# Images of Jesus



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 1, 2017)

So I have been on the side of seeing images of Christ as being wrong. Last night I read this short post from I believe Sproul, and it seemed interesting. What do you think about the stance that God is invisible and cannot be portrayed, therefore a picture of Jesus is only portraying His humanity?

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/images-worship/


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 1, 2017)

Jesus is a person with a divine and a human nature. To attempt to show him in a picture is to attempt to show a divine person in a picture.

I'll add that humanity, or human nature, cannot be pictured.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 1, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So I have been on the side of seeing images of Christ as being wrong. Last night I read this short post from I believe Sproul, and it seemed interesting. What do you think about the stance that God is invisible and cannot be portrayed, therefore a picture of Jesus is only portraying His humanity?
> 
> http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/images-worship/


Christ is a _Person_, not a nature. The depiction is of the Person. The depiction of "his human nature" is by the very act a depiction of a divine _Person_. I have always wondered why Rev. Sproul forgets this when using his argument.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## yeutter (Sep 1, 2017)

Dr. Sproul's argument is the standard Lutheran defense of images of our Lord.


----------



## jw (Sep 1, 2017)



Reactions: Amen 1 | Funny 4


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 1, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Christ is a _Person_, not a nature. The depiction is of the Person. The depiction of "his human nature" is by the very act a depiction of a divine _Person_. I have always wondered why Rev. Sproul forgets this when using his argument.



That is good!


----------



## Berean (Sep 1, 2017)

Josh needs a tutorial on how to reasonably resize images so as not to SHOUT.

Reactions: Edifying 1 | Funny 6


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 1, 2017)

Note also that we never read of Jesus, during his earthly ministry, drawing back from any of his worshipers, and saying, "Don't worship my humanity!" He, after his Divine nature, was/is omnipresent and invisible; it was his finite human location to which people directed their worship, yet they were worshipping a divine person. We will do the same when we see him.

That's the correct response when we see the God-Man bodily--to worship.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 1, 2017)

I just want to add one more thing that often gets ignored in this discussion. this is to be tacked onto my other post (#8).

The correct response when we see a legitimate visible representation of any divine person is to worship. That was John's response when he saw Christ in a vision. That was Isaiah's response when he "saw the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up."

Because the correct response to legitimate representations of God is worship, unsanctioned representations of God (including images of the God-Man) are necessarily idolatrous. God reserves to himself the right to represent himself visibly, and he requires worship when he does so.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 1, 2017)

Exactly; the puritan argument has always been to point out you either must break the second or the third commandment; only position that is possible is not to have them.catch 22. An image of Christ CANNOT be mere instruction without violating the third commandment.


TylerRay said:


> I just want to add one more thing that often gets ignored in this discussion. this is to be tacked onto my other post (#8).
> 
> The correct response when we see a legitimate visible representation of any divine person is to worship. That was John's response when he saw Christ in a vision. That was Isaiah's response when he "saw the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up."
> 
> Because the correct response to legitimate representations of God is worship, unsanctioned representations of God (including images of the God-Man) are necessarily idolatrous. God reserves to himself the right to represent himself visibly, and he requires worship when he does so.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 1, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Exactly; the puritan argument has always been to point out you either must break the second or the third commandment; only position that is possible is not to have them.catch 22. An image of Christ CANNOT be mere instruction without violating the third commandment.



That's interesting. Where does the 3rd Commandment come in if I might ask? Thanks!


----------



## Parmenas (Sep 1, 2017)

Berean said:


> Josh needs a tutorial on how to reasonably resize images so as not to SHOUT.



Perhaps he wanted to SHOUT? I might if someone proposed that [edit: pretended] images of Christ were acceptable!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 1, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Where does the 3rd Commandment come in if I might ask?



If you call the image "Christ", then it better be Him and you better be worshipping Him. However, if it isn't Christ (all images are not Christ) than you are breaking the 3rd commandment in speaking an untruth - blasphemy. Calling something God/Christ that is not.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 1, 2017)

These images of our Lord are pop culture images. I had to be educated and informed by the reformed faith to see the error of such portraits.The image I came to know and to love was one that in my youth I used to see in Christian book stores, and in some Baptist church offices. 
A profile view of a man in a white robe with long flowing straight brown hair. Very handsome yet manly. At that time I did not know Isaiah 53, that,"He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him." 
Nor 1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you , that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 
It also offends me when I see belt buckles, bumper stickers and such. To treat the name that is above every name in such a way seems to me to be bordering on disrespectful, though those that do so obviously don't see it that way.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jw (Sep 1, 2017)

Now, images of Jimmy the Shepherd (hat tip to Bob Vigneault), on the other hand . . . well, that's an altogether different matter. He was one agreeable-looking European shepherd!

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 1, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> That's interesting. Where does the 3rd Commandment come in if I might ask? Thanks!


*"I*t is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all, and because his body, as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is, and because, if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment." (Vincent, _Exposition of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism_.)

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 2, 2017)

How might this apply to dramatic presentations of the Church for Christmas or Resurrection Day, where a human being may portray Jesus?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 2, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Note also that we never read of Jesus, during his earthly ministry, drawing back from any of his worshipers, and saying, "Don't worship my humanity!"



A good corrective to those who think that it is okay to have pictures of Jesus as long as we are not worshipping them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Sep 2, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> How might this apply to dramatic presentations of the Church for Christmas or Resurrection Day, where a human being may portray Jesus?


This is a moot point, since the Regulative Principle precludes dramatic presentations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 2, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> This is a moot point, since the Regulative Principle precludes dramatic presentations.



For those that observe the regulative principle, true. Not all do.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 2, 2017)

Same principles/objections apply to filmed or unfilmed shows.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2017)

What do you all think about during the Lord's Supper? Many people that hold to the RPW on images, break the same principle by pondering the crucifixion during the meditation time of the LS. We must train our minds not to build mental images as well.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 2, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> What do you all think about during the Lord's Supper? Many people that hold to the RPW on images, break the same principle by pondering the crucifixion during the meditation time of the LS. We must train our minds not to build mental images as well.



I would assert that those folks don't hold as closely to the RPW as they believe themselves to. I am reminded often just how large my idol factory has become. Production numbers are at an all-time high. Business is good. I need to review WCF Chapter 21 often: 

I. The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and does good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.[1] _But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, *that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.*_[2]

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Parakaleo (Sep 2, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So I have been on the side of seeing images of Christ as being wrong.



Now, come to the "Dark Side" where images of Christ are not just seen as wrong, but abhorrent idols. I promise you won't gain many friends, but there may be persecution for Christ's sake.



Held Fast said:


> How might this apply to dramatic presentations of the Church for Christmas or Resurrection Day, where a human being may portray Jesus?



A person portraying Christ in a drama during a holiday-themed worship service is engaged in breaking the Second Commandment in at least three ways.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 2, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> *We must train our minds not to build mental images as well.*


Indeed, I had to do this very thing and it was difficult. I still have struggles with it in some instances, but have largely overcome the tendency.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2017)

At the front end of all worship must be the frightful consideration that God does not change and in the past has killed people for illicit worship; hence, any doubtful considerations, when it comes to worship must be dealt with in prudence for the sake of one's livelihood. If one cannot say with absolute certainty that one's treatment of any particular doctrine of scripture to be completely clear, it would be much safer to take the high road, less one doubt God's past treatments for those that assault his commands.

Gen 10:31
_It is_ a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2017)

You can only love God in comparison to what you know of God:

"Here the reader may possibly object, that love to God is really increased in proportion as the knowledge of God is increased; and therefore how should an increase of knowledge in a saint make his love appear less, in comparison of what is known? To which I answer, that although grace and the love of God in the saints, be answerable to the degree of knowledge or sight of God; yet it is not in proportion to the object seen and known. The soul of a saint, by having something of God opened to sight, is convinced of much more than is seen. There is something that is seen, that is wonderful; and that sight brings with it a strong conviction of something vastly beyond, that is not immediately seen. So that the soul, at the same time, is astonished at its ignorance, and that it knows so little, as well as that it loves so little. And as the soul, in a spiritual view, is convinced of infinitely more in the object, yet beyond sight; so it is convinced of the capacity of the soul, of knowing vastly more, if the clouds and darkness were but removed. Which causes the soul, in the enjoyment of a spiritual view, to complain greatly of spiritual ignorance, and want of love, and to long and reach after more knowledge and more love."

J. Edwards-Religious Affections

Anyone reading the scriptures, creeds and our beloved confession would have to come to, at least an approach of prudence. As Edwards shows, the knowledge one has of God is reflected in our love for Him & vice versa.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 2, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So I have been on the side of seeing images of Christ as being wrong. Last night I read this short post from I believe Sproul, and it seemed interesting. What do you think about the stance that God is invisible and cannot be portrayed, therefore a picture of Jesus is only portraying His humanity?
> 
> http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/images-worship/



As others have pointed out, Christ's two natures are not separable. They are in a hypostatic union. The human nature does not exist without the divine. It is impossible to represent a hypostatic union faithfully on canvas. As has also been pointed out, Christ's humanity also exists in a glorified state now, which also cannot be pictured. Halos simply don't cut it.

Danny Hyde's book _In Living Color_ is the best defense of the confessional Reformed position on images of Jesus. His argument against the pedagogical use of images of Christ is perfect: it attacks the sufficiency of Scripture. Is Scripture sufficient to tell us what we need to know about Jesus? Or do we need images, too? I would also point to David Van Drunen's article in CPJ 5 on the question is a very able defense of the confessional position as well.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Sep 2, 2017)

Joshua said:


> Now, images of Jimmy the Shepherd (hat tip to Bob Vigneault), on the other hand . . . well, that's an altogether different matter. He was one agreeable-looking European shepherd!



I've often wondered why so many churches have pictures of Kenny Loggins on the wall .

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 2, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I've often wondered why so many churches have pictures of Kenny Loggins on the wall .



I have seen Dan Fogelberg and Gregg Allman running around......

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

yeutter said:


> Dr. Sproul's argument is the standard Lutheran defense of images of our Lord.


The Commandment prohibiting no Graven images, nor representing of God would seem to be to keep us from speculating on how God would appear, as Mankind has had various god images of crass and craven creatures like the Molten calf as God.
Picturing on a painting/drawing, or on TV/Movies would not be in direct violation of that, as God did indeed come as a Man and dwelt among us.


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Commandmnet prohibiting no Graven images, nor representing of God would seem to be to keep us from speculating on how God would appear, as Mankind has had various god images of crass and craven creatures like the Molten cafe as God.
> Picturing on a painting/drawing, or on TV/Movies would not be in direct violation of that, as God did indeed come as a Man and dwelt among us.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2017)

The only problem with Dachasers assessment is that that would only be applicable if one was able to seperate Christ's humanity and divinity. Since that is heretical, the premise is defunct.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> The only problem with Dachasers assessment is that that would only be applicable if one was able to seperate Christ's humanity and divinity. Since that is heretical, the premise is defunct.


I am not advocating for us to have a split personality Jesus, but that the Commandment referred to God who is invisible being portrayed by Mankind as a physical form, but since the Incarnation happened, God did have a real physical form to represent to us now.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am not advocating for us to have a split personality Jesus, but that the Commandment referred to God who is invisible being portrayed by Mankind as a physical form, but since the Incarnation happened, God did have a real physical form to represent to us now.



Jesus is fully God; hence, unless u split the idea, it would be a break in the 2nd commandment to portray any image.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Jesus is fully God; hence, unless u split the idea, it would be a break in the 2nd commandment to portray any image.



God has given Himself that image though, as in the person of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2017)

Christ was not an image, but a person. To create an image of His personage would be a break in the 2nd commandment.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2017)

The scriptures themselves bear witness against fabricating any godly images. Surely everyone would agree that there were capable artists over the 6k years of the church; as scripture was canonized, if the HS had led men to create visual helps, we would have those renderings included with scripture. The scriptures need no help and adding images only blur the lines.


----------



## jw (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am not advocating for us to have a split personality Jesus, but that the Commandment referred to God who is invisible being portrayed by Mankind as a physical form, but since the Incarnation happened, God did have a real physical form to represent to us now.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am not advocating for us to have a split personality Jesus, but that the Commandment referred to God who is invisible being portrayed by Mankind as a physical form, but since the Incarnation happened, God did have a real physical form to represent to us now.


I have no idea what you are trying to say or argue here. If you disagree with the position stated often herein concerning images of the Godhead, then please make your assertions plain. I prefer not to assume what you are attempting by this post's jejune interpretation of the second commandment.

Per Chalcedon, the union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord cannot be _separated_, _divided_, _mixed_, or _confused_. This is _de fide_. It is not debatable. All proper arguments pertaining to Christology, especially the Incarnation start and end with these presuppositions.

Accordingly, images purporting to be the mere human nature of Our Lord is ignoring the very Person being so purportedly represented and is in direct opposition to what the church has declared to be heresy: that these natures can be divided up into different Persons (_Nestorianism_).

If you have an actual exegetical argument that the second commandment does not apply to images of the Person of Jesus Christ that does not violate what the church militant has declared from careful consideration of the whole counsel of Scripture, I would be very interested in reading your argument.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 2, 2017)

What was Calvin's argument?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 2, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> What was Calvin's argument?



Behold, they paint and portray Jesus Christ, who (as we know) is not only man, but also God manifested in the flesh: and what a representation is that? He is God’s eternal Son in whom dwells the fullness of the God head, yea even substantially. Seeing it is said, substantially, should we have portraitures and images whereby only the flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ, that is to wit, of his divine Majesty? Yes: and therefore whensoever a Crucifix stands mopping & mowing in the Church, it is all one as if the Devil had defaced the Son of God. (_Sermon on Deuteronomy_, 23 May, 1555).

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 2, 2017)

Borrowing/stealing that quote. I had not read it before (no, I haven't made it through the Deut. sermons).


Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Behold, they paint and portray Jesus Christ, who (as we know) is not only man, but also God manifested in the flesh: and what a representation is that? He is God’s eternal Son in whom dwells the fullness of the God head, yea even substantially. Seeing it is said, substantially, should we have portraitures and images whereby only the flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ, that is to wit, of his divine Majesty? Yes: and therefore whensoever a Crucifix stands mopping & mowing in the Church, it is all one as if the Devil had defaced the Son of God. (_Sermon on Deuteronomy_, 23 May, 1555).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 2, 2017)

Wow. I thought Sproul got his argument from Calvin. I guess not.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 2, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Borrowing/stealing that quote. I had not read it before (no, I haven't made it through the Deut. sermons).


And the title page of the Golding translation of the sermons notwithstanding (which is just another instance of printers doing their own thing with otherwise fine material). https://archive.org/stream/sermonsofmiohnca1583calv#page/138/mode/1up


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 2, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Wow. I thought Sproul got his argument from Calvin. I guess not.


See the full sermon of May 23 1555 in the collection here:
https://www.monergism.com/sermons-deuteronomy-ebook

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 2, 2017)

David, you need to read Danny Hyde's book before you keep arguing from the incarnation to the permission of images of Jesus. Your argument is not only very standard, but very much answered.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> David, you need to read Danny Hyde's book before you keep arguing from the incarnation to the permission of images of Jesus. Your argument is not only very standard, but very much answered.


Thanks for that. So Christians should not be allowing for Jesus to be shown on TV shows or in the Movies than?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Thanks for that. So Christians should not be allowing for Jesus to be shown on TV shows or in the Movies than?



Are they images?


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I have no idea what you are trying to say or argue here. If you disagree with the position stated often herein concerning images of the Godhead, then please make your assertions plain. I prefer not to assume what you are attempting by this post's jejune interpretation of the second commandment.
> 
> Per Chalcedon, the union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord cannot be _separated_, _divided_, _mixed_, or _confused_. This is _de fide_. It is not debatable. All proper arguments pertaining to Christology, especially the Incarnation start and end with these presuppositions.
> 
> ...


I am not denying at all anything that agreed upon per Chaledon, as I was just saying that God Himself has come to us in human flesh, and so we should be able to represent Him as being God in human flesh with us. The picture/painting is not Him, is not to venerate or have us show affection towards, as it is honoring Him by presentation of Him.
Would this mean that Christians should not have Jesus ever portrayed in either TV shows or in movies then?


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Are they images?


No, as they would be real flesh and blood.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2017)

David, 
Are u reading anything on the two threads dealing w/ the subject? I believe this is what Patrick and Lane are trying to convey to you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> No, as they would be real flesh and blood.



You're kidding, right?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am not denying at all anything that agreed upon per Chaledon, as I was just saying that God Himself has come to us in human flesh, and so we should be able to represent Him as being God in human flesh with us. The picture/painting is not Him, is not to venerate or have us show affection towards, as it is honoring Him by presentation of Him.
> Would this mean that Christians should not have Jesus ever portrayed in either TV shows or in movies then?



The 2nd Commandment States specifically that we may NOT make a representation of Him, contrary to the assertion made in the middle of the cited post.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> The 2nd Commandment States specifically that we may NOT make a representation of Him, contrary to the assertion made in the middle of the cited post.


I stand corrected, as I was not thinking through fully what my position was in this area.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> You're kidding, right?


So you have never watched any movies or tv shows about Jesus then?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 2, 2017)

I placed a quote earlier by J. Edwards-it is relevant here. I did earlier in my life. Prior to me becoming a believer, even early in my walk. But as Christ taught me through the scriptures and I grew in grace, I stopped doing that because it is condemned in the word of God! As well, most attempts at any movie produced is so goofy and wonky that I could not stomach their faulty approach to God and His word anyways.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I stand corrected, as I was not thinking through fully what my position was in this area.


Exactly what is your position?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am not denying at all anything that agreed upon per Chaledon, as I was just saying that God Himself has come to us in human flesh, and so we should be able to represent Him as being God in human flesh with us. The picture/painting is not Him, is not to venerate or have us show affection towards, as it is honoring Him by presentation of Him.


Then you have failed to understand my post that you quoted.

The "him" in any purported representation is the Person, Jesus Christ. If you read my post and its included links you would understand that this One person is not something to divide up and represent via vain images as being "God in human flesh" in hopes of seeking an end run around the second commandment. As others have stated, if these so-called images are images of Our Lord, then we owe them our worship. Surely you see the error of this, no?


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So you have never watched any movies or tv shows about Jesus then?


I don't think I ever have, at least I don't recall any. I gave up watching _any_ TV or films years ago. As Brother Bushey mentioned in an earlier post, I couldn't stomach the representation. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I had to struggle to avoid mental images of our Lord. Not least the aforementioned portrait that was popular in Baptist, and other Christian circles, but even in my reading the Scriptures. 
The woman at the well, feeding the 5,000, or walking on the water, ad infinitum. In an old thread on this topic I asked if it was possible to read the Gospels without visualising, in our mind's eye, images of our Lord. Well it is, but it isn't always easy. Particularly when a person first learns it is sin, but had been routinely bringing these imaginations up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 2, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Wow. I thought Sproul got his argument from Calvin. I guess not.


It's a misunderstanding in common with him and at least one other I know of. I'm not sure where they got the idea from, but it was not from reading Calvin. Here is a collection of Calvin quotations from an old thread relevant to the position: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/2nd-commandment-images-of-Christ-calvin.82806/#post-1040165

This article is useful against images of Jesus: https://ccrpcorg.s3.amazonaws.com/Articles/Pictorial Representations of Christ-final.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So you have never watched any movies or tv shows about Jesus then?



One of the results is that people start thinking Jesus looks like Ewan McGregor in _The Clone Wars_ or Kenny Loggins.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So you have never watched any movies or tv shows about Jesus then?


Not for decades; the ones before that are problems enough, thank you. David, I think this thread is example "_prime_" of the scattershot way you post to threads. Stop doing this. Read the threads and understand the content before opining.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 3, 2017)

Helpful resource on the Reformed confessional view: https://biblebased.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/should-we-make-images-of-Jesus/

Two helpful posts from older threads:



MW said:


> It is striking the way imagination becomes active in a matter of anticipation. On the other hand, where the object is a matter of possession there is cause for reflection. I find this relevant in light of two things. 1. Christ is given in possession to the believer, Eph. 3:17. The imagination should cease and reflection should be active. 2. The visible and sensible elements of bread and wine are specifically given to us for the purpose of remembrance, which should invoke reflection.
> 
> To speak pastorally, the way to cure a sensual imagination is to "see" Christ as the apostles "remembered" Him, full of grace and truth; and in His offices as our complete Saviour; and as He is made of God to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; and to reflect with a trusting heart on the present enjoyment of Christ so as to rest in Him. Where the soul rests and reflects, the imagination has no cause to stir.



https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/here-is-a-question-on-images-of-Jesus.90664/#post-1112999



Contra_Mundum said:


> What about when the child grows up, and wishes he didn't have a "cartoonJesus" or some other version in his head that he has to "remove" or guard against whenever he is thinking religiously?
> 
> The problem can be analyzed several different ways, but one that I think is profitable is to understand that whenever we make an image of Jesus, we are "going the wrong direction" in our thinking about him. It is not hard to think of Jesus in human terms. The Bible's descriptions do that admirably. The fact was (and is) that those encounters by the disciples and the crowds were meant to reveal to them that Jesus wasn't "just a man" at all, but was God incarnate.
> 
> ...



https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/images-of-Christ.60511/#post-781983

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## jw (Sep 3, 2017)

Somewhat related is the exchange between the Lord and Moses in Exodus 33 and 34. Moses requests, "Show me thy glory." The Lord responds "None will see me and yet live," etc. Yet, He gives Moses instructions as to how he may gather a glimpse of the Lord's glory. In the fulfillment, however, in chapter 34, we observe no part of Moses' _seeing_ of anything. Rather, the Lord "shows" Moses His glory in a wonderful proclamation of propositions, "The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation." Moses' response to this proclamation of the name of the Lord? He made haste, bowed himself, and worshipped. What is the Lord's glory? Well, it is most certainly not His visage, as He is spirit, and does not have parts, etc. His glory is His Name, Who He is, the great I Am. He doesn't give His glory to another or share His praise with graven images (Is. 42.8), including, and _especially_ those images purporting to be of Himself.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Edm (Sep 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am not denying at all anything that agreed upon per Chaledon, as I was just saying that God Himself has come to us in human flesh, and so we should be able to represent Him as being God in human flesh with us. The picture/painting is not Him, is not to venerate or have us show affection towards, as it is honoring Him by presentation of Him.
> Would this mean that Christians should not have Jesus ever portrayed in either TV shows or in movies then?



My less than scholarly take as to my understanding. We are sometimes given laws for more than one reason, to define sin and to keep us from sin. I believe that this was given to tell us what was sin. However, even if you take the stance that you are representing just the human side, which I disagree with, how many times have you seen or heard of people having to hold a crucifix, or be in the same room as their picture of long haired white man Jesus, or they claim they feel closer to Jesus when they see Him portrayed in a statue or Painting? That is idolatry, the same as the RCC worshipping the elements. It is the same as people doing these same things to the cross. Though the cross isn't an image of Jesus. the law is pretty simple in this manner. To me it seems like lot s of time it's just people trying to figure out a way to justify their tradition. And I'm not speaking from inexperience here. I think if you searched you would probably find post of me trying to question or justify images. It was a tradition I grew up with that I came to understand was wrong.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Sep 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Commandment prohibiting no Graven images, nor representing of God would seem to be to keep us from speculating on how God would appear, as Mankind has had various god images of crass and craven creatures like the Molten calf as God.
> Picturing on a painting/drawing, or on TV/Movies would not be in direct violation of that, as God did indeed come as a Man and dwelt among us.



I know I don't post that much, though my wife and I had just been discussing this issue, so if you would, please allow me to share a few thoughts as someone who used to think it strange yet interesting that images of Christ could be unlawful.

Yes, Christ came as a man. Were we to see Him face to face we can expect that we would see a man with two eyes, a nose, mouth, one head, two arms, two hands and feet like the rest of us. He looked like a Jewish male would look, and according to Isaiah looked like an average man. Christ came in a physical body on purpose and lived as one of us for the sake of mediating for us and sympathizing with us. In the body He is a true human being. He will always be a man.

Still, no human being can possibly know God unless God reveals Himself. The same thing goes for the person of Jesus Christ. Christ's own family members--even his own mother who was visited by an angel and was told about what her son would be like--did not understand Him. His disciples did not either, and who better knew Him in His physical appearance than they did? They were with Jesus day in, day out, all the time. He counseled, exhorted, encouraged, rebuked them, discipled them personally for three years. Were it a picture, it'd be picture perfect. Were it a movie, they had the best seat in the house; but what do we frequently hear?

They did not understand. Their hearts were hard. What do they say? "Who is this man that the wind and sea obey Him?" What does Jesus say? "Have I been so long with you, Phillip, and yet you do not know me?" Seeing Jesus in the flesh didn't do as much good as we'd like to think it would.

Also, when did Peter finally understand who Christ was, and truly get Him, if I may say it? When the Father revealed Christ to Peter, then Peter understood. Even Peter later says in one of his letters, "Though you do not see Him, you love Him." The only way that we can understand Jesus Christ is the supernatural revelation of God through the Scriptures by the power of the Holy Spirit. Apart from that, the God-Man Jesus Christ is a complete stranger, whatever teaching tools we try to use.

If Jesus Christ being with them in the flesh was insufficient for them to properly understand Him, and they were with Him daily and hourly for three years, what can we possibly hope to get from a depiction 2,000 years removed from His first coming?

I share all of this as one still trying to come to grips on certain details and applications of the second commandment myself, though may God reveal to each of us more and more the Lord Jesus Christ as He truly is, and not as we would imagine Him to be. A lifelong process.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 4, 2017)

I really appreciate Dr. Sproul. I haven't found much that I disagree with him on. But there are some things that I know he's wrong about. This is one of them. I've always hated pictures of Jesus even when I was a kid. I just thought it was super creepy to have God's picture hanging around, but thought I was a bad person for hating them till I went reformed and learned we're not suppose to have them. That was awesome news!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 4, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am not denying at all anything that agreed upon per Chaledon, as I was just saying that God Himself has come to us in human flesh, and so we should be able to represent Him as being God in human flesh with us. The picture/painting is not Him, is not to venerate or have us show affection towards, as it is honoring Him by presentation of Him.





Dachaser said:


> I stand corrected, as I was not thinking through fully what my position was in this area.





Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Exactly what is your position?



Have you come to a more studied position on this matter, David? Do you still think images of Our Lord are acceptable for _honoring_ Him so long as we do not venerate these images?


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 4, 2017)

There is much pressure, and I believe worth considering, from a media saturated culture to have the story told in a medium they appreciate. I worked for a period of time on a project producing bible stories in Arabic from Genesis to the Cross, and they had to meet the prescribed standards of Hallal regarding images of the prophets or God. What was understood was that the target audience solely interacted through movies, not books, and do not worship images (not a feature of Muslim culture), so movies are a profoundly effective for presenting God's word to that culture. The prophets or God, when in the story, were either bright lights or off screen (no shadow or silhouette), so as not to falsely portray them. The audience is a largely oral culture, and there are many such cultures today for whom a written word makes no sense, and who have no heritage of image worship to contend with. Roll forward to mainline secular cultures, for example Japan, for whom there is no heritage of idol worship, but increasingly education and information exchange is visual through movies and manga. There is a struggle now about how to portray the gospel to this manner of culture, which I daresay future generations in America will fall into that category. I am not suggesting we lift the 2nd Commandment; I am suggesting we recognize that how the church of the Reformation has interpreted it has been through the lens of literate, book based gospel presentation with Catholic Image veneration as our heritage. Much of the world today, and in the future, does not share that lens, and yet the church grows. Evangelicals have little direct memory of image worship, and yet have no compunction about producing the Jesus film in every possible language they can - well intentioned, but to the reformed, a violation of the 2nd commandment. How might we speak to them in a way that honors the intention, which is not to create idols but rather to proclaim the gospel to the world outside of the gutenberg press, and likewise brings them back to the letter and intent of the 2nd commandment? Or do we care?


----------



## earl40 (Sep 4, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> How might we speak to them in a way that honors the intention, which is not to create idols but rather to proclaim the gospel to the world outside of the gutenberg press, and likewise brings them back to the letter and intent of the 2nd commandment? Or do we care?



The way to speak to them is by preaching which is common to every culture. Let us be honest, how many people had a bible before the press?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nate (Sep 4, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> There is a struggle now about how to portray the gospel to this manner of culture, which I daresay future generations in America will fall into that category.
> ...How might we speak to them in a way that honors the intention, which is not to create idols but rather to proclaim the gospel to the world outside of the gutenberg press, and likewise brings them back to the letter and intent of the 2nd commandment? Or do we care?





> For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.


I Corinthians 1:21



> 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”


Romans 10:14-15

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 5, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Have you come to a more studied position on this matter, David? Do you still think images of Our Lord are acceptable for _honoring_ Him so long as we do not venerate these images?


I think that my position on this was not fully taking into account what the Commandment really was intended to speak to us concerning how God wants us to correctly honor and revere Him, so would see myself lining up now and agreeing with those posting here that see any representations of Jesus as being in violation of that being expressly forbidden by God. I think that a lot of what I was thinking here was much more driven by being conditioned by the culture than the scriptures in this circumstance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stope (Sep 5, 2017)

Berean said:


> Josh needs a tutorial on how to reasonably resize images so as not to SHOUT.


hehehe


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I think that my position on this was not fully tsking into account what the Commandment really was intended to speak to us concerning how God wants us to correct honor and revere Him, so would see myself lining up not and agreeing with those posting here that see any representations of Jesus as being in violation of that being expressly forbidden by God. I think that a lot of what I was thinking here was much more driven by being conditioned by the culture than the scriptures in this circumstance.


I cannot make out this garbled phrase "_so would see myself lining up not and agreeing_", but I think you are actually stating here that you now rightly view all images of Our Lord to be forbidden. Correct?

AMR


----------



## Ben Zartman (Sep 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I think that my position on this was not fully tsking into account what the Commandment really was intended to speak to us concerning how God wants us to correct honor and revere Him, so would see myself lining up not and agreeing with those posting here that see any representations of Jesus as being in violation of that being expressly forbidden by God. I think that a lot of what I was thinking here was much more driven by being conditioned by the culture than the scriptures in this circumstance.


Brother, your skill at obfuscation is truly enviable! After six or so attempts, I still can't make head or tail of this. What does "lining up and not agreeing" mean? Please make really short sentences for me.
Blessings to you.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 5, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I cannot make out this garbled phrase "_so would see myself lining up not and agreeing_", but I think you are actually stating here that you now rightly view all images of Our Lord to be forbidden. Correct?
> 
> AMR


That would be correct.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 5, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> Brother, your skill at obfuscation is truly enviable! After six or so attempts, I still can't make head or tail of this. What does "lining up and not agreeing" mean? Please make really short sentences for me.
> Blessings to you.


Please read the edited posting.


----------

