The Suggestion of a Church Calendar
Perhaps as you read, I don’t have to argue for Christmas and Easter. You accept that already for your church calendar. Churches should acknowledge and honor the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They include the birth and resurrection in the prayers, singing, and preaching of their corporate worship.
I suggest that a church have a calendar with events for the worship of the Lord. Scripture does not require the special days, but a church should acknowledge the truth of them. They can do that by putting them on the calendar, very much like inserting them into an order of service.
The Requirement of Order
The belief, teaching, and practice of scripture requires order. You see order all over the Bible. This is the nature of God. Romans 8:29-30 reveal an order of salvation:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Here’s the order: (1) foreknowledge, (2) predestination to conform to the image of the Son, (3) call, (4) justification, and (5) glorification. Other examples of order exist. Consider Matthew 5:23-24:
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Here’s the order: (1) Decide to bring a gift to the altar, (2) remember brother has ought against you, (3) Leave the gift before the altar, (4) go, (5) be reconciled to the brother, (6) come back to the altar, (7) offer your gift at the altar.
The Truth of Order
God is a God of order. God requires order. “Order” translates the Greek, taxis. According to BDAG, it means: “an arrangement of things in sequence,” “a state of good order,” and “an arrangement in which someone or something functions.” Here are two usages of the word by the Apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 14:40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
Colossians 2:5, “For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.”
Very often the priesthood, like that of Zacharias in Luke 1:8, is called an “order.” The worship of Israel required order. If you think about the tabernacle, it started with an outer court, then an inner court, the altar of burnt offering followed by the laver, and then into the holy place. It ended in the holy of holies. God prescribed order in the worship.
Worship, Order, and a Church Calendar
When one reads the account of the Lord’s Table in the New Testament one sees a particular order of observance. This is seen in Matthew 26:26-27, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:17-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Someone takes the bread, gives thanks, breaks it, explains it, partakes of it, remembers, and then in the same manner takes the cup. He takes the bread first and then the cup. One could say that the order makes sense as it will always.
True worship requires order. A calendar puts the events of Jesus’ life in an order and observes them according to that plan. It treats them like they occurred. They happened at a time of the year.
One does not have to put events on a calendar to give them acknowledgement and honor. Doing so, however, fulfills a principle of order, which is in the nature of God. That obeys doing things in order. It ensures the church will think on these events, meditate on them, emphasize them, and include them in prayer, singing, and preaching.
(More to Come)
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
A pastor can plan his sermons out 14 months in advance and put on the calendar that he is going to preach an 8 part series on the omnipresence of God in July and August if he wants to, and then do a four part series on the incarnation of Christ on the Wednesdays in September, and then a 20 part series going verse-by-verse through 2 Thessalonians. That would be very organized and very orderly. Maybe you will deal in later parts what the basis is for:
1.) Ordaining that a day is a “special day,” where every year one particular Biblical topic is mentioned, when God has not made any Lord’s Day special in this way through any explicit statement in Scripture, and:
2.) How we avoid what we have in Catholicism, where they have a calendar where every Sunday gets a particular topic, and so some things get talked about once a year, and many things never get talked about at all. (Think of the Jewish liturgical cycle as well, for example; they have certain passages of Scripture that are read and talked about in the 3-year cycle, and certain parts that never get read–like Isaiah 53). If we are consistent with what you are saying in this post, and there are only 52 Lord’s Days a year, what basis do we have in Scripture for deciding which parts are the ones that get hit every year on the same day and which parts of Scripture are never hit at all, and how do we know we are hitting the right things with the right emphasis among those things that do get hit?
Thank you.
Thomas,
[I left out the first paragraph I had written to honor a request, not that there was anything wrong with the questions.]
Who would designate certain days on the calendar related to scriptural and historical events in Jesus Christ’s life? Who would mention them with fondness, admiration, love, and approval? Is this is a sin? Is it wrong? Does it violate scripture?
[I think the answer to the first question is: Christians. Second Question: Christians. Third: No. Fourth: No. Fifth: No.]
I would add: this is not a regulative principle problem. No one has proven that to me that it is.
It would seem that Galatians 4:9-11 warn us about establishing any kind of calendar of “official” holy days:
But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.” (Galatians 4:9-11)
Any thoughts on this? ^^
I see no problem with choosing to preach on and sing about what many people are already thinking about in December. But I will also often not preach about mothers on Mother’s Day or fathers on Father’s Day, or even the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, because I don’t believe a church ought to be beholden to those days. I think it is best at these times of year for a pastor to prayerfully and scripturally consider what is best to focus on rather than simply follow the calendar. Often times, I do come to the conclusion that the people will be most edified if I do preach about thankfulness toward the end of November, for example, because, they are already being drawn to that by the culture around us, but I don’t feel obligated to do so.
Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion!
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” (Romans 14:5)
In Christ,
Mat D.
Mat,
I’m preaching through Galatians and finished chapter four awhile ago. The problem for the Galatians was the embrace of shadows and symbols over reality. The reality had come and by continuing to celebrate the shadows, they were confusing or rejecting the reality. I know you know that context. It isn’t, no on days.
Maybe your mention of the moon is saying that the calendar designation corresponds more to paganism. I don’t think anyone sees Easter or Resurrection Sunday as commemorating a pagan festival. Some of what you said, I do believe, is why Paul wrote what he did in Romans 14:5. It is permissible and maybe even valuable to designate a day every year to emphasize the resurrection of Jesus.
Thanks.
Kent,
I think you’re correct about Galatians. And, as I mentioned, I do find it edifying to have a special emphasis on certain days. My concern is, though, that I do see the observance of things like Advent and Lent, etc. as very similar to what was going on with the Galatians. I do see people in Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc, and now increasingly evangelicalism rejecting the reality in favor of these observances. (It becomes similar to the “I shouldn’t cuss, because we are in church” mentality.) My concern is that I could encourage people to do the same by going in that direction.
I just mentioned the moon thing, because it’s obvious that we got that from somewhere other than scripture. The way I handle it is I am careful to say that every Lord’s Day is Resurrection Sunday. I don’t think that everybody has to handle it exactly that way, though.
As for Romans 14, I believe it is the individual there that chooses to esteem “one day above another”. As for the church, there are people who disagree on these issues. We have people in our church who do not appreciate Christmas trees. I disagree with their interpretation of Jeremiah 10, but we don’t have a tree in our church, because “it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended, or is made weak.” (v21, see also vs 13-15) I just give that as one example.
Paul was persuaded “by the Lord Jesus”. He knew it was the truth that there was nothing wrong with the meat or nothing special about any particular day, but he chose to walk charitably and not present something as necessary that could serve as a stumbling block to those who hadn’t yet been persuaded of that. I’m just saying that I think it’s possible that having “official” holy days could potentially be a stumbling block to some, or even worse, could eventually lead to a Galatians-type mindset like we see in Catholicism and much of Protestantism.
Thanks again, Kent, for the discussion! I appreciate you!
Mat D.
Hi again,
I think Roman Catholics and some Protestants have taken many things into something that is now wrong. It’s like the Judaizers taking actual Old Testament teaching and perverting. Our churches can do it too. I think that’s why I’m discussing it. I like emphasizing events in Jesus’ life at a chronological point in the year. Jesus is a good emphasis.
I’m not sure why advent is wrong. We haven’t done it, but I’m not sure why it is wrong. I’m open to why it is. I haven’t read why that is. I get the excesses of Lent that occur and how that turns into Pharisaism. I’ve never observed Lent, and it seems like a part of works salvation with the Ashes and so forth, and racking up merit points by fasting. It’s a kind of virtue signaling.
I’m not sure that everyone with high expectations regarding elimination of Christmas observance aren’t sometimes doing a kind of Lent themselves, giving up Christmas as their own kind of special public fast, something like not wearing colorful clothing for the Amish. I’m willing to give space to people who don’t want to celebrate Easter and Christmas. It doesn’t offend me. I would hope they could gravitate to the Romans 14 verse you ended your first comment.
Issues can divide that are not supposed to divide and this is why Romans 14, I believe.
I would second the questions of brother Ross. I don’t see which passages deserve yearly special days and which don’t in light of New Testament teaching. I couldn’t see going a year without addressing the incarnation nor the resurrection in the normal preaching that I do.
From my understanding the apostolic churches did not do what you’re saying. Why would we need to do something that the apostles did not do? It seems to me that the Lord’s supper fulfills the intended purpose of order you’re asking for without adding something.
I realize you are leaving this up to liberty but you also seem to be saying your way is better than someone who doesn’t do it the way you’re prescribing.
I personally don’t like the idea that I’ve seen in Baptist churches that December is a magical, extra-special time of year because of Christmas. I don’t see the emphasis and order as helping Christians care more about the things of the Bible. Also, pointing out facts about problems with Christmas (even the name? Christ-mass?) gets one labeled as a Scrooge and as not caring about the birth of Christ. So overall, I haven’t seen celebrating Christmas as a beneficial thing for the purity of the church in my life. Adding that to the fact that it’s not commanded in the Bible, I don’t understand why I would follow the traditions of Christmas season. I’ve had to do quite a bit of teaching to undo the negative effects that Christmas traditions have had on our church. You might say that is because the church did it wrong, but I think it’s somewhat inherent in churches that don’t stand against the errors of modern churches Christmas practices.
David,
I’m writing that it is permissible and fits biblical principles, like order, etc. I like a Christian calendar, but I don’t mind that you don’t. I’m justifying what we do, yes. Do I think it is better? Yes. That’s why I/we do it. I’m saying it is a liberty issue. It wouldn’t bother me one single bit if you don’t do it. I would not think less of you. Do you think it is a liberty issue?
In my experience, I haven’t found that anyone is ostracized because they don’t celebrate a holiday. I’ve never seen division from the one observing Christmas. The kerfuffle comes from those who don’t want it. They cause misery to those doing it, mentioning Saturnalia, Winter Solstice, the Roman Catholic Mass, etc. It comes up every year of my life. Is it possible that no-Christmas is an extra-biblical scruple that causes division in the church? To be super holy, a higher level of spirituality, you’ve got to eliminate every holiday event? This will please the no-Christmas people like the elimination of pork and ham from the diet.
I get that I have not given scriptural proof for mandating a liturgical calendar. I would say that I don’t hear scriptural proof for mandating not having one.
First, I will say that having not seen your practices over Christmas, besides what you stated that you specifically teach on the incarnation for three weeks, I would assume that you are more careful than many on the practices associated with Christmas. Do churches have liberty to choose to teach on certain things at certain times of the year, yes. I have preached a Christmas-type message the last three years at Christmas time. I’m not against having a church calendar that focuses on certain Biblical aspects each year.
At the same time, I have seen Christmas taken to such excess and misused even inside the independent Baptist world. I recognize Jeremiah 10 is speaking of idolatry, however, it says not to learn the way of the heathen. That would mean there are certain pagan practices that we should not try to “Christianize.” In my opinion, most of the practices of Christmas are Christianized pagan rituals and I think that is actually a rather obvious truth. I don’t think that people’s Christmas traditions stem from love for the Lord’s birth and a great love for His incarnation. In my life, the people who get most worked up when they find out (not because I go out of my way to tell them but just because I abstain) I don’t have a Christmas tree, do a gift exchange, put up a nativity, etc. are those whose observable love for the Lord is not strong. It seems to me that many, because of their church’s Christmas practices, truly view Christmas as a “magical” time of year. I’m not saying this is so in your church, but I’ve observed it to be true in MANY places I have been, both churches and colleges. So, I am opposed to the excess which I cannot see going away without someone teaching against. You might say this is a “no-Christmas scruple” but I see it as seeking to remove the way of the heathen from people who are not spiritually minded.
As far as being ostracized. Try telling your church that you will no longer be putting up a Christmas tree or nativity scene and see how you’re treated. Stop having a candle-light Christmas Eve service and see how you’re treated. Try going to a family Christmas without having or participating in family Christmas traditions and see how you’re treated. As for my part, I haven’t been treated well by those who love non-Biblical Christmas traditions. If stopping Christmas traditions based on principle is creating a kerfuffle then I guess it can’t be considered a liberty issue.
So once again, I don’t know how you do things. I might be 100% ok with your current Christmas practices, but if your people are following the way of the heathen in order to worship Christ, I would take issue with that. You’ve done a good job exposing Christians that want an experience rather than just true Christianity. I agree with your take on that and I believe it also applies to many Christmas traditions that need to go. Teaching on the incarnation isn’t one of those things. I’m happy with a yearly emphasis on Christ’s birth. I wonder if people would be happy with that emphasis if it were done in June, though.
Bro Brandenburg, I’ve only recently become aware of the “regulative principle of worship,” and I’m trying to look into it as a young pastor. I’ve read a number of your blog posts, and heard a little bit from others on the subject, but haven’t found a concise presentation of the doctrine and it’s use. Are there any books that you’d recommend that do a good job defending the use of the regulative principle, as well as outlining the practical application of it?
p.s. I understand if you don’t feel the need to post this comment to the conversation on your article, just seemed the most appropriate way to ask you this question.
Adam, thanks, maybe you’ve seen the following: “God commands churches to conduct public services of worship using certain distinct elements affirmatively found in scripture, and conversely, that God prohibits any and all other practices in public worship. The doctrine further determines these affirmed elements to be those set forth in scripture by express commands or examples or, if not expressed, those implied logically by good and necessary consequence.”
Scott Aniol wrote this short article on it several years ago: https://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-worship/the-regulative-principle-of-worship/
Dear Adam,
I commend you for caring about God’s worship. There are some studies on the Regulative Principle in Baptist perspective at:
https://faithsaves.net/ecclesiology/
near the bottom of that page.
Thanks.
Brother Brandenburg, you suggest that a church have a calendar with events for the worship of the Lord, and I think I am understanding that you are saying that your church practices this. You also write, “A calendar puts the events of Jesus’ life in an order and observes them according to that plan.”
I am not interested from the standpoint of introducing this in my church, but am asking merely from the standpoint of information and understanding. This is totally outside my realm of experience.
I realize that there are churches that acknowledge and even celebrate certain events that permeate our culture — such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, perhaps even New Year’s, Independence Day, etc., as well.
I am also aware that there are churches that follow a “church calendar” but have never taken the time or had the interest to look into it. How does this function in an orthodox New Testament church. For example, is there a fixed event for each of the 52 Lord’s days of the year? If so, is the Sunday service (e.g., music, sermon) always focused on the event recorded on that Lord’s day in the church calendar? Or is this more about fewer days sprinkled out into various Sundays throughout the year? Perhaps this is something you intend to address in great detail later, but any clarification will be appreciated. Thanks.
Hi Robert,
It isn’t a matter of ‘having to have a day’ every week, which might be the liturgical calendar of the Roman Catholic church. I’m taking this from the standpoint of emphasizing, rejoicing, praising, thanking, teaching, preaching, meditating, praying — aspects of true worship. If we’re going to celebrate the birth of Christ, then we should view it in a worshipful way within the context of the whole life of Jesus and other New Testament biblical events that found our faith. Our faith is based upon the birth, the life, the work, the death, the burial, the resurrection, the ascension, and the coming of Jesus, and then even the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. We are not requiring them for any church, but we are setting those apart for the special emphasis, special occasion through the year. Churches do this anyway. I’ve never been in one that didn’t do this, just that they did not view them according to their worship, thereby giving a spiritual emphasis to them. Usually they are just Easter and Christmas for Baptists.
Do you preach on the birth in December, sing songs about the birth in December, preach on the resurrection in late March/early April, sing songs on the resurrection in late March/early April? If so, why?
Brother Brandenburg,
Thanks for your remarks. I do not disagree with what you write, as far as I understand it. However, I am still not sure I understand what you are suggesting as a liturgical calendar. Are you saying a deliberate intent and recognition of Easter, Pentecost, Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc. with emphasizing relevant things as the matter and focus of worship, meditation, singing, teaching, and preaching on those days (and probably some other days you have in mind). I am not trying to be dense, but just trying to understand what you are advocating. What little I know of a liturgical calendar is hearing what Roman Catholics do and knowing that some progressive churches, both Protestant and Baptist, pick up and incorporate some of those Romish elements. *I certainly do not think that is what you are doing.* So, since I recognize it is different, I hope to better understand. Perhaps speaking of the practice in the sense of a liturgical calendar is what is throwing me off.
As for our church, I do not consider that we (as a church) celebrate Christmas or Easter. We are certainly aware that they are going on as cultural holidays, but do not deliberately incorporate them into our services. I may or may not choose to preach on the birth of Jesus in December, or the resurrection of Jesus around Easter time. I both have done so, and I have not done so, over the course of 40 years of ministry.
Bro Robert,
I don’t know if this might clear up with further posts on this. If not, let me know.
Thanks.
Thanks. I will certainly follow along as you continue to try to better understand what you are advocating.
Perhaps I understand that at least in part you are suggesting that churches consider doing orderly and intentionally that which they may already be doing accidentally and haphazardly.
All the Baptist churches of which I’ve been a member celebrate and celebrated Christmas and Easter. This is a fifty plus year period of time. These Baptist churches already function on a liturgical calendar. I don’t see this as a serious enough dealing with these events. It seems that Baptist churches instead very often just take cultural events and use them because of expectations. They’re also two great church attendance draws. They please people emotionally, they draw in nominal Christians, and a few searching, admitting unbelievers.
Instead, worship Christ. Make the worship of Christ purposeful related to these events. I think some churches have done it. The liturgical calendar moves that direction. These should belong to the church, the body of Christ. The emphasis on them should be ours, not allowing them profaned by the world.
Brother Brandenburg,
Just for my knowledge of your position. When you defend Christmas, are you defending Christmas trees, Christmas presents, Christmas nativity scenes, and other practices which at best incline to be connected with pagan practices? Or are you defending ONLY the special teaching and singing in the church about the incarnation of our Savior Jesus Christ at a particular time of year?
If the second is the case, to separate your church from those practicing the former things, would you be willing to change the time of your focus on the incarnation to another time of year? If you are going to address this later then you can ignore this comment.
Thanks
Hi David,
I would not defend trees, presents, nativity scenes, etc. from scripture. I look at those, however, as a liberty issue. What I’m talking about though is not that, but what a church does with these events in the history of our salvation. They actually occurred in real time. They found our faith.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
I appreciate that you care about Biblical worship and want to think through what you do and do not believe honors the holy Lord who is jealous for His worship and glory.
I hope to respond to your longer comment on part 1 within a few days. I have not read all the following comments yet. I am wondering if you could clarify your response here to David when you classified nativity scenes as a liberty issue. Does that include the graven image of Jesus Christ in the cradle? The only time many independent Baptists seem to have a graven image of God in their houses is in association with the Xmas holy day. Thank you for your clarification here.
I had a comment written, but I’m not going to answer this, because I believe you already know.
(Exo 20:4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
(Exo 20:5) Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
(Exo 25:18) And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
(Exo 25:19) And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.
(Exo 25:20) And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.
Exodus 25 does not contradict / violate Exodus 20. We can run from it by saying, “God commanded it so it is ok,” or you can look at Exodus 20:4 in context and say that verse 5 makes it clear — no graven images for the purpose of worship.
(Num 21:8) And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
(Num 21:9) And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
Another example. Not only was a graven image commanded, they were even told to look upon it for deliverance. Yet, it also was not to be an object of worship (as Hezekiah clearly understood). Deliverance comes only from God, yet they were told to look upon a graven image as a reminder and symbolic of His deliverance.
You will rightly say that an image that purports to be Jesus Christ is not the same as an image of an angel or an image of a serpent. But if we take a wooden-headed literalist interpretation of Exodus 20:4 outside the context of verse 5, both violate verse 4. If we interpret verses 4-6 as a whole, which they clearly are, neither violates it.
If a picture or image of a baby in a manger is an object of worship, it violates the commandment. If it’s a reminder of God’s gracious provision in sending His Son to be Immanuel, God with us even in the lowliest form as a demonstration of just how much He loves us, it’s no violation.
Thanks Jon. I haven’t basically used the images of Christ. I would set up a nativity with an empty manger. Mainly, I think I’ve done this for two or three reasons. One, it is the historical Protestant view. Probably Baptists practiced mainly the same. Two, I think the position is a safe position on images, not having the ones of God. I think it keeps the spirit of the law in the New Testament. The image of Christ is a risk. It forms an image in the imagination that could replace the biblical imagination. It’s done that with many. The image of Jesus becomes an impostor Jesus to them. Three, I don’t think a vast majority of Protestants and Baptists who use images of Christ, say in a nativity seen or in teaching materials, are going to worship the images. I don’t make it a separating issue based on the type of argument you make above.
I agree there can be a risk.
I also see a counter-risk in dehumanizing Jesus. He really did come as a human being. People really could see His human figure and His face. They could see Him, touch Him, hear Him, handle Him. Do we risk undercutting that truth by leaving the manger empty?
I tend to think it is better to forgo a manger scene entirely than to leave the manger empty. I agree that this is not at all a separating issue.
Dear Bro Gleason,
I appreciate that you want to think Scripturally on this, and are attempting to justify a graven image of Christ with verses.
I must confess I see the world of difference between images of cherubim upon the ark specifically commanded by God to convey perfectly heavenly, spiritual truth, and an image commanded by God in Numbers to perfectly convey spiritual truth, and man-made, man-authorized, non-commanded images, that do not convey perfectly spiritual truth and that are not commanded by God.
I see no way to be consistent with your argument and not allow any number of graven images, not specifically limited to a graven image of God in a manger. I am quite sure you did not get your argument from such a source, and I know that you abominate Roman Catholicism, but Catholic apologetic organizations utilize exactly the argument that you have made to justify their graven images.
Thanks.
Roman Catholics also argue that it is appropriate to kneel in front of images to pray to the person the image represents. That happens to not be an argument I share with them.
They cite Scriptures (with which I agree) for the Biblical truth that God is to be obeyed. That does not mean I agree with the works that they require for salvation.
In both cases, the fact that they go further than Scripture teaches (and further than I would agree) does not invalidate the parts of their arguments that are true.
I see no way to be consistent with the view that images are always wrong given that God specifically commanded them in certain circumstances. If they are not always wrong, then we need a better argument than “they are images” to draw the dividing line.
Of course, whether they are wise, or something that should be brought into the corporate worship of the church, is a completely different question as to whether they are always wrong. But I am not going to be accusing believers of idolatry without a clear Scriptural basis for it, and I don’t see that basis here.
Dear Bro Gleason,
“No images” sounds very much like the many verses that say things like:
Deut. 16:22 Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth.
Technically, it is “do not make any religious images” (maps of Judaea or pictures of what barley or Mount Sinai look like are fine) and “do not make any religious images unless God specifically tells you, by inspiration, to make them.” That God Himself told Moses to put cherubim on the tabernacle to perfectly convey spiritual truth provides exactly zero justification for us making images of God–the Lord Jesus–that He never commanded us to make. And the 2nd Commandment does not just forbid bowing down to the images, but tells us not to “make unto thee” “ANY graven image, or ANY likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth,” as well as not bowing down to them and not serving them. “Make unto thee” refers to all humanely-originated images affiliated with religious worship but does not mean that God is not allowed to tell Moses to make cherubim for His ark.
Furthermore, the images of Christ undermine Christ’s true humanity, not encourage people to understand it. When one image of Christ makes Him Norwegian, another makes Him Kenyan, another makes Him look like this, another makes Him look like that, it would lend towards believing that the Lord’s real humanity was fictional, not real. Every single image of Christ that has ever been made does not look like what He actually looked like (try drawing “Jacob Philips” without ever having met him, and having no information about what he looks like, and see if the picture looks like him), and every image is designed to convey reverence, but we are not to revere God through images. The reason the apostles said that we do not know Christ after the flesh any more, and they never described what He looked like, is because we are not to make images of God.
See also:
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2012/07/images-and-pictures-of-jesus-christ.html
https://kentbrandenburg.com/2021/07/16/history-images-jesus-christ/
Thanks again.
Brother Ross, I am sure you agree that God is true and does not give contradictory commands. If we think He has, either we are misunderstanding one of the commands or there is a special context that makes it not really a contradiction at all. In that case, we should carefully examine both of the commands to see if there is a context that clarifies the matter.
I believe that the context of Exodus 20:5 clarifies the matter, and that context would be known by anyone who reads any subsequent comparable commands, and so would clarify those cases as well.
Your view appears to me to require the assumption that God has given contradictory commands. That is at least part of why I find it unpersuasive. But it is certainly safe, and I would not wish you to change your behavior unless you also became unpersuaded of it.
If you wish to explain why I’m misunderstanding your position or why you believe God does give contradictory commands, I will certainly read your response. But I’m not free to continue this discussion further. My ministry situation has become very, very demanding, and I’m still paying the bills with computer software work. I do respect your position though unpersuaded by it, and I am sure God will bless you for being faithful to it.
Ultimately, if we believe Philippians 3:15, we believe that God will sort out whichever of us is wrong (perhaps even both of us need some refinement in our thinking). Blessings to you.
Dear Bro Gleason,
There is nothing contradictory about God Himself, under infallible direction, requiring the creation of pictures of cherubim and the bronze snake, and God commanding that people, apart from infallible inspiration, make no images for religious worship.
I appreciate that the “real” people where you are need to take priority in your ministry. May the Lord bless you as you shepherd them.
“There is nothing contradictory about God Himself, under infallible direction, requiring the creation of pictures of cherubim and the bronze snake, and God commanding that people, apart from infallible inspiration, make no images >for religious worship.<"
(emphasis added)
Indeed, I agree. We should make no images for religious worship and there is no contradiction when that prepositional phrase is included. I didn't know that you thought I was advocating that we should make images for worship. Of course we should not.
The images of the cherubim and the bronze serpent were not for worship. Nor is an image of a baby in a manger scene. If an image of a baby were worshipped, that would be as wrong as worshipping the bronze serpent. I'd thought I made that clear — if I did not, I apologize.
I don't think I've used the term "real" people in this discussion, but of course, they are real. More importantly, they are the church in which God has placed me. That makes the ministry to them more "real" than other types of ministry or discussions. I'm sure some of them will quite enjoy knowing that they are considered "real." 🙂 Blessings to you and thanks for the discussion!
Dear Bro Gleason,
Thanks for the comment. Certainly I did not think you were advocating bowing down before the image of God in the manger. However, people do think that it should be showed reverence. If someone accidentally stepped on the donkey in a manger scene, nobody would care (unless it were broken or something like that). If people accidentally stepped on the graven image of God, it would be an “Oh no!” moment. So the image is showed an inappropriate kind of reverence by a very large number of people.
Furthermore, the images of the cherubim were for religious instruction. They taught infallible Divine truth. The image of God in the manger does not convey infallible Divine truth in this manner, as it does not look like what Christ actually looked like, nor does it convey the union of His Divine Person with his human nature, nor did God command it for instructing His people.
Blessings to you and your “real” people in your flock.