Ishmael (Gen 16, 21; Gen 37:25-28; 1 Chr 1:28-31)
The Promise: Abraham’s descendants would be blessed. Ishmael is not to be the means of implementing God’s promises, but he is blessed from his attachment to Abraham; Ishmael would be made fruitful, father of a nation, be blessed. Even though Ishmael gets kicked out of the house, God tells Hagar (twice) that her son will have a future history (Gen 16:11-12; Gen 21:18) and goes about recording his successful beginnings by saying He was with him (Gen 21:20). Indeed, he’s called the father of twelve kings, a fact which the Chronicler goes on to record (1 Chr 1:28-31).

Isaac (Gen 24-26)
The Promise: Abraham’s descendants would be blessed; those who curse Abraham would be cursed. Isaac, directly being the Son of Promise reveals a blossoming of the promises of God that it is not to be fulfilled only in physical terms but directly correlated to the establishing word and power of God. God’s covenants would come through direct ancestry and by miraculous orchestration of events and circumstances. Isaac’s wife is taken by Abimelech (mentioned in another post) and Abimelech winds up cursed. Isaac lives in the land most of his life not as a sojourner but as one awaiting the promises of God.

Joseph (Gen 37, 39-45)
The Promise: The Nations would be blessed through Abraham, Abraham’s descendants would be great, Abraham would be a blessing. Joseph’s story is directly connected to Jacob’s story for it is the means that God uses to bring about God’s promises to Abraham in light of the  nations. Joseph, rejected by the sons of Jacob (and sold into the hands of the Sons of Abraham via Ishmael), winds up being the savior of the nations and the savior of the sons of Jacob on account of his position and familial relationship. God plans it that way, a fact that Joseph brings up, while becoming what Noah was to all of creation.

Esau (Gen 28, 33; Num 20; Jud 11; 2 Kings 8; 1 Chron 18:13; 2 Chr 21:10; Jer 49; Oba 1, Mal 1 Luke 23)
The Promise: those who curse the Sons of Abraham would be cursed. This one is interesting. The promise was made that the Elder would serve the Younger, that Esau would bow down to Jacob and yet in Jacob’s lifetime Esau never bowed down to Jacob: indeed, Jacob bows down to Esau! The one time in the history of Edom that there was any bowing down was when the Edomites were made subject to David—but that didn’t last long. Some years later, Jesus would stand before a Son of Esau (Herod the Idumean), reigning in Israel (of all places!) demanding that the Jesus perform tricks. Jesus didn’t respond for the Lord had already spoken to Edom as we recall the many prophecies regarding Edom, how he would be wiped away, how he would be subject to the Younger. Edom as a whole suffers the curse of God while Esau remains quite fine with Jacob.

Jacob/Israel (Gen 27 – 50)
The Promise: The Nations would be blessed through Abraham, the descendants of Abraham would be great. The promises of God are established through Jacob, and yet Jacob’s life is an interplay of cursing that is actually blessing. He cheats his brother out of his inheritance and has to run from the land he was promised, yet he returns richer than before. He gets a bum deal with a wife but that deal winds up being the means God uses to bring to fruition the covenant to Abraham. He has a couple of sons through his favorite wife and winds up  losing Joseph, fully expects to lose Benjamin, and if Joseph wasn’t really Joseph and some random angry Pharaoh assistant, he would have lost Judah too. But in the end he winds up with an even bigger family, being the means of blessing for the nations, being a blessing to all his children, and personally blessing a gentile ruler. Even his son Judah winds up being one to whom the scepter properly belongs, taking a child under his wings (His and Tamar’s) and standing in Benjamin’s place.

The Sons of Israel in Egypt (Exo 1 – 12)
The Promise: Those who curse Abraham would be cursed. Joseph is forgotten, so Exodus says, and the children of Israel are oppressed as they curse the Israelites with slavery. God rescues them performing wonders that are greater than those that were performed with another Pharaoh, two Abimelechs, and one Laben. They are rescued with miraculous signs, God’s provision of salvation, and even rescued through the waters of the Red Sea. The promises to Abraham seemed to blossom before their eyes as they stand at the foot of Sinai and are told that they will find blessing in the Land as long as they keep the covenant to be a kingdom of priests, but would be cursed in the Land if they abused the covenant at Sinai.

The Sons of Israel in the Wilderness (Leviticus; Deuteronomy; Numbers)
The Promise: Those who curse Abraham would be cursed; the seed of Abraham would multiply; they would inherit the Land that God showed to Abraham. The Seed of Abraham are tested in the wilderness but are also oppressed. Edom refuses to let them through and they are cursed. Moab winds up being cursed. Canaan is allowed to momentarily defeat the Israelites as chastisement, but the people of Abraham’s loin are not cut off. For a moment, God says he plans to restart the promises of Abraham by establishing His covenant with Moses—to which Moses refuses saying he would rather die with the rest of the Sons of Israel. In the end, the first generation dies out and it is the second generation that makes it into the land, covenanting with each other to ensure that the Land is conquered.

The Sons of Israel in Canaan (Joshua; Judges; 1 Sam)
The Promise: Those who curse Abraham would be cursed; the descendants would inherit a Land. The Children of Israel are often victorious as they fight in the land. They find curses when they actively reject the covenant they have entered into in Sinai. Joshua ends stating that all the promises to the Forefathers were fulfilled and yet, we see that the entire land is not conquered (Joshua 21:45). What the writer is saying is that every single one of the promises God made was blossoming before his eyes, a sentiment which is repeated (Jos 23:14). And yet in the book of Judges we see the Israelites suffering under the oppression they’ve faced in the past. They wind up oppressed by the Gentiles/Canaanites (Judges 4, 5), the Moabites (Judges 2), the Midianites (Judges 7) and even each other. It’s a pitiful time where they are given over to idolatry—yet their enemies are still repeatedly cursed.

The Nation Receives A King (Gen 38; Ruth; 2 Sam 7; Psalm 2; Psalm 89)
The Promise: The nation would be a Kingdom; the descendants would be a blessing to the nations; those who curse Abraham would be cursed. The nation eventually asks for their own King, ahead of time, which God provides and uses to castigate the people but eventually the promises to Abraham blossom to reveal that a King was part of the plan and David’s house is established carrying forth the Covenant to Abraham. David, surprised, realizes the breadth of this thing where God does better than men while submitting to promises and keeping them in such an extravagantly gracious way.

The Nation is Sacked (Esther; Daniel):
The Promise: The descendants will inherit the Land; God will bless them; God will curse those who curse them; they will be a blessing to the nations. The nation, repeatedly standing in opposition against God’s covenant at Sinai finds the curses in the Land increasing as they curse the Land by refusing to give it it’s Sabbath rest. The Land is eventually sacked first by the Assyrians (in the North) then the Babylonians (in the South) but even while out of their land, Jews (like Daniel or Esther) wind up being a blessing to those around them, being a means of salvation and blessing for their people and holding onto the promises of God to return to the Land. Daniel is so confident about the thing that he reads the prophecies of Jeremiah, does the math (talk about being literal!) and realizes that he should be praying harder. God indeed confirms his prayers and tells him that for now he will “go to sleep” but one day he will come back to his plot—his inheritance.

A New Covenant Promised (Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, Joel, Ezekiel):
The Promise: The promise to Abraham is an eternal covenant; Abraham will be a blessing to the nations. God tells the Israelites that he will make a new covenant which is not like the covenant that was made at Sinai. The problem with Sinai is that it demanded a lot of action by the recipients to secure the benefits of the covenant—a problem that was not inherent in the promise to Abraham. This Covenant blossoms out from Abraham’s covenant pulling in elements from the Mosaic Covenant in such a way that God personally does the work in the people. The Nations find blessing via Israel, the Spirit of God is poured out because of Israel, the bones are given new life because of God’s outpoured spirit, Israel no longer has to tell her neighbors “Know the Lord” because all will know the Lord, all will have God’s mandates written on their heart because they are empowered by God, and they will find blessing in the land as they offer up their sacrifices in thanksgiving and appreciation in such a way that has never been done before. We discover that this Covenant, tied to the Spirit of God, is tied to the Day of the Lord, tied to the Last Days, tied to the revelation of a prophet-priest and to a king-priest who is the Son of David.

It’s plain as day; the concluding observations are unnecessary. Although God would cast away the Sons of Israel as an adulterous wife (on account of transgressing her covenant with God at Sinai), they still are regarded as his wife on account of the Covenant with Abraham.

I don’t normally do this at the end of a blog post, but I can’t help it: oh the wonder of it! The incalculable riches and wisdom and mercy and love of God! The God who would do above and beyond what any man would expect but gets down at the level of men, not only to make promises but to ensure that those promises come to be by ensuring he keeps to them in time!

This tells me that God has kept his promises to His elect (Isaiah 45:4) and will keep His promises, to the uttermost! That although people (in this case, the Israelites) have seriously screwed up, that God in His goodness and mercy and condescension remains faithful. If they’ve been slaughtered, they haven’t been wiped out; if they were made captives, they haven’t disappeared; if they were punished, it wasn’t to wipe them out; if they have stumbled, it wasn’t to fall. God made promises to Abraham and he has kept them and, if past activity is any measure of activity, he will continue to keep them.

Thank you blessed God for when you speak to me for salvation, you speak clearly and honestly: me, a sinner, that by believing on you and the One whom you have sent I am given eternal life, am seated in heavenly places, will reign with your Son for all eternity, and will be an administrator of some sort—I know that you mean it and am astounded! You have spoken clearly to the fathers—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and you have continued to keep your promises to them with their children! Thank you God because it’s not by my steam, or my strength but by your word that your promises stand! Thank you Lord! Thank you, O’ God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob—and now Rey! Thank you!

Technorati Tags: abraham, esau, ishmael, israelites, jacob, joseph, promises

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

We have already demonstrated through the use of Form Criticism that Rey’s missive did not suddenly appear in its final form as a result of him sitting down and simply typing the text. It was the result of a collaboration of his community with various members providing their own oral traditions that resulted in the text as we now have it. Those oral stories would eventually have come down in written form, and Source Criticism will help identify the sources the author must have used in putting together his own retelling of the accounts.

When studying something like the Synoptic Gospels, which allow us to compare and contrast the differing accounts of the life of Christ, it is easier to identify various sources. Such is not the case with the text in front of us, which means we will have to rely on what we already know about use of sources by authors.

The text reflects disparate sources connected by transitions such as “and” and the use of punctuation, particularly “.” (period). It is safe to say that Rey had before him at least five sources: (1) information about the time of day, (2) some sort of weather report, (3) a meteorological report showing both sunrise and sunset times for the date of the incident, (4) evidence from an unknown source about the status of the grill (whether “turned on” or not), and (5) a document or portion of a document revealing the existence of something called “online,” which is apparently a state that human beings can enter into and become.

It is very likely, however, that later collections that included some but not all of the aforementioned fragments were extant at the time and available to the author. These may be referred to as S (for “Situation”) and P (those documents pertaining to the “Petition” itself). A Two-Source Theory (no longer held by conservative scholars) maintained that Rey had at his disposal S and P but none of the other source materials. A more recent and thus truer theory-become-fact position is known as the Two-Plus-Some-Others Theory. This position (held by most at Theologica) reveals that the author relied on S and P, plus an unknown number of specific fragments (ranging in number from 1 to 43,234).

Whatever the number of sources, however, the priority of S – which simply means that it was written first – is maintained by all. It was the first source to come into the author’s possession and served as a template for all additional information, even though some of the later sources might have been earlier.

Equally obvious to the Source Critic is the absence of any sort of search engine that the author might have used to discover recipes for his family’s meal that did not involve time, weather, astronomy, grills, or “onlines.” It goes without saying that, had the author had such information or access available, he would have utilized it and we would not now have the text we have. Rather, it would have taken the form of “Hey, I found a cool recipe for boiling catfish” or some such thing.

With the enlightenment of Source Criticism, therefore, we can now understand that Rey relied on written documents no longer in existence to compile his account as we now have it in the text. The individual sources, upon with the author heavily relied, contributed to the final form of the passage.
___________

Finally, we will look at Redaction Criticism to further enhance our understanding of the text. Only then will we be able to say with confidence that we understand the story, whether historical or not, as written by Rey.

Technorati Tags: criticism

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Our text under consideration now is a petition that Rey made recently:

According to Carson, Moo, and Morris – which is not a law firm – there are a half dozen assumptions made by FC scholars that we will adapt and apply when possible to Rey’s text.

1. “The stories and sayings . . . circulated in small independent units.”

2. “The transmission of the material can be compared to the transmission of other folk and religious traditions.”

3. “The stories and sayings . . . took on certain standard forms . . . for the most part still readily visible [in the text].”

4. “The form of a specific story or saying makes it possible to determine its Sitz im Leben (“setting in life”) . . .”

5. “As it passed down the sayings and stories . . . [the] community not only put the material into certain forms, it modified it under the impetus of its own needs and situations.”

6. “Classic form critics have typically utilized various criteria to enable them to determine the age and historical trustworthiness of particular pericopes.”

Such is the nature of form criticism and how it enables us to better understand the otherwise completely incomprehensible text provided by the Rey Community.
___________

Next we will further our understanding of Rey and catfish through the lens of Source Criticism.

Technorati Tags: criiticism

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Hoping to expose the mystery of so-called higher criticism (at least for myself), I have undertaken to shed some light on the matter by answering a simple question: What if we treated one another’s written statements in the same way many people treat the Bible, i.e., through the lenses of higher criticism? I am not saying that higher criticism is bad – far from it! – but only that more pedestrian documents and writings should be able to enjoy the same scrutiny and privilege as does the Bible. It could serve to further our understanding of both higher criticism and what is actually being said. But what would that look like?

Well, let’s see. Let’s take something said elsewhere on Theologica and subject it to higher criticism, perhaps thereby ennobling the common to the glorious and correcting the misleading to the truth.

I will use the following petition of Rey to clarify my point:

I might conclude from this unexamined passage a number of things: Rey is hungry, it is late, Rey is afraid of the dark and dislikes cold weather, he likes to eat catfish after cooking them, he has no catfish recipes of his own other than those that require a grill, he has strange hopes. But without closer inspection or the corrective lenses of higher criticism, I could be perilously wrong. In fact, in the opinion of more than a few higher critics, I definitely am wrong.

There are three primary types of higher criticism: form criticism, source criticism, and redaction criticism. I’ll give a quick explanation of each before applying them to Rey’s cry for help.

Form Criticism (FC) examines the previous forms a document might have been in prior to what is now in front of us. We know, for example, that prior to the synoptic Gospels being written they existed in an oral form. FC looks at the effect previous forms have upon the final product.

Source Criticism (SC) seeks to find other documents, both real and hypothesized, that might have been used by a writer in producing the text we have. Again, with the synoptics, it is believed by some that Matthew and Luke may have used Mark as source material for their own gospels, and/or relied upon an unknown source (Q) for information.

Redaction Criticism (RC) tries to determine the theological purposes of the writer by looking at how they used the materials to organize or otherwise emphasize things in their books. It assumes, rightly, that each author has a particular perspective and purpose in writing that is not limited to historically reporting what has happened.

We’ll begin our search for the true truth about Rey’s catfish petition in the next post.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The argument in short: In light of the revelation of the incarnate God the invisible forms have become visible and accessible to the material. Whereas in the Old Testament trying to depict the invisible forms was an exercise in futility, now, with the revelation of the incarnate God those things are not only allowed: they are to be applauded. The partition that separates the world of the Real from our material wall has broken down: God, who is Spirit, has become flesh; rejoice. Therefore the second commandment finds no application for the believer for it is God who has removed the mandate regarding Himself. Of course, the mandate still applies to idolatry, but in making icons of those in heavenly places, people aren’t making idols, they’re building windows into the invisible realm under the purview of what God has made clear. In like manner, the Church now meets on Sunday instead of the Sabbath because of God’s self-disclosure; similarly icons are now allowed in light of God’s self-disclosure.

Here’s the textual support:

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them…” (Ex 20:4-5a // NASB95)

It’s pretty clear that God doesn’t want any images made of himself or the heavenly things. His reasoning is also pretty clear:

“So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, (Deut 4:15 // NASB95)

Because people haven’t seen his form. They didn’t know what He looked like. The clash comes in at the fact of John 1 when we see in verse 14 that:

the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (Jn 1:14 // NASB95)

This creates a problem for the believer because, unlike the Israelites of old, they have seen a “form” of God—a real form—Jesus Christ. Not an intangible thing speaking from the fire, but a God who “we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched.” (1 John 1:1) God surely knew what he was doing with such self disclosure and in so doing he allowed, at the very least one image is possibly allowed to be created.

Does The Law Apply?
No one will like this first argument, by the way. But I’m convinced it’s a strong one so I have to list it.

If the Law is repealed, does it mean that there is a universal taking away of the second commandment? I mean, the revelation of Christ wasn’t limited to followers; plenty of unbelievers (both Jew and Gentiles—John 12) saw him as well, even if from afar. If Christ establishes that icons of God are okay then it should conceivably apply to Jews and Gentiles as well. Of course we know that Jews or Gentiles won’t bow down to Jesus, but this is a thought experiment right now.

Let’s imagine the unbelieving Jew: Is it okay for him to now make icons of anything in the heavenly places because God has, say the Christians, revealed Himself as a man?

Well, for the Jew, not really: the commandment still stands. Just as much as the Sabbath commandment. Because they believe that no one has seen God therefore creating the image is still wrong. What they find themselves under is non-repealed Law that still holds them in needs of bringing them to Christ (Gal 3:19). This is evident in Christ’s words when He says to the Jews on the mount:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt 5:17 // NASB95 )

And what about the unbelieving Gentile; does the mandate against making images of heavenly beings still stand for them? I don’t think so. After all, the giving of the Law was to stipulate the rules and markers that defined the Jewish covenant community, not the rules that defined the entire world (Exodus 19:6 is addressed to Israel). An unbelieving Gentile made images of heavenly things all the time (Acts 17:23), even if he didn’t know he was doing it, just as much as he worked during the Sabbath. So I’m not even sure the second commandment technically applied to the Gentiles as part of the Law (don’t worry, I have a second argument below that does draw upon universals).

What about the believing Gentile (and believing Jew), the one who is incorporated into the same olive tree which supplies the nutrients and life to the Jewish branches (Rom 11)? Well, Paul would tell them that they are not under Law but under grace (Romans 6:14). They find themselves as part of another system altogether which is not defined by the mandates of The Law of Moses but under the purview and image and mandates of Christ. So for these people, does the second commandment apply?

Well, technically, not even the first commandment applies. Wait! Don’t go yet; come back!

These people are a people who are to live in the image of Christ (who is the image of God—Heb 1) with a calling that reaches beyond the Law in its unique characteristics and relationship to God. These people are said to have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2), gifted by God the Spirit (1 Cor 12), worked in by God the Father (1 Cor 1, 12), propelled forward by the example of Christ (Phil 2), enjoined in the sufferings of Christ (Dan 12, Col 1), led by the Spirit of God (Gal 5), and finally joined together with Him as holy and unblemished bride (Eph 5). They don’t adhere to the First Commandment because it says so; they adhere to it because God has placed them far above any commands.

And they are definitely a lawful people—the Apostles would say they are under the Law of Christ (1 Cor 9), the Law of Liberty (James 1, 2; Romans 14), and  the Law of Love (Rom 13). They are not free to do whatever they want so that God’s grace is proved; rather they go above and beyond any requirement of the Law because they exist in a realm that is altogether apart from the Law and grounded in the incarnation, work, existence and presence of God in their Temple (1 Cor 3, 1 Cor 6).

A Christian doesn’t change the Sabbath to Sunday; the Christian is in another realm that consists of one Sabbath where every day belongs to the Lord (Heb 4). The Christian doesn’t need to be told “worship no other God” because they are incorporated into God’s family (John 20) where worship is trinitarian; the Christian doesn’t honor his parents because he’s been told but because to do anything less would be to act worse than unbelievers (1 Tim 5:8); the Christian doesn’t kill because Christ died and we follow His lead, being killed “all the day long” as we offer our members up as “living sacrifices” (Rom 8, Rom 12)—this new creature underneath this New Adam (Rom 5) is to live in such a way that the Law is fulfilled in the creature without reference to the Law as a guardrail. Paul says:

“What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?” (Rom 6:15-16 // NASB95)

Now yes, I know: those previous things have been recorded for our learning (Rom 15:4). I know that the old hasn’t been abolished but fulfilled (in Christ) just as much as I know that Paul argues in Romans 2 that people who don’t have the Law can fulfill the requirements of the Law—but I don’t think they’re doing this by operating or even following Law. And even though I know that good reformed folk love using the ethics of the Law to support why some things are wrong and others are right; and I know that Lutherans don’t go as far as Reformed folk in this area but like to say that there is a Third Use of the Law; what I’m saying here is a truth that is both freeing as to the Law’s stipulations and incredibly restricting in what we can and cannot do. Paul’s interlocutor jumped to the wrong conclusion: so, you can then sin so that God’s grace abounds? Of course not, rather the believer carries out in his activity the fulfilling of the Law (Rom 6) .

So no, the first commandment doesn’t technically apply—but it doesn’t mean that we have another God beside God (since it is God’s very Spirit that is dwelling in us). And the fourth commandment doesn’t apply—but it doesn’t mean that we rob God’s mandate of the Sabbath by creating an alternate Sabbath; rather we enter into the Sabbath rest of Christ.

And the second commandment doesn’t technically apply—but it doesn’t mean that we’re to run off and create images of the things in heaven so as to worship God through them. It doesn’t apply but it hasn’t changed:

“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matt 5:18)

My argument is not that the Law has changed and applies to us in this change, but that we have changed and the Law does not apply to us. We don’t teach do-what-you-want; we teach that the Law stands but we’re not standing under it. As our Lord continues to say:

Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:19)

As Gentiles, the Law never technicallyapplied to us but even if we were Jews who were bound to the Law we know that the stipulations of the Law are binding as long as a person lives (Rom 7:1) and those bindings are such that our Lord says adhering to them is not what is important, it is the reaching beyond them:

For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:20)

But we have been identified in the death of Christ (Rom 6), buried with him in baptism (Col 2), and raised to walk in newness of life in Christ (Eph 2, Col 3): we’ve been clothed in the righteousness of God. We’re dead men walking but we’re not zombies: we’re a new creation not under the Law.

Therefore we are not bound to the Law of Moses as mandates or a system (Rom 7); it doesn’t apply to us so there is no reason to change it to make our activity justifiable.

Has the Second Commandment Changed?
The argument above smacks too much of antinomianianism so most won’t like it; but there is another route I can go.

When God gave the law it was boiling down certain concepts that were universally important but not practiced. So although He condemns idolatry in the first commandment, he also condemns idolatry (and lying and murder) in general (Gal 5:19-21) and has plainly incorporated such a system into the hearts and minds of people (Rom 1, 2) so that they know what it is to do right.

So when the Law of Moses entered in it is partially for covenantal reasons with Israel but it is mostly because unrighteousness has reached a level that certain activity had to be summarized as wrong. So Paul says he was alive before the Law because there was no commandment that said “Covet and Die.” But that doesn’t mean that there was no such thing as coveting; it doesn’t even really mean that he didn’t know it was wrong but once the commandment entered in, coveting (which he still did) became all the worse so that he died (Romans 7).

If we go back to the Law, we see a command like “You shall not commit murder.” But that doesn’t mean that murder was ever okay—it is actually part of the reason why God condemned the world in Genesis 6 and why God equipped men with the right to judge murder in Genesis 9; but it is also why Cain went free and cursed in Genesis 4. Murder was always wrong (Abel’s blood cried out to him after all) but when codified, it became all the more wrong. An abject revolt with specific violations against God.

That being the case, it could be just as possible that the second commandment directly correlates to man’s representation of things he doesn’t know. So when someone takes a lump of wood and says “This represents the God who made wood” it is evil on account of it misrepresenting the true God who made that wood. As such not only does it misrepresent God, it elevates other things to God’s level by not keeping him thrice holy as He is. It violates a universal that has been codified, yes, but universal nevertheless.

The fact is that God has revealed himself as a man during an age where there is no proper recording of how he was really physically like. Even if the people in Jesus’ age could see this image (who is Christ) they saw him only as God made Him (not as men made Him) and He died, rose again and left before anyone could sit him down for a proper Renaissance painting much less a photorealistic three dimensional scan to visualize him by.

Worst, God has indeed returned to the invisible realm so much so that the expectation to see God is at the glorious appearing; not in the everyday repealing, changing and implementation of the second commandment. We look forward, not backward or through anything to see the Real Christ and honor him. There is no way possible (I’m overstating this knowing that there is at least one possible way if it is proved, without a doubt, as legitimate) for any person to come up with an accurate representation of Christ because he has made it impossible.

So even as a universal principle, in which the Law merely codifies these universal, the second commandment would still stand unchanged: making images of God to worship may violate a universal wrong and the one image of Himself was taken away by Himself so we worship Him as revealed in History, as expected in the Glorious Appearing, but without creating our own mini symbols.

Icons and Their Appropriate Usage
Now, I know I haven’t dealt with every possible issue of Exodus 20, the Law, the arguments that come up for the use of Icons, the totality of the Christological argument in every form: I don’t intend to. This is one of those topics that I think won’t be healed on this side of the Eschaton and I think I’ve offered several strong reasons why the practice should be avoided. I won’t convince anyone, much less folk who actively participate in the thing. But in my closing thoughts, I think I can include ways that icons, indeed any paintings, should be used in our Christian experience.

Above, I listed the idea that we’re not under Law at all but I also listed a principle about worship in the present in light of the glorious appearing; but I didn’t list much about the pictures in Scripture for our learning: a point that Paul makes clear. And the fact is that although we don’t have a representation of the physical image of Christ, we do get pictures and vignettes from Scripture. This shouldn’t surprise us; God did the same thing when He spoke to the Israelites calling the nation his Son, or his bride, or Himself being like a mother eagle.

We get pictures and they’re given for our learning and as examples. I don’t think we should shy away from images and think it is a shame that so many previous works were destroyed in the fires of the convinced. I wish that some of those pieces of artwork could have been moved to a vault, hidden away, until a day (maybe today) when they could be put on display.

And that’s the problem.

For even when the images were given (like all those images of worship in Leviticus; or the Ark of the Covenant; or the Bronze Serpent) people did wrong with them and God had to get rid of them. I would like it if icons were used as lessons for the family, for depicting Christian truths, for reminders of the past, for illustrating scenes that transpired, for decorating the Church, for provoking the thoughts of endearment for those who have gone on before us—but I know advertising and we will always focus on the wrong thing. That doesn’t negate the use of icons in their present form (my arguments throughout the series did that) but it does speak ill of any future hope of proper icon usage at this side of the Eschaton.

I do think that there will be a point that people will use the God mandated pictures in a proper way and it will be done with many tears in the realization of what they’re doing; until then we offer up the sacrifice of our lips and hearts. But for now, if there were a way to use icons without all of the negative connotations and relying on the aspect of ensamples and pictorial lessons, I’d say go for it: it’s great. We learn with our eyes. But sadly, more often than not, it becomes an issue about how we worship and another justification why evangelicals, like me, are in the minority with such practices. We look out at this world and think not only are we in the minority in the Church, we’re also a minority in this world of people who need to carve into the wood to worship any God much less the eternal, invisible, now seated, once visible, but soon reappearing Incarnate God.

Note: There is one argument that I avoided using because I would have to take great care not to make it a genetic fallacy charge, but it was the basis of the use of icons found primarily in neo-platonic thought. It would take longer to draw out all those unhelpful correlations of the philosophical system but I’ll save that for some distant day in the future, maybe even a philosophy Friday or something.

Technorati Tags: icons, idols, images

Bookmark It

Hide Sites