Looking back at Easter
Shortly after Easter, I began but did not finish a piece to which I may yet return, seeking to respond to some of the attitudes to Easter that I was observing over that period.
In the meantime, this quite excellent meditation by Iain D Campbell says most of the things I want to say in a more coherent and clearer fashion than I could when I started trying to write about it.
The only thing I would immediately add concerns the overwhelming readiness of Christians even of professedly Reformed vintage to make regular and prominent use of visual images of the Lord Jesus. For some thoughts on this topic, might I suggest Professor John Murray on Pictures of Christ?
Thanks for providing this link to John Murray’s article – it’s not one I was aware of before, but v useful.
A while ago I quoted GJ Vos on the same issue -
http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/the-problem-with-pictures/
cath
Friday 24 April 2009 at 00:42
Thanks for the link, Cath. Interesting comments by Vos, and some equally interesting contributions to your comment thread.
I have always found it fascinating that the incarnate Son is referred to as the eikon of the invisible God (Col 1.15), which ties in very much with the description of him in Hebrews 1.3. I think that the reason why God prohibited images of himself was that he would, in due time, provide an image of himself, that in the person of Jesus Christ the glory of the Most High might be seen and known (Jn 12.41; 2Cor 4.6). This, however, does not validate the making or using of images of Jesus himself, for the reasons Murray sets out. It is he himself who reveals God, and anything less or other than he himself will be a blasphemy.
Jeremy Walker
Friday 24 April 2009 at 10:35
Update: R. Scott Clark and Kim Riddlebarger are pushing this new book dealing with the topic.
Jeremy Walker
Saturday 25 April 2009 at 07:52
The new book looks great, thanks again for the pointer!
In the discussion of Vos, I was well out of my depth. Then A joined a monastery shortly afterwards; I don’t think there was a connection. (Or a friary or something!)
Do you think that the title “Word” is conveying roughly the same truth as “eikon”? – it’s completely indisputable that Christ is the fullest and most perfect revelation of God (or Christ crucified particularly). But what he revealed is surely the divine attributes at work in redemption, or something along these lines – his holiness, purity, hatred of sin, his love for Christ as the Mediator and his people in him? If that is what the scriptures mean when Christ is called the image of God, then it could hardly be further from a license to make images of Christ.
But again, I’m out of my depth. It’s also very hard to think reverently and write to convey reverence considering who and what this is.
cath
Saturday 25 April 2009 at 21:43