The Very Design of the Command is to Fix the Time for Worship

“Fourth, the mind of God in this matter is clearly revealed in the fourth commandment. The will of God is there revealed, not only that the Israelitish nation, but that all nations, should keep every seventh day holy, or which is the same thing, one day after every six. This command, as well as the rest, is doubtless everlasting and of perpetual obligation, at least as to the substance of it, as is intimated by its being engraven on the tables of stone. Nor is it to be thought that Christ ever abolished any command of the ten, but that there is the complete number ten yet, and will be to the end of the world.

Some say, that the fourth command is perpetual, but not in its literal sense: not as designing any particular proportion of time to be set apart and devoted to literal rest and religious exercises. They say that it stands in force only in a mystical sense, viz. as that weekly rest of the Jews typified spiritual rest in the Christian church, and that we under the gospel are not to make any distinction of one day from another, but are to keep all time holy, doing everything in a spiritual manner.

But this is an absurd way of interpreting the command, as it refers to Christians. For if the command be so far abolished, it is entirely abolished. For it is the very design of the command, to fix the time of worship. The first command fixes the object, the second the means, the third the manner, the fourth the time. And if it stands in force now only as signifying a spiritual, Christian rest, and holy behavior at all times, it does not remain as one of the ten commands, but as a summary of all the commands.”

~Jonathan Edwards, “The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath”

Source and read more: http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/sabbath.htm

Advertisements

The Sense In Which His Glory Is Robbed

Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan:

If we reduce the question to (alleged) pictures of “Jesus,”

1) It is, necessarily, a false representation, since he provided us no portrait. Nor the Apostles any description.
2) If the picture is intended to inspire devotion unto its “true representation,” then it is a manifest idolatry of the kind, being a human invention.
3) If the picture is not intended to inspire devotion, it is a vain imagination. It presents “Christ” in such a way as not to inspire adoration.
4) If the picture is intended to picture only the human nature of Jesus, then it partakes of the Nestorian heresy that divides the hypostatic union, seeking to separate what is forever and unchangeably united

2Cor.5:16 is an important text to this discussion. “Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.” Regarding Christ solely according to the flesh is an essentially humanistic apprehension of Christ. But he was not so, and is not so. He is not to be regarded in any kind of divided sense, but as the theanthropos, the God-man; and any reduction or division of our apprehension of him is a step backward. This is the sense in which his glory is robbed.

Source: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/89008-JI-Packer-Using-Representations-for-God, Comment #2

Movies of Jesus?

Reformed Apologist has this to say about Christians watching movies of Jesus:

If they’re looking for spiritual edification, then the accompanying sin is that of false worship through the mediation of an image of Christ, which is forbidden under the second commandment. If the aim is not spiritual edification, then the pursuit is a vain thing and, therefore, forbidden under the third commandment. If the commandment refers only to false gods and not the living God, then the second commandment collapses into the first commandment leaving us with nine commandments, (which although is theoretically possible it would raise a question regarding redundancy over two in light of the remaining eight, very distinct commandments).

Read more: http://reformedapologist.blogspot.ca/2014/03/images-of-christ.html