Beauty in the Eye
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12f2a/12f2abb15a2d322463a5cb69eeba10d72d1b8fdc" alt=""
Had God decreed a history without free will in the Garden of Eden, where no Fall occurred and sin never entered the world, God would still have been glorious and worthy of endless praise. That is the science. But what makes God, specifically Christ, beautiful to us is enhanced by the revelation of mercy and grace in our lives. That is the art.
It has become a repeated theme among Christians, particularly those bent toward philosophical constructs, that beauty is not subjective, but objective. The reasoning behind this is that God is the supreme object of beauty, as He is also the supremacy of being, love, grace, justice, righteousness, and all other virtues. So if God is the ultimate origin and manifestation of beauty, then levels of beauty can be defined by their adherence to or parallel to God Himself. Makes sense, right?
This provides a very useful argument against the unrelenting march of post-modern thought into realms of art. A piece of obscene “art” can be denied as beautiful because it runs contrary to God and His design in creation. A stark example would be the work of Andres Serrano, where he photographed a crucifix submerged in urine. This cannot be defined as “beautiful” because it is defying the God who is the definition of beauty.
To be clear, there are certainly objective elements to beauty, like symmetry. The ability to accurately represent God’s creation in an art form is truly the science behind the art. Yet if we only define the beauty of an artwork in terms of symmetry, order, proportions, and harmony, then it could be posited that Piet Mondrian’s paintings (the ones with black lines and squares of white and primary colors) exceed the beauty of Michelangelo’s David. No one in their right mind would actually claim that, though.
The whole discussion of beauty in art was much simpler before technology. A painter or sculptor was largely valued by their ability to recreate what occurred in nature. Picasso’s work would have stood no chance in the 1600’s amid portrait painters (though Picasso actually had the skill to paint realistically).
You Might also like
-
O Come, O Come, Emmanuel
Written by J. V. Fesko |
Sunday, December 24, 2023
In the third verse of our hymn, given what appears in the first two verses, Christ’s redemption is cast in terms of the eschatological, or final, exodus. It is no longer the exodus from the tyranny of Pharaoh, nor is it the exodus from Babylon, that appears. Rather, Jesus brings an exodus from the oppressive rule of Satan, sin, and death: O come, thou Rod of Jesse, free. Thine own from Satan’s tyranny; From depths of hell thy people save, and give them vict’ry o’er the grave. Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel. Shall come to thee, O Israel.“O Come, O Come, Emmanuel” is one of the better-known hymns that is typically sung during the Christmas season. What some may not know is that it originated in the Middle Ages, around A.D. 800, as an antiphon, or anthem, that was restructured into verse form in the 1100’s and was eventually published in Latin in 1710. The hymn was later discovered, translated, and published in 1851 by John Mason Neale, an Anglican minister.
As people sing this hymn, they know that they are singing about the birth of Christ. However, what is striking about this hymn is the way in which it unpacks the birth of Christ. It moves from the shadows of the Old Testament into the light of the New Testament with the revelation of God in Christ. This hymn traces the themes of Israel’s exodus to the eschatological, or final, exodus that was to begin with the birth of the Messiah.
We can see this progressive unfolding of God’s redemptive plan if we turn to the Old Testament and begin with Israel’s exile in Babylon.
Mourning in Lonely Exile
In Israel’s earliest days as a nation, God brought his people out of Egypt, made a covenant with them, and began to lead them to the land of promise—the land that he had sworn to give to Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 15:18-21). Israel, of course, was a cantankerous nation and lacked the faith to enter the Promised Land, to believe in the gospel promise of God (Heb. 3:18-4:2).
When Israel had finished her forty-year wandering and stood at the threshold of the Promised Land, it was undoubtedly a time of excitement and hope. The people of Israel were at last going to enter the land promised to their patriarch Abraham so long before.
On the eve of their entry into the land, however, Moses wrote an inspired prophetic song. This song was filled with praises for their covenant Lord, but at the same time it foretold Israel’s future disobedience and sin (Deut. 32:20-24). Israel did fulfill these words and was carried off into exile because of their sin, idolatry, and rebellion. The northern kingdom of Israel was taken away by the Assyrians in the eighth century B.C., and the southern kingdom of Judah was taken away into captivity by the Babylonians in the sixth century B.C.
Over the centuries, millions of people have been displaced by war—exiled from their home country. However, Israel’s exile in Babylon was unique, because Israel was the only nation on the face of the earth with whom God had made a covenant. Just as God had put Adam, the first man and God’s son (Luke 3:38), in the garden-temple of Eden, so he had given Israel, his firstborn son (Ex. 4:22), a fruitful land—one flowing with milk and honey, one that was also marked by God’s very own presence.
In the same way that God walked in the cool of the day with Adam in the beautiful garden-temple (Gen. 3:8), so too God walked with Israel in the Promised Land by his presence in the tabernacle (Lev. 26:11-12; 2 Sam. 7:6). Yet, like Adam before them, Israel sinned, which caused the prophet Hosea to cry out: “Like Adam they transgressed the covenant” (Hos. 6:7).
As punishment for their disobedience, like Adam before them, the people of Israel were exiled from the presence of God. Israel was carried into exile to Babylon, longing for the presence of God, longing for God to redeem them and ransom them from their captivity. However, the faithful remnant did not desire merely to return to the land, but ultimately for God to dwell once again in their presence (Ps. 137:1-4). As Israel sat in exile by the waters of Babylon, there was still hope of redemption.
Many undoubtedly looked to the prophetic words of Isaiah: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). There was a coming child, one who would save Israel—the Lord’s presence in the flesh. In this regard, we should note that the word Immanuel (also spelled Emmanuel) means “God with us.”
Perhaps now we have a better idea of what lies behind the first two verses of our hymn:O come, O come, Emmanuel,
and ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here,
until the Son of God appear.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
shall come to thee, O Israel.
O come, O come, thou Lord of might,
who to thy tribes, on Sinai’s height,
In ancient times didst give the law
in cloud and majesty and awe.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
shall come to thee, O Israel.Here the hymn recounts the faithful remnant in exile in Babylon, longing and looking for the birth of their Savior. Our hymn couches this desire in terms of the biblical theme of the eschatological exodus, evident in the connections between Israel’s exile in Babylon and the exodus from Egypt by reference to God’s presence on Sinai.
The Shoot of Jesse and the Key of David
The prophet Isaiah, however, had much more to say about this coming Savior. Many Old Testament saints knew that the coming Savior would come from the line of David (2 Sam. 7:12-13). However, the nation was in ruin, and the temple, God’s dwelling place, was razed to a pile of rubble. It seemed as though David’s line had been cut off. Once again Isaiah prophesied: “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit” (Isa. 11:1).
Here the prophet likens the Davidic dynasty to a stump—
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Changing Seasons and the Unchangeable God
Our response to distressing times should be found in the fact that God does not change. His promises are true. As the culture around us continues to change and head in a direction opposed to the heart of God and the clear teachings of Scripture, we can look to God for our hope. Though everything changes around us, He does not change. God remains the same. His being, perfections, purposes, and promises will never fail us.
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.
– Psalm 102:25-27
In 2019, Gallup released an article citing the “10 Major Social Changes in the 50 Years Since Woodstock.” I found the article fascinating not only because of its content but also in light of the changes we’ve seen since 2019. Who could have fathomed all that has occurred since the start of the pandemic, much less Woodstock? How should Christians respond to all the social change?
You’re likely familiar with Woodstock. It was a music festival held in Bethel, New York in August 1969. It was a gathering of thousands of people to promote music, sex, drugs, love, and peace. According to the Gallup article, the young people who assembled at the festival “epitomized the countercultural movements and changes occurring in U.S. society at the time.”
The article also claims “the “open” display of activities at Woodstock was a direct challenge to the relatively conservative views of the time.” Woodstock was a clear signal that change was coming.
The article discusses ten major changes, I’ll mention four here which I believe are of particular interest to the Christian worldview.
1. Religious Attachment Has Waned
It’ll likely come as no surprise, but religious attachment has declined since the days of Woodstock. A decade before the festival, 75% of people described religion as “very important” to them. In 2019, only 49% made such a claim. Additionally, during that same span of time, people who attended a religious service weekly fell from 46% to 35%.
2. Majority Now Think First-Trimester Abortions Should Be Legal
In 1969, a few years before the historic Roe v. Wade decision, 40% of Americans favored making it legal for women to have an abortion at any point during the first trimester. In 2018, 60% were in favor. The assault on human life through abortion continues to rise.
3. Americans Now Prefer Smaller Family Size
By and large, family is no longer valued and children are no longer considered a blessing, but rather, a curse. It has become common to hear people claim children are an obstacle that keep them from attaining their goals and dreams. One recent article cites an increase in vasectomies by childless men in Australia. The reason many are signing up for the surgery is because “children would get in the way of their lives, and their plans for crafting the life they want.”
4. Premarital Sex No Longer Taboo
In 2019, 70% of Americans believed nothing was wrong with having sex before marriage. Gallup didn’t start polling on the issue until 1973, likely because the expectation of not having sex until married was entrenched in U.S. social norms prior to that time. The article says, even in 1973, “less than half of Americans (43%) supported premarital sex.” Premarital sex is anything but taboo in today’s rapidly changing world.
The Times They Are Still A-Changin’
A few years before Woodstock, Bob Dylan prophetically sung about the changing times. His words are no less true today.
As Christians, what are we to do? As the culture around us changes and heads in a direction opposed to the clear teachings of Scripture, how should we respond? I believe Psalm 102 provides the answer.
Read More -
We Cannot Be Faultless (But May Still Be Blameless)
Shouldn’t we believe that God treasures what we do, however feeble, however immature, however bungled and blundered it is? For though what we do is most certainly not faultless, it is any father’s joy to count his children as blameless.
A devotional writer from a bygone era believed it was crucial to carefully distinguish faultlessness from blamelessness, for while we cannot live faultlessly in this world, we may live blamelessly. Even the best deeds we do cannot be faultless when we ourselves are so very imperfect and when this world is so firmly arrayed against us. Yet we may still remain blameless before the Lord, even in light of our many imperfections.
A fictional illustration may serve. Let’s suppose a day came when my father, a landscaper, was hired by one of our neighbors to design and install a garden. He dutifully sat before his drafting table to create the design, he visited the nursery to purchase the plants, he stood in the garden and began to create the shape of the different beds. But then a serious illness overcame him and he was forced to remain indoors for days or weeks.
And though at the time I was merely a child, I was a son who loved his father, so took it upon myself to surprise him by completing the project on his behalf. I studied the plans as carefully as I could, I carved the shape of the different beds, I put down a layer of topsoil, I planted the ferns and hostas, the roses and euonymus, doing my absolute best to lay them exactly where the plans dictated. When my father recovered sufficiently to venture out-of-doors, I led him to that garden and happily presented the work I had done for him.
His reaction was both joy and concern. He felt great joy that I had attempted to serve and please him, that I had done my best with the little knowledge and minimal skill I possessed. But he felt concern that the job was done more poorly than he would have done it. He noticed that the flower beds were not quite the right shape, that the edges were ragged, that many of the plants and flowers were a little out of place. He knew that he still had work to do in order to make it right.
Read More