condemned images, shall anyone find it likely that the heavenly saints and
angels are pleased with their own images before which men kneel, uncover their
heads, and bestow other honors? But
in fact in order to instruct men in religion and to remind them of divine things
and of their salvation, the Lord commanded the preaching of the Gospel (Mark
16:15) ‑ not to paint and to teach the laity by means of pictures.
Moreover, he instituted sacraments, but nowhere did he set up images.
<Pure over reaction?
Augustine at one point stated the deaf could not be saved because it is
written that faith comes by hearing and the deaf could not hear.
Luther disputed this saying that he (Luther) had seen with his own eyes
the proof of the love of the deaf for Christ and saw the joy in their eyes upon
learning of the grace of God. Obviously
Augustine was in great error. If
any physical qualification is used to decide the presence of faith and salvation
grace would be null and void. Yet
in the world today the material to reach a significant portion of the world with
God’s truth (the deaf) remains quite beggarly as a whole. Is this because of
the limitations on reaching those who cannot hear, and because of the handicap
cannot not read either in some cases because the educational facilities to do so
are not available? If Calvin or Bullinger were deaf do we suppose they would be
as dogmatic about no images? I rather doubt it! The proof of this is in the
question, “where would you send a deaf friend to worship God?” Understand
that a person simply signing the message is not acceptable, though it is most
often the only alternative. The deaf are a culture with a language all to
themselves. Hearing people will not “adapt” completely to nor understand
this culture. It takes understanding and special tools to reach this culture. I
submit if we hold to the exact word here and other places in Reformed history we
are guilty of condemning a whole people and denying them the knowledge of Jesus
Christ. Praise God He is Sovereign and works outside the church at times.
The Church of
Rome had so corrupted the church that such practices had to be stopped and that
post haste. Answer, forbid all
images and lay down the Aletter@
of the law. Indeed the letter of
the law binds, but the Spirit is freedom from such bondage.
I am sure with the author of this confession that the saints in heaven
must cringe at what is done with and in their names.
Did the church in reformation over react? I say yes, in some ways they set out to protect man from the
gross error of Rome and in doing so added boundaries that were much more strict
than the Scripture. It is almost as
if Rome does it, we forbid it. However
the image of the saint is not the problem, it is the teaching of false prophets
concerning these images. The Papist
Priests then and today are false prophets that do teach idolatry and are to be
resisted with all the truth of the Bible at every turn possible.
The use of special tools, pictures included, to teach people with
particular challenges in learning are not wrong.
The use of art for its beauty and decoration is not wrong.
Else why have pomegranates on the tops of the entry pillars in the
temple? Do we suppose the cherubim on top of the Ark of the Covenant
assumed life and breathed fire and brimstone to protect the mercy seat?
Were they not images, symbols? I
think all can see the inconsistency then of allowing pictures of saints, yet
forbidding any image of God with an appeal to the second commandment. >
The Scriptures of the Laity.
Furthermore, wherever we turn our eyes, we see the living and true creatures of
God which, if they be observed, as is proper, make a much more vivid impression
on the beholders than all the images or vain, motionless, feeble and dead
pictures made by men, of which the prophet truly said: They have eyes, but do
not see (Psa. 115:5).
<The Church of Rome and in particular the Eastern
Orthodox church had made the claim that pictures were the Scripture of the laity
as a defense for their use. Is this another over reaction to the Roman Church?
Yes, when it is considered that for several centuries there was no Word
other than pictures for the vast majority of humanity in the known world.
They did not read. Only the
upper class was educated and for the most part this was clergy, before and for
some time after the reformation. In
an attempt to be consistent with no images, the reformers also had to deny
anything other than the spoken word was needed to spread the Gospel. If that was true then, it is true today and we can save a lot
of resources and energies trying to create written languages and translate the
Holy Writ for the heathen peoples remaining.
We simply send them a missionary to speak the Gospel and go home. What a
corruption of the so-called great commission this would be when Scripture
commands that we make not converts but disciples. With what do we teach these illiterate peoples?
The Reformed church has always maintained that the light of nature alone
was not enough to inform a man of all that is needed for salvation.
Remember the lesson from
interpretation of Scripture and making sure we do not burst our theological
bubble on another side as we repair the one in front of us.
This is a good example of that being done.
The effort is to be consistent about images, but in doing so they have
denied Christ to whole classes of people. The
error of Augustine is thus carried into the twenty-first century.
It is inconsistent in that in one pace it is declared the natural light
is not enough to reveal God’s will concerning salvation while at the same time
appealing to the revelation of nature in defense of any image being necessary.
>
Lactantius. Therefore we
approved the judgment of Lactantius, an ancient writer, who says:
"Undoubtedly no religion exists where there is an image."
<And who is Lactantius
but
another man? It is nice to find at
least one Aauthority@
that agrees with you (not that there were not others in the history of the
church that agreed and allowed images were sinful).
Of course he is correct if by image he means idol, for God will allow no
other god before Him. If the author
means otherwise, another error to the credit of man is made.>
Epiphanius and Augustine. We
also assert that the blessed bishop Epiphanius did right when, finding on the
doors of a church a veil on which was painted a picture supposedly of Christ or
some saint, he ripped it down and took it away, because to see a picture of a
man hanging in the Church of Christ was contrary to the authority of Scripture.
Wherefore he charged that from henceforth no such veils, which were contrary to
our religion, should be hung in the Church of Christ, and that rather such
questionable things, unworthy of the Church of Christ and the faithful people,
should be removed. Moreover, we approve of this opinion of St. Augustine
concerning true religion: "Let not the worship of the works of men be a
religion for us. For the artists themselves who make such things are better; yet
we ought not to worship them" (De Vera Religione, cap. 55).
<No argument here because the context of worship is
clear. Let us remember it is the
same Church of Rome however that just prior to the reformation had brought such
imagery to its zenith in the church. Witness
all the great cathedrals, many of which still exist with every nick and cranny
filled with the likeness of some perceived saint.
That which is good can be used for evil and that which is evil can be
used for good. Context and intent
are central to our understanding this issue in accord with the Bible.
In concluding this chapter I would be remiss however to fail and point
out that to hold this view/belief of absolutely no images is not sin.
It is perhaps the high road to take in this place. That I and others believe it is a binding beyond the
Scriptures that we refuse to accept puts the burden of being in error upon us,
before God who judges the heart of all. While
the liberty of the believer is boldly presented here, and I for one refuse to
give up this liberty in Christ, the more fragile brother is safe in holding to
the bondage of the letter of the law. Final appeal must be to the exegesis of
the original language manuscripts we have available. The controversy is as old as the church with some godly men
on both sides. It is then to be
studied and prayed over as a matter of individual conscience, as are all things
where the Bible leaves some mystery or room for debate. The place of tradition and beliefs of the church in history
are not of any little significance, but they are of man. The truth can only be of God, who has chosen to reveal to us
His own Word in the Scriptures. The
lack of Scripture being able to interpret Scripture indicates an area of liberty
and tolerance, not doctrine based on tradition.
Tradition as such is only important in that Peter said no Scripture ever
came for the private interpretation of one man, but all.
Yet tradition ultimately must answer to Scripture, or the churches allow
the freedom of conscience.
Because I differ so drastically from Bullinger and other
reformed saints from our heritage and today, I urge all to prayerfully consider
the issue, and trusting God follow your conscience. I most humbly lay beside the Helvetic another opinion,
not as the ultimate word, but with a prayer for tolerance unless we find a more
sure command in Scripture than I am able to see concerning this issue.
Then as with all Christian Liberty, we must constantly guard against this
liberty being used for sin, or to offend a brother. >
