Crucifixes? Yes.

Popular Reformed Baptist pastor and blogger Tim Challies fired off an article that articulated the traditional Reformed interpretation regarding images in worship. More so, his article reflects the standard Reformed stance on the 2nd commandment (part of the first commandment in the Lutheran and Roman numbering) of the Decalogue. His blog post, titled Why You Should Not Wear a Crucifix, has been making the rounds in the online community quite a bit the last couple days.

I think that much of Challies' reasoning is this post, mainly drawn from Anglican J.I. Packer and less so from Reformer John Calvin, is all wrong. Here is why.

Packer says, "But the very wording of the [second] commandment rules out such a limiting exposition. God says quite categorically, “you shall not make an idol in the form of anything” for use in worship."

This statement is misconstrued. Exodus 20:4-5a says the following: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them..."

The prohibition here is not against images in general, nor is it against images of Christ or other saints from the Scriptures. Or images of anything else for that matter. Nor is the prohibition against images in worship. Here is where Packer makes the passage say something that it doesn't say. The passage states that we should not *worship* images, not that we cannot have them *in worship.* That is quite a big difference.

He then proceeds to give two reasons as to why images are disallowed, building on his (faulty) interpretation of Exodus 20.

1. Images dishonour God, for they obscure His glory.

He quotes Calvin in support, "A true image of God is not to be found in all the world; and hence...His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever He is set before our eyes in a visible form...Therefore, to devise any image of God is itself impious; because by this corruption His majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be other than He is."

Ultimately, this objection is weak at best, nor is it supported by the Scriptures. As far as I can see, the Reformed theologians would have us believe that it would have been idolatry for anyone to draw a picture of Jesus, paint one, or snap a photograph of Him while He was alive on Earth during His thirty something years leading up to Calvary. Or perhaps that might be OK, because it might actually look like Jesus. I don't know, but either way, the prohibition on images of Christ on the cross is certainly nonsensical.

Packer continues, "The pathos of the crucifix obscures the glory of Christ, for it hides the fact of his deity, his victory on the cross, and his present kingdom. It displays his human weakness, but it conceals his divine strength; it depicts the reality of his pain, but keeps out of our sight the reality of his joy and his power. In both these cases, the symbol is unworthy most of all because of what it fails to display. And so are all other visible representations of deity."

This statement is confusing to me. Was it idolatry to look at Christ when He was on the cross because His deity was obscured? I'm not sure what Packer and Challies would have us believe here. Not to mention, the objections rooted within this statement don't fly.

First, it was precisely Christ on the cross that died for the sins of the world. And that same Christ on the cross was fully man as well as fully God. St. Luke records for us in Acts 20:28, Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Notice what he says: God obtained the church of God with His own blood. What? God died on the cross? Yep, that is precisely what is being said here. In fact, I will go even further. Christ on the cross and His subsequent rising from the tomb is in fact God's greatest place of glory. And we should seek God nowhere else but on that cross and up from that grace.

To put it simply, the standard objection that boils down to "but Jesus got off that cross" is sloppy. It was that Christ on that cross that died for your sins. An empty cross is nothing more than a Roman instrument of death. Jesus on the cross is the event that saved the world.

Secondly, I have a hard time seeing how Packer is not guilty of separating the natures of Christ here to a level that is unbiblical. In other words, it's Nestorian. How in the world is it an obscuring of the glory of God to depict the human Christ? I mean, Christ is fully God, right? He says that an image of Christ is unworthy because of what it fails to display - the deity of God.

But Christ, even on the cross dying, is God. Period.

2. Images mislead us. They convey false ideas about God.

Granted. They can. I get this objection. On the other hand, how in the world does a crucifix do this? It reminds us of the single most important event (along with the resurrection) in human history. In fact, all history hinges on this event. Not to mention, a crucifix reminds us of the lengths God went to in order to save us, because we are sinners.

Secondly, a crucifix is to remind us of the event that took place that saved us, not to look precisely down to the last detail like Jesus when He was Incarnate. Nobody thinks that.

My conclusion is that the standard Reformed reading of this text is either legalistic or simply a drastic misinterpretation of the Scriptures on this topic.

Not to mention, after the commandment was given in Exodus 20, just a few chapters later, God tells the Israelites to put images on the Ark of the Covenant, in which the Law would be held.

Exodus 25:18-20: And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.

It just doesn't make sense that God would completely forbid images, then tell the Israelites to make them and put them on the Ark, the holiest of objects for the Israelites.

Scripture does not forbid images. Nor does Scripture forbid us to have images in worship. It forbids us to actually worship them as the real thing.

+Pax+

Christ Crucified for You! On Good Friday, not Wednesday

Holy Week is the time of year where different theories about the specific date of the crucifixion and resurrection come up. One of the most common theories out there is one that is generally referred to as the Wednesday to Saturday theory. To put this theory in simple terms, they believe that the Last Supper was instituted on Tuesday, Christ was crucified on Wednesday, and rose from the dead on Saturday. Their proof text for this belief is found in one place in Holy Scripture, the sign of Jonah.

St. Matthew 12:40: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So, basically, they argue that since this text uses the phrase "three days and three nights," Christ could not have been crucified Friday and risen on Sunday. Why? Because that's only 2 nights.

The solution to this apparent dilemma is actually quite simple. First and foremost, we have numerous other Scriptures that point to a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection. Second, we have the issue of Hebrew idioms.

First of all, let's deal with the Hebrew idiom going on here. The phrase "three days and three nights" is never meant to be a literal phrase in Holy Scripture. It's an idiom that Hebrews used to describe any part of any three days. Hence, Scripture can also repeatedly insist that Christ rose on the third day.

Christ speaks of the resurrection often in Scripture, and only this one time does He use this phrase "three days and three nights." Scripture uses other phrases as well, such as:

St. Mark 8:31: "after three days"

St. John 2:19: "in three days"

St. Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; St. Luke 13:32; 24:46: "the third day"

Obviously, all of these refer to the same event. What we have to recognize is that the bible reckons time inclusively. In other words, chronology in Scripture can contain any of these phrases and refer to the same event. If not, well, Houston, we have a problem. The third day and "three days and three nights" are not the same thing in a strictly literalistic sense. After three days and in three days aren't either. Quite simply, we have to take all of these phrases as referring to the same event. Were the biblical authors and Jesus confused? Certainly not. The point is, they simply used these phrases interchangeably for counting time in Hebrew culture.

To put it even simpler still, if any part of any day was included in chronological counting, it was always reckoned as a whole day. Hence, Jesus can rise on the third day and this can also be called "three days and three nights."

"Before we turn to the Bible for confirmation of this principle, let us read the authoritative statement of the Jewish Encyclopedia on the matter. "A short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though, of the first day only a few minutes after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day.” Vol. 4, p. 475. How clearly this defines the Hebrew method of computing time. Any small part of a day was reckoned as the entire twenty-four hour period. It is the Hebrew form of speech and language. Scores of contradictions would appear in both Old and New Testament if this principle were ignored. We must compare Scripture with Scripture and use the idiom of the language in which the Bible was written. Inclusive reckoning was taken for granted by all writers of the Scripture." -Joe Crews (Three Days and Three Nights)

Counting time inclusively is all over the Old Testament as well. (1Sam 30:12-13, Gen 42:17-19, 2Chr 10)

We have other Scriptural evidence as well that the crucifixion was on Friday and the resurrection was on Sunday.

1. The Jewish Sabbath began at sundown on Friday and ended at sundown on Saturday.

This is important because of the data we have from Holy Scripture regarding the crucifixion.

St. Matthew 27:62-64: On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first.”

Notice also, there is that inclusive counting again. "After three days." And then "the third day."

St. Mark 15:42: Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath

St. Luke 23:54: That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near.

St. John 19:31-33: Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.

So here we plainly see that Jesus was crucified and Joseph of Arimathea asked for His body on the Day of Preparation, which is the day before the Sabbath: Friday. Likewise, St. John tells us that the Jews would not allow a body to remain on the cross during the Sabbath. The Jews requested that the bodies on the cross (Jesus and the two thieves) were to have their legs broken because the Sabbath was drawing near. In other words, it was darn near sundown on the Day of Preparation - Friday.

2. The Resurrection was on Sunday.

St. Mark 16:1, 2, 9: Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen...Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons.

St. Matthew 28:1: Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

St. Luke 24:1: Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.

St. John 20:1: Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

Conclusion

It's pretty clear and obvious that the Wednesday to Saturday theory is very unbiblical at best. Once we see that Hebrews counted days inclusively, there is no problem here. The overly literalizing of the phrase "three days and three nights" actually slaughters the inerrancy of Scripture in this case, since it ends up falsifying all the other phrases that mention "the third day" or something like it. It also falsifies the clear biblical data that we have regarding the crucifixion and resurrection.

In other words, the Church has always had this correct. Jesus Christ was crucified on Friday and rose again on Sunday. The biblical data is irrefutable for this fact.

+Pax+