# How to respond: Pictures of Jesus for children ?



## Mayflower (Jan 3, 2009)

I don't believe that it is allowed to have pictures of Jesus, because it's against the second commandment, and it gives a false view of the God/man Jesus Christ.

In my circle and denomination, they use many times for sunday school and children images of Jesus Christ. I personally have a difficulty with that, esspecially when i teach my daughter (5 years old), that this is not allowed, and that is why we have a children's BIble without pictures of the Jesus. 

The argument they use is like; for children it is good to use pictures for explain bIble stories esppecially for that young age.
Iam not oppose to pictures at all, but one exception and that is a picture of the second person of the Trinity, the God-man Jesus Christ.

Any thoughts or comments on this, would be apreciatted.


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 3, 2009)

Well I can see How it can be difficult but I think Joshua is right it is your responsability and you must say no if that is what your Lord has told you.


----------



## Mayflower (Jan 3, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Just say no, man. Just say no.



Dear Josh,

Thanks for your comments, but how can i try to make them understand, that it also must not be use for the young children, any thoughts ?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 3, 2009)

Ralph,

Does your congregation or denomination have confessional standards that speak to this issue?

If, for example, they subscribe the Heidelberg the teaching is very clear. 

Those of us in the OPC, PCA, and URCs should also insist that congregations adhere to the 2nd commandment when they choose and use catechism and sunday school curricula. This might mean speaking to elders or perhaps even writing a polite letter and asking the consistory/session to review materials. We don't use GCP stuff much any more (I don't think) but in the past I know this has been an issue with them.


----------



## Mayflower (Jan 3, 2009)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Ralph,
> 
> Does your congregation or denomination have confessional standards that speak to this issue?
> .



No it doesn't, it's a evangelical baptist church.

There argument is like: ofcourse we don't worship the pictures, these pictures don't represent Christ, but we use Bible pictures (paintings) to speak to mind of a young child.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 3, 2009)

If you are going to an evangelical baptist church you would then have to (1) either bow out of Sunday School, (2) adapt your ethics to theirs, (3) cause a ruckus, (4) or change churches. Most baptists see no problems with images for teaching, as long as they are not used as "idols".


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 3, 2009)

Mayflower said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Ralph,
> ...



There's been a lot of writing on the PB about images of Jesus. I'm sure you can find the threads. The biblical argument is not hard to make.

The logical argument is easy to make:

No one has seen Jesus.
No one attempting to portray Jesus could possibly know what he looks like.
Any picture that represents itself as a picture of Jesus is necessarily inaccurate and false

Every and any picture of Jesus is necessarily false and a misrepresentation. It is a figment of the artist's imagination. It's the very thing condemned by the 2nd commandment. 

We are neither to worship pictures or representations of God nor are we to worship him through them. 

Yes, there were images of creatures in the OT but those were commanded. There were no images of God however. Jesus is true man, yes, but he is also true God. To attempt to make an image of his humanity is Nestorian or Eutychian (either it creates two persons or it conflates to the two natures). Pick your heresy against the catholic faith.

My favorite, however, is Heinrich Bullinger's line from the Second Helvetic: God the Son did not become incarnate to make work for painters and carvers.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 3, 2009)

Mayflower said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Ralph,
> ...



I have found that the best argument to be made is a simple Biblical one. 


Ask the person what the 10 commandments are.
They will list off the 10 commandments.
Ask them how to interpret the 2nd commandment. If they say, "don't worship images" then ask them it if means worshipping images as if they were God
When they say yes, say, "isn't that what the 1st commandment says - don't worship _anything_ other than God?"
Shouldn't the 2nd commandment say something else, other than "we really mean it, with respect to the 1st commandment" ?
Remind the person that the Roman Catholics have the same interpretation that he does about the text at issue - it means "don't worship images." That is why they *combine* it with the 1st.
You can show them that the RC 10 commandments are numbered differently, with you shall not murder (for example) being number 5, not number 6. They then divide the "covet" commandment into two (so they end up with 10 commandments)

The key for me is showing how the 2nd commandment must be different from the 1st.


----------



## Confessor (Jan 3, 2009)

If I were you, I would defend the confessional understanding of the second commandment the same way I do with everyone else -- say that it's not an actual picture of Jesus in the first place -- it's just some random dude which they happen to (wrongly) label as Christ Himself. If they had a legitimate picture or photograph or something, it'd be different, but they don't.

With humans (i.e. humans who are not also fully God), it's alright to guess a bit and make a mistake misrepresenting how someone from the past may have looked, but we frankly do not guess with God, per the second commandment.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 3, 2009)

The real question is what you will do with your church if you differ with them? Keep your kids from Sunday school? Tolerate what you feel to be sin? Move churches? Cause a stink and try to change thing? Gently petition and dialogue with leaders....


----------

