Written by Matthew S. Harmon |
Friday, February 24, 2023
Jude and Peter both knew that in order for Christians to live faithfully as God’s people, they need to look both backward and forward—backward to what God has done throughout redemptive history, and forward to what God has promised to do in the future. 

In the midst of a world that often seems out of control, knowing our ultimate destiny is a source of great comfort and motivation to press on in the face of serious challenges and opposition to the gospel. Jude and Peter both knew that in order for Christians to live faithfully as God’s people, they need to look both backward and forward—backward to what God has done throughout redemptive history, and forward to what God has promised to do in the future. Both these realities are found in God’s word, consisting of “the predictions of the holy prophets [i.e., the Old Testament] and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles [i.e., the New Testament]” (2 Pet. 3:2). In it we find “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). This word is the result of men speaking “from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21). As a result, it is sufficient for everything pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3–5).
The God who speaks in this word is the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Jude 20–21). Each person of the Trinity works in cooperation to accomplish the redemption of God’s people. Peter and Jude put the Son on center stage in redemptive history, stressing his authority as Lord and Master (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 4). He is not just the Savior of his people (2 Pet. 1:1, 11; 2 Pet. 2:20; 3:2, 18), but he is also the one who will render final judgment on all God’s enemies (2 Pet. 2:4–10; 3:4–13; Jude 5–15).
Given the priority and importance of God’s word, it is no surprise that false teachers attack it. Throughout redemptive history they have followed a pattern first used in the garden by Satan himself. They begin by questioning God’s word, subtly seeking to undermine one’s confidence in what God has said (2 Pet. 3:16; Jude 4). From there they move on to directly contradicting God’s word, arguing that God cannot be trusted to tell us the truth and nothing but the truth (2 Pet. 3:4; Jude 6–18).
Read More
Related Posts:

The reason Jesus acts the way he does, the reason Jesus is worthyof the worship he receives, is that Jesus’ origin is what it is: he is the eternal Son of the eternal Father, the heavenly Son of the heavenly Father, the only-begotten Son who is from above, not from below, whose filiation is not of this world.
The doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is a central feature of orthodox Christian teaching. In this doctrine, the church confesses not simply that the second person of the Trinity is the one true and living God but how he is the one true and living God: as the Son eternally begotten by the Father who thereby shares the Father’s self-same being, attributes, works, and worship.
The church confesses the doctrine of eternal generation on the basis of Holy Scripture. But it is precisely at this point that many contemporary Christians–who may otherwise sympathize with the importance of sharing the church’s universal confession–nevertheless stumble. Is the doctrine of eternal generation really a biblical doctrine? Does it truly possess the only force it could possess to command the assent of the faithful, i.e., the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture?
There are plenty of reasons for answering this question in the affirmative. Some reasons follow from the ways Scripture “names” the second person of the Trinity. Other reasons follow from the ways Scripture portrays the second person of the Trinity in his actions of creating, saving, and consummating all things. Still, many contemporary Christians continue to find these lines of argument unconvincing. Part of the problem doubtless stems from the hermeneutical culture in which they were trained, which tends toward atomism in exegesis or, when it does consider larger canonical patterns of meaning, tends to focus on “horizontal” redemptive-historical patterns to the exclusion of “vertical” analogical patterns of meaning.
There is a place for criticizing these hermeneutical cultures and for repairing them as need be (the latter is, as a matter of fact, my full-time job). But it is the responsibility of the church’s teachers also to address church doctrine to its members within the hermeneutical space that they actually inhabit, not simply in the ideal space that teachers believe they should inhabit. That’s part of faithful shepherding: leading God’s people from where they actually are to where they should be.
Now to the (pretentious) title of my post: What is “the greatest prooftext for the doctrine of eternal generation”? I hope it is clear, gentle reader, that I am not insinuating that there is one great prooftext for the doctrine that stands above all others. The doctrine of eternal generation is the teaching of the whole counsel of God read as a whole. What my title means to suggest is that there may be one particularly instructive, particularly helpful prooftext for leading those sympathetic to but still unsure about the doctrine to the place of more confident affirmation. That text, I suggest, is John 8.
In John 8, Jesus roots his actions of revealing God’s words and accomplishing God’s saving purpose, the very actions that reveal Jesus’ identity as the one true and living God (Jn 8:24, 28: “that I am”), in his origin, his being “from above,” his being from “the Father” (Jn 8:23, 27). Jesus acts the way he does because of where (or better: whom) he is from. Moreover, it is precisely in contrasting the analogy between Jesus’ origin and actions and his opponents’ origin and actions that Jesus confirms the deep biblical logic of the doctrine of eternal generation.
Jesus introduces the link between action and origin in John 5, basing his authority to work on the Sabbath (a prerogative unique to God) in his status as God’s natural-born Son. As one who shares his Father’s nature, he also shares his Father’s self-existence, performs his Father’s works, and is worthy of receiving his Father’s worship (see here and here). Jesus takes up this theme again in John 8 and elaborates on it by contrasting his origin and action with his opponents’ origin and action. “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world” (Jn 8:23). “I speak what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father” (Jn 8:38).
Read More

Although Abraham saw Christ, this did not give Israel permission to make any images of him and the same is true for us. Surely it would have been a blessing to have been one of those thousands of men and women who saw Jesus with their own eyes during the incarnation. But the Holy Spirit has chosen not to preserve any description of Christ for us because we are called to be a people of the word who walk by faith, not by sight. Just because some people saw Christ does not mean that we may now make images of God for didactic or any other purpose. 

When men being examined for ministry take an exception to any portion of the Westminster standards we always require that they explain their rationale. A man ought to be able to explain and defend why he believes what he does. In my experience, the justifications given when men take exceptions to Larger Catechism 109 are usually along the same lines. So I want to respond to two of the most common explanations that I hear at presbytery.
Larger Catechism question 109 states
“What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
 The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.”
Common Rationale #1
The common objection to this portion of the catechism usually concerns images of Christ. Specifically, men taking this exception will acknowledge that images of Christ should not be used for worship, but they see no problem with images being used for didactic purposes, by which they mean that they see no problem using images of Christ to teach children. This is so common an exception it’s often called the “Jesus Storybook Bible exception.” However, the problem is that images of God will be connected to worship and that education should be connected to worship.
As always, we should begin by considering scripture itself. Exodus 20:4-6 says, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
What’s frequently overlooked when considering the second commandment is the fact that it contains two imperatives, not one. In forbidding idols this commandment does not simply say “You shall not worship them.” It says much more than that. It first says in verse four that you shall not make them. Significantly, the language does not say “You shall not make them in order to worship them.” The Hebrew conjunction ‎ לְמַעַן generally translated “in order that” is conspicuously absent. Verse four is a separate sentence in Hebrew as well as English. The second commandment has always been “you shall not make any idols” and “you shall not worship them.” No Israelite could ever make an image of God or any other gods and plead its acceptability on account of its not being used for worship, but only didactic purposes.
Attention must be drawn to this fact because compression of the second commandment often underlies this common exception. God gave this commandment the way he did because he understands our hearts, even better than we do ourselves. John Murray writes, “A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful.”[1]
If we say something is a depiction of God we will naturally desire to worship through it, or have that image be a means of stirring up devotion and piety.
Read More
Related Posts: