Is it wrong to wear a crucifix

[Adonia]

Most Christians get totally upset when one reminds them that a picture of their parents, children are also images and forbidden by the law

I am surprised that our good friend Reformed didn't include them with the crucifix.

 

[Reformed]

What am I, chopped liver? (See my earlier post).

You are? I hate liver.

 

[Reformed]

Now come on, you know that no one is worshipping the crucifix. We all worship Jesus Christ the son of God., the Savior, not the depiction of a human on a cross. A crucifix is not a graven image. How about just a gold cross with no image? Is that not a graven image also? If not, why not?

But come on, tell me, just where is the scripture that says one may not put an image of Christ on a cross? I want a specific paragraph, something along the lines: "Ye may not put an image of the Savior on a Cross".

How about His image on an Icon? A stained glass window? Is Da Vinci's "Last Supper" painting a graven image too?

I think Exodus 20:4 is perfectly clear. But why take my poor pitiful word for it? A fellow Reformed Baptist wrote on this a few years back Happily, I saved the link. Here is what Tim Challies wrote. I think he gives good treatment on the topic.

"Crucifixes have long been a fixture in Roman Catholic worship. But in the past few years I have begun to see more and more Protestants wearing them as well, exchanging their empty cross for one that contains an image of the suffering Savior. J.I. Packer once addressed the issue of the crucifix, and addressed it well.

What harm is there, we ask, in the worshipper surrounding himself with statues and pictures, if they help him to lift his heart to God?

We are accustomed to treat the question of whether these things should be used or not as a matter of temperament and personal taste. We know that some people have crucifixes and pictures of Christ in their rooms, and they tell us that looking at these objects helps them to focus their thoughts on Christ when they pray. We know that many claim to be able to worship more freely and easily in churches that are filled with such ornaments than they can in churches that are bare of them. Well, we say, what is wrong with that? What harm can these things do? If people really do find them helpful, what more is there to be said? What point can there be in prohibiting them? In the face of this perplexity, some would suggest that the second commandment only applies to immoral and degrading representations of God, borrowed from pagan cults, and to nothing more.

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 categorical statement rules out, not simply the use of pictures and statues which depict God as an animal, but also the use of pictures and statues which depict him as the highest created thing we know—a human. It also rules out the use of pictures and statues of Jesus Christ as a man, although Jesus himself was and remains man; for all pictures and statues are necessarily made after the “likeness” of ideal manhood as we conceive it, and therefore come under the ban which the commandment imposes.

Packer goes on to say that whatever else the second commandment teaches “there is no room for doubting that the commandment obliges us to disassociate our worship, both in public and in private, from all pictures and statues of Christ, no less than from pictures and statues of his Father.”

Why? Why is this prohibition in place and why is it so important that we heed it? He offers two reasons.

1. Images dishonour God, for they obscure his glory. The likeness of things in heaven (sun, moon, stars), and in earth (people, animals, birds, insects), and in the sea (fishes, mammals, crustaceans), is precisely not a likeness of their Creator. “A true image of God,” wrote Calvin, “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.” … The heart of the objection to pictures and images is that they inevitably conceal most, if not all, of the truth about the personal nature and character of the divine Being whom they represent.

…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.

2. Images mislead us. They convey false ideas about God. The very inadequacy with which they represent him perverts our thoughts of him, and plants in our minds errors of all sorts about his character and will. … It is a matter of historical fact that the use of the crucifix as an aid to prayer has encouraged people to equate devotion with brooding over Christ’s bodily sufferings; it has made them morbid about the spiritual value of physical pain, and it has kept them from knowledge of the risen Savior.

These examples show how images will falsify the truth of God in the minds of men. Psychologically, it is certain that if you habitually focus your thoughts on an image or picture of the One to whom you are going to pray, you will come to think of him, and pray to him, as the image represents him. Thus, you will in this sense “bow down” and “worship” your image; and to the extent to which the image fails to tell the truth about God, to that extent will you fail to worship God in truth. That is why God forbids you and me to make use of images and pictures in our worship."

 

[Reformed]

Not that is the most understated set of words I have ever seen from you yet. You out-fundamental the average fundamentalist on a daily basis here.

As a confessional, covenantal Baptist I am a distinct minority on this board. That is not a complaint, it just is what it is. I get it from all sides -- the Catholics and other Baptists. Like Bob Seger's song, I am running against the wind.

 

[HankD]

As a confessional, covenantal Baptist I am a distinct minority on this board. That is not a complaint, it just is what it is. I get it from all sides -- the Catholics and other Baptists. Like Bob Seger's song, I am running against the wind.

Most of us are in a similar situation. It's just part of being human.

 

[HankD]

Here is another dilemma (or mystery):

The adorning of the tabernacle/temple.

1 Kings 6:29 And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without.

Not only that but a pair of gold plated carved cherubim were in the very holy of holies above the mercy seat.

There were also fir trees and pomegranates adorning the tabernacle and later the temple.

For some unknown reason God made an exception to the law and ALLOWED/COMMANDED carved images in (of all places) the very House of God.

Can anyone explain that!?

Oh don't forget about the brazen serpent :

Numbers 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.
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.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Hmm.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The Holy Spirit takes nothing for granted, He will reveal whatever is His good pleasure to those who will hear His voice.

Yes

 

[Adonia]

I think Exodus 20:4 is perfectly clear. But why take my poor pitiful word for it? A fellow Reformed Baptist wrote on this a few years back Happily, I saved the link. Here is what Tim Challies wrote. I think he gives good treatment on the topic.

"Crucifixes have long been a fixture in Roman Catholic worship. But in the past few years I have begun to see more and more Protestants wearing them as well, exchanging their empty cross for one that contains an image of the suffering Savior. J.I. Packer once addressed the issue of the crucifix, and addressed it well.

What harm is there, we ask, in the worshipper surrounding himself with statues and pictures, if they help him to lift his heart to God?

We are accustomed to treat the question of whether these things should be used or not as a matter of temperament and personal taste. We know that some people have crucifixes and pictures of Christ in their rooms, and they tell us that looking at these objects helps them to focus their thoughts on Christ when they pray. We know that many claim to be able to worship more freely and easily in churches that are filled with such ornaments than they can in churches that are bare of them. Well, we say, what is wrong with that? What harm can these things do? If people really do find them helpful, what more is there to be said? What point can there be in prohibiting them? In the face of this perplexity, some would suggest that the second commandment only applies to immoral and degrading representations of God, borrowed from pagan cults, and to nothing more.

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 categorical statement rules out, not simply the use of pictures and statues which depict God as an animal, but also the use of pictures and statues which depict him as the highest created thing we know—a human. It also rules out the use of pictures and statues of Jesus Christ as a man, although Jesus himself was and remains man; for all pictures and statues are necessarily made after the “likeness” of ideal manhood as we conceive it, and therefore come under the ban which the commandment imposes.

Packer goes on to say that whatever else the second commandment teaches “there is no room for doubting that the commandment obliges us to disassociate our worship, both in public and in private, from all pictures and statues of Christ, no less than from pictures and statues of his Father.”

Why? Why is this prohibition in place and why is it so important that we heed it? He offers two reasons.

1. Images dishonour God, for they obscure his glory. The likeness of things in heaven (sun, moon, stars), and in earth (people, animals, birds, insects), and in the sea (fishes, mammals, crustaceans), is precisely not a likeness of their Creator. “A true image of God,” wrote Calvin, “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.” … The heart of the objection to pictures and images is that they inevitably conceal most, if not all, of the truth about the personal nature and character of the divine Being whom they represent.

…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.

2. Images mislead us. They convey false ideas about God. The very inadequacy with which they represent him perverts our thoughts of him, and plants in our minds errors of all sorts about his character and will. … It is a matter of historical fact that the use of the crucifix as an aid to prayer has encouraged people to equate devotion with brooding over Christ’s bodily sufferings; it has made them morbid about the spiritual value of physical pain, and it has kept them from knowledge of the risen Savior.

These examples show how images will falsify the truth of God in the minds of men. Psychologically, it is certain that if you habitually focus your thoughts on an image or picture of the One to whom you are going to pray, you will come to think of him, and pray to him, as the image represents him. Thus, you will in this sense “bow down” and “worship” your image; and to the extent to which the image fails to tell the truth about God, to that extent will you fail to worship God in truth. That is why God forbids you and me to make use of images and pictures in our worship."

I do not agree in the least with that assessment. In fact the argument can be made that just the opposite happens of what he says. But hey, you never answered my query about other places where images appear.

1, A plain gold cross. You seem to support one over the other, do you remember the golden calf?

2. Stained glass windows. In an era where few could read, stained glass windows in churches that depicted pictures of Christian related events helped to bring to the salvation story to the faithful.

3. Icons. Again, beautiful pictures that seek to uphold the majesty of God, used also to depict the salvation story.

4. Other art work. I mentioned Da Vinci's "Last Supper" painting. Or how about Michelangelo's "Pieta" that depicts the Blessed Mother and child Jesus? A masterpiece if there ever was one.

5. Pictures of loved one's. How far do are you going to take it? These as Hank D related could be considered "graven images" as well. Time to empty your wallet and clear your mantle of such things, no?

 

[Adonia]

1 Kings 6:29 And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without.

Not only that, but they were carved into the Ark of the Covenant as well. So we can see that images are not without precedent when it comes to things that relate to God.

 

[Ziggy]

Waiting to hear Bob Jones University explain the presence of so many images of Christ in their renowned art museum...

 

[HankD]

Not only that, but they were carved into the Ark of the Covenant as well. So we can see that images are not without precedent when it comes to things that relate to God.

Yes and also there were the two cherubim carved from wood and gold plated sitting on top of the ark "protecting" it (actually as a warning - KEEP OUT!).

Having said this by way of a reminder let us not forget also that the New Covenant gives us DIRECT ACCESS to Almighty God, His word and Holy Spirit being all we should need to guide us into His presence.

1 John 1
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

The unspeakable gift.

 

[Reformed]

I do not agree in the least with that assessment. In fact the argument can be made that just the opposite happens of what he says. But hey, you never answered my query about other places where images appear.

1, A plain gold cross. You seem to support one over the other, do you remember the golden calf?

2. Stained glass windows. In an era where few could read, stained glass windows in churches that depicted pictures of Christian related events helped to bring to the salvation story to the faithful.

3. Icons. Again, beautiful pictures that seek to uphold the majesty of God, used also to depict the salvation story.

4. Other art work. I mentioned Da Vinci's "Last Supper" painting. Or how about Michelangelo's "Pieta" that depicts the Blessed Mother and child Jesus? A masterpiece if there ever was one.

5. Pictures of loved one's. How far do are you going to take it? These as Hank D related could be considered "graven images" as well. Time to empty your wallet and clear your mantle of such things, no?

John Calvin wrote, "As soon as any one has permitted himself to devise an image of God, he immediately falls into false worship." I agree with his assessment. So, the question is not whether someone worships an image of God or not. The question is whether images of God lead to false worship and I believe they do. All the other things you bring up are superfluous. All you are seeking to do is deflect from the 2nd Commandment. Roman Catholics have a history of praying to saints and even the mother of Jesus. They light candles in front of statues of saints that are of no more spiritual help than a wolf howling in the wind. Praying to anyone besides God Himself is idolatry (1 Timothy 2:5). Images of Christ, whether or not they are worshipped, lead to such idolatrous behavior. I expect Roman Catholics to practice such things, I do not expect Protestants to do so. Then again, considering the downgrade of Sola Scripture among many mainline Baptists, I should not be surprised.

 

[utilyan]

The second commandment does not address intent. It forbids graven images/idols.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Nice profile pic. I like the cross on it too.

 

[Jerome]

Of course even their precious 'Geneva Bible' contains illustrations, including this one in Ezekiel depicting God enthroned:

 

[Adonia]

John Calvin wrote, "As soon as any one has permitted himself to devise an image of God, he immediately falls into false worship."

John Calvin is in error here, like so many of his other religious
pronouncements.

So, the question is not whether someone worships an image of God or not. The question is whether images of God lead to false worship and I believe they do

That is the question if one worships them or not. God commanded that Cherubim (images) be placed on top of the Ark of the Covenant, so did their presence there lead the Jews to worship them or to any other type of false worship? Of course not.

All you are seeking to do is deflect from the 2nd Commandment

Not at all. The only thing I am seeking is put out the proposition that the 2nd commandment is not as cut and dried as you seem to believe, there are exceptions (Re: Cherubim/Images/Ark of the Covenant). As I asked before, how far are you taking this type of belief? No graven images means no pictures of your loved ones too.

This is why the Church was established here on earth, led by men placed there by God to figure such things out. Unfortunately for you, your present church where you worship and receive instruction is doing it badly.

 

[Adonia]

Of course even their precious 'Geneva Bible' contains illustrations, including this one in Ezekiel depicting God enthroned:

Oh my, a graven image for sure!

 

[Reformed]

John Calvin is in error here, like so many of his other religious
pronouncements.

Says the Roman Catholic. Gotcha.

That is the question if one worships them or not. God commanded that Cherubim (images) be placed on top of the Ark of the Covenant, so did their presence there lead the Jews to worship them or to any other type of false worship? Of course not.

The ceremonial aspect of the Law controlled every aspect of Old Testament worship. The glory of the LORD was present in the Holy of Holies. Nothing involved in Old Testament worship was an image of God Himself.

As I asked before, how far are you taking this type of belief? No graven images means no pictures of your loved ones too.

That would apply if images of your family or loved ones caused you to worship them. Anything that takes away from the worship of God is an idol. The second commandment was much more specific.

 

[HankD]

Says the Roman Catholic. Gotcha.

The ceremonial aspect of the Law controlled every aspect of Old Testament worship. The glory of the LORD was present in the Holy of Holies. Nothing involved in Old Testament worship was an image of God Himself.


That would apply if images of your family or loved ones caused you to worship them. Anything that takes away from the worship of God is an idol. The second commandment was much more specific.

True. The brazen serpent Moses made by command was later worshiped by Israel and angered God.

2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

 

[JonC]

Wearing a Crucifix

Roman Catholics often will wear a crucifix.

Non-Catholics normally wear a cross without a corpus.

1) Should we even wear one at all

2) Is one wrong and the other one right

3) Is it a personal decision

4) Other comments

I think that it is wrong to wear a crucifix upside down because it is simply trying to be offensive to people. But I don't see a meaningful difference between wearing a cross and wearing a crucifix .

 

[Dave G]

Roman Catholics often will wear a crucifix.

Non-Catholics normally wear a cross without a corpus.

1) Should we even wear one at all

2) Is one wrong and the other one right

3) Is it a personal decision

4) Other comments

Personally, I don't wear crosses and I definitely would not wear a crucifix...Jesus is no longer on the cross, and the moment need not be "captured". It's over, and He is risen! His purpose for being on the cross is finished.
I also look at paintings of "Christ" as being people's wishful thinking, since He is now seated at the right hand of God making intercession for me...and I still do not know what He looks like except for what is revealed in the book of Revelation.


I've been in Catholic Churches, and I don't go into them anymore.
As I see it, there are too many images that are used to represent Heavenly things, and to represent God, who is invisible ( Colossians 1:15 ), while His Son is the visible image of Him.
Even so, no one knows what Jesus looks like, and trying to make images in His name only make me wonder why those people feel the need for them.
I imagine it is because they feel comforted in relating to a God that they can see, and not one that they cannot.
One that they feel they can know, and not one they feel they cannot.
But my attention is focused on the God I know is there ( Hebrews 11:6 ) and who I know hears my prayers.

I don't feel the need for an image, because my faith, which was a precious gift given to me, is enough.
I have faith in His word, not in anything outside of that.


Question:
Did early believers wear crosses?
Not that I am aware of.

When did the practice come into being?
From my research, not for centuries after...probably not for the first thousand years after... Christ returned to Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.


With respect people, we as believers in Jesus Christ do not need visual reminders of who we worship and love...we have the evidence with us ( Hebrews 11:1 ) that confirms what we know to be true.


May God bless you all.