# Do all images of "Christ" violate the 2nd Commandment?



## Kiffin

Is everyone agreed on this?

Isn't it possible to NOT be idolatrous towards "images''?

When I hear a sermon on the crucifixion and create "images" in my head (inevitable in my opinion), am I violating the 2nd commandment?

Isn't it one thing to have images of "Christ" for illustrative purposes (i.e. kids' Sunday school, etc) and another to have images of "Christ" to worship?


----------



## bouletheou

EJ,

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. No.

WLC
Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. 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 worshipping 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.

Heidelberg Catechism
Question 96. What does God require in the second commandment?
Answer: That we in no wise represent God by images, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his word.

Question 97. Are images then not at all to be made?
Answer: God neither can, nor may be represented by any means: but as to creatures; though they may be represented, yet God forbids to make, or have any resemblance of them, either in order to worship them or to serve God by them. 

Question 98. But may not images be tolerated in the churches, as books to the laity?
Answer: No: for we must not pretend to be wiser than God, who will have his people taught, not by dump images, (a) but by the lively preaching of his word.

I know this is extremely counter-cultural, but this was mainstream Reformed thought in all its branches from the 1500's all the way up until the early 20th c.

Blessings,


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Our pastor says that there are some artistic images of Christ in his humanity that do not break the 2nd commandment. I don't know. Personally I have evicted all images like that from my home, unless they are in books or such.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I asked a similar question here.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f121/older-guy-question-concerning-images-Christ-my-mind-while-praying-38128/

You might benefit from reading this. It is Chapter 4 of J. I. Packers book Knowing God. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/j-i-packer-knowing-god-chapter-4-only-true-god-second-commandment-328/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/second-commandment-pictures-Christ-106/

Also check this link out. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/faith-no-fancy-treatise-mental-images-ralph-erskine-28568/


----------



## jandrusk

I would agree. I think the point at which you are looking for exceptions for breaking God's law your taking a ride on the downward slide of disobedience. The catechism references outline this as far as the 2nd commandment is concerned and this is why the Roman Catholic church expunged that commandment from their bibles.


----------



## Kiffin

Brethren,

Thanks for all the replies. Honestly, I am torn on this. I'm going to take some time to look/read into this.

EJ


----------



## Romans922

"Secondly, pictures of Christ are in principle a violation of the second commandment. 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. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship. But since the materials for this medium of worship are not derived from the only revelation we possess respecting Jesus, namely, Scripture, the worship is constrained by a creation of the human mind that has no revelatory warrant. This is will-worship. For the principle of the second commandment is that we are to worship God only in ways ... See Moreprescribed and authorized by him. It is a grievous sin to have worship constrained by a human figment, and that is what a picture of the Saviour involves." - John Murray


Calvin: "We believe it wrong that God should be represented by a visible appearance, because he himself has forbidden it [Exodus 20:4] and it cannot be done without some defacing of his glory (Institutes 1.11.12)." and "Therefore it remains that only those things are to be sculptured or painted which the eyes are capable of seeing: let... See More not God's majesty, which is far above the perception of the eyes, be debased through unseemly representations (Institutes 1.11.12)."

"QUESTION 5: Is it not lawful to have images or pictures of God by us, so we do not worship them, nor God by them?
ANSWER: The images or pictures of God are an abomination, and utterly unlawful, because they debase God, and may be a cause of idolatrous worship.
QUESTION 6: Is it not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, he being a man as well as God?
ANSWER: It 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 stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment." - Thomas Vincent, A Family Instructional Guide


----------



## dudley

As a Protestant who understands the dangers of superstitious idolotry, because I am an ex Roman catholic, I believe that images can become manifest in idolotry. The images or pictures of God are an abomination, and utterly unlawful, because they debase God, and may be a cause of idolatrous worship.


----------



## Jared

> You might benefit from reading this. It is Chapter 4 of J. I. Packers book Knowing God.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...mmandment-328/



I'm reading that book right now and I just read that chapter. It got me started thinking about this as well. I have decided that Christians shouldn't have pictures of Christ in their home hanging on the wall (I didn't have any anyway) and I also felt convicted about a shirt that I had bought that said "I heart" and then had a picture of Christ. I haven't been wearing it. I actually bought it because Mark Driscoll wears shirts like that. 

Anyway, I have come to question this more than I had before. I'm still wondering however about:
1. Pictures of Christ in chilldren's literature. (I have two children's books by Noel Piper, John Piper's wife and both of them have pictures of Christ)
2. Easter plays.
3. The Passion of The Christ.


----------



## bouletheou

I had an interesting experience a few years back. I was discipling a guy who had been raised as a nominal Lutheran. His head was full of the "Jesus of the Sunday School pictures." You know, the slightly effeminate hippy-Jesus with a pink ribbon in his hair. He was reading the gospel of Matthew for the first time and he came up to me before church one Sunday and said, "Man, Jesus was mean!"

He thought he knew who Christ is. He based his whole concept on the images he was shown. They mislead him. The human heart is an idol factory. We create the Jesus we want to create when we make up images of him.


----------



## Philip

A quandary that I have pondered and was wondering if anyone here had an answer for (and I'm not meaning to question the confession here) is this:

If photography had been available in the first century, would a photograph of the crucifixion for a newspaper have constituted a violation of the 2nd commandment? If so, why? If not, then what is the moral distinction between the art of photography and the arts of painting, sculpture, and the like?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Maybe the best answer is that God providentially brought Christ in a time when that hypothetical remains nothing but.

Would a camera shot of the theophany that scared Manoah half to death (when he realized what his encounter was about) do the same thing to you or me, once we realized what we were looking at?


----------



## Reepicheep

I have always thought it was interesting that Moses put a serpent up on a pole and Jesus later says it was an _image_ relating to Himself (John 3:14-15). I don't think this is prototypical, but clearly the serpent was an image of Christ, right?


----------



## py3ak

I had always thought that the brass serpent was, in fact, an image of a serpent. The point of comparison in John 3 is in the lifting up.


----------



## JML

Reepicheep said:


> I have always thought it was interesting that Moses put a serpent up on a pole and Jesus later says it was an _image_ relating to Himself (John 3:14-15). I don't think this is prototypical, but clearly the serpent was an image of Christ, right?



I don't see Christ saying it was an image of Himself. John is making a comparison. Just like the serpent was lifted up, so must the Son of Man be lifted up that those who look to Him will be saved.


----------



## Reepicheep

I agree John and I'm not really arguing for pictures of Christ as such. But I do think Jesus made it so we cannot think of the serpent Moses raised without thinking of Him.


----------



## JML

Reepicheep said:


> I agree John and I'm not really arguing for pictures of Christ as such. But I do think Jesus made it so we cannot think of the serpent Moses raised without thinking of Him.



Sure. Just as when we partake of the elements of the Lord's Supper we think of Him. But I don't think that we would consider the bread an image of Him.


----------



## lynnie

Oh man, now are guys going to tell me the shroud of Turin isn't showing us the face of Jesus? 

Just kidding.

For what it is worth in my PCA experience the ordained elders have no problem with bible story books that show Jesus doing his earthly ministry. I assume they take exceptions on this, and many of them also take sabbath exceptions to some degree, although as far as I know they consider themselves confessional. I am not trying to say they are right, but to go back to the OP asking if everybody is agreed on this, they might be agreed at PB, but they are certainly not agreed in the PCA. 
 
I don't know how anybody can read this and not form a mental image. Come on now. I don't think it is sinful to form a mental image of what John saw here- if God was against that why would he describe it? 

_and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. _


----------



## Reepicheep

I'm not sure that comparison works. We partake of the elements. The serpent is something that was _looked_ upon and contemplated. Indeed the Israelites looked upon the serpent and lived. They didn't partake of it. Later we find out from Jesus that serpent was _in some way_ a representation of Himself.


----------



## JML

> I'm not sure that comparison works. We partake of the elements. The serpent is something that was looked upon and contemplated. Indeed the Israelites looked upon the serpent and lived. They didn't partake of it. Later we find out from Jesus that serpent was in some way a representation of Himself.



*Luke 22:19*
19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “*This is My body* which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 

Don't worry, I'm not supporting transubstantiation here. Just saying that he compared the bread to his body. We look upon the bread and think of the Lord whose body was broken for us (1 Corinthians 11). Just as they looked upon the serpent and were saved. So I still wouldn't say that either are images of Him.


----------



## Reepicheep

OK then, in both cases we have images of Christ, do we not?


----------



## JML

Reepicheep said:


> OK then, in both cases we have images of Christ, do we not?


 
No, we have things that make us remember Him, not form an image of Him. Remember when the Israelites crossed the Jordan and set up the stones to remember the works of God.

*Joshua 4:1-7*
1 And it came to pass, when all the people had completely crossed over the Jordan, that the LORD spoke to Joshua, saying: 2 “Take for yourselves twelve men from the people, one man from every tribe, 3 and command them, saying, ‘Take for yourselves twelve stones from here, out of the midst of the Jordan, from the place where the priests’ feet stood firm. You shall carry them over with you and leave them in the lodging place where you lodge tonight.’”
4 Then Joshua called the twelve men whom he had appointed from the children of Israel, one man from every tribe; 5 and Joshua said to them: “Cross over before the ark of the LORD your God into the midst of the Jordan, and each one of you take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel, 6 that this may be a sign among you when your children ask in time to come, saying,* ‘What do these stones mean to you?’ 7 Then you shall answer them that the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD; when it crossed over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. And these stones shall be for a memorial to the children of Israel forever.*”

Thinking about Christ is not the same thing as making an image of Him.

---------- Post added at 10:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 PM ----------




Kiffin said:


> When I hear a sermon on the crucifixion and create "images" in my head (inevitable in my opinion), am I violating the 2nd commandment?



Unfortunately, I think it is inevitable because we (myself included) have seen so many representations of Christ such as movies, pictures, etc. I wish I had never seen the Passion or any of those so called pictures so that they would not come into my mind.


----------



## Romans922

John, would your church, hold to a Reformed understanding (Calvin's understanding) of the Supper or Zwinglian?


----------



## JML

Romans922 said:


> John, would your church, hold to a Reformed understanding (Calvin's understanding) of the Supper or Zwinglian?


 
I will send you a private message because I think we would be taking this thread off course.


----------



## Heidelberg1

Kiffin said:


> When I hear a sermon on the crucifixion and create "images" in my head (inevitable in my opinion), am I violating the 2nd commandment?



O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Gal 3:1



> Calvin's Commentary on Galatians 3:1. "The meaning therefore is, that Paul’s doctrine had instructed them concerning Christ in such a manner as if he had been exhibited to them in a picture, nay, “crucified among them.” Such a representation could not have been made by any eloquence, or by “enticing words of man’s wisdom,” (1 Corinthians 2:4,) had it not been accompanied by that power of the Spirit, of which Paul has treated largely in both the Epistles to the Corinthians. Let those who would discharge aright the ministry of the gospel learn, not merely to speak and declaim, but to penetrate into the consciences of men, to make them see Christ crucified, and feel the shedding of his blood. “Display the sufferings of Christ like one who was an eye-witness of those sufferings, and hold up the blood, the precious blood of atonement, as issuing warm from the cross.” — Robert Hall.



I have wondered about how Galatians 3:1 relates to your question about mental images. The public portrayal of Christ as crucified was through the preaching of the gospel. How would a public portrayal of Christ as crucified through the preaching of the gospel not produce some kind of mental image in the minds of the hearers? What does Calvin mean when he says to "penetrate into the consciences of men, to make them see Christ crucified, and feel the shedding of his blood."

I have the same tendency to be flooded with mental images when I hear Isaiah 53, or the accounts of the crucifixion read from the pulpit. They powerfully paint a picture of Christ's substitutionary atonement that moves me. 

What would be a godly approach to hearing those Scriptures?


----------



## Kiffin

159th GS MINUTES May 22, 1981, pp. 189-207

Note: I'm not endorsing, agreeing or disagreeing with, anything in this overture . But I do want to see a few of you interact with it. 



> It should also be pointed out that, in the providence of God, the RPCES never instituted the proposed changes in its edition of the Westminster Confession or Catechisms, due to its reception into the PCA in 1982.



Still, is their any merit to their argument?


----------



## Andres

The Confessions are pretty clear on this: 



> Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
> A. 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 worshipping 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.



For us to argue that it is permissiable to look upon the images if they are in children's books or for Sunday school is a silly compromise. God has given parents a great responsibility to instruct their children in godliness and also to guard them against sin. This includes monitoring the types of kid's bibles or other Christian literature we give them. For a beautiful example of this, see this earlier post by Brad. Also to say that John Piper and his wife have put out children's books that include images means little. I greatly respect Pastor Piper and I am so very grateful for the ministry God has given Him, but I have to respectfully disagree with him on this issue and I would not let my children read those books.


----------



## Kiffin

Exodus 20:4-6



> 4"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. 5You 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.



Doesn't "You shall not bow down to them or serve them" qualify v.4? If not, wouldn't photography and art go against v.4? I do not think pictures or sculptures of animals would be breaking the 2nd commandment. Well, unless I worship them.

What am I missing?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have a question... Did you read the articles I posted on my post before? You obviously have not or this would not be question. Please read them. Even God had images carved of angels on the arch of the Covenant. Please read the links I listed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

lynnie said:


> Oh man, now are guys going to tell me the shroud of Turin isn't showing us the face of Jesus?
> 
> Just kidding.
> 
> For what it is worth in my PCA experience the ordained elders have no problem with bible story books that show Jesus doing his earthly ministry. I assume they take exceptions on this, and many of them also take sabbath exceptions to some degree, although as far as I know they consider themselves confessional. I am not trying to say they are right, but to go back to the OP asking if everybody is agreed on this, they might be agreed at PB, but they are certainly not agreed in the PCA.
> 
> I don't know how anybody can read this and not form a mental image. Come on now. I don't think it is sinful to form a mental image of what John saw here- if God was against that why would he describe it?
> 
> _and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. _


 
His appearance was like. This does not give specifics and is highly symbolic language. Do you see the skin tone of a white or black man? Does this render your mind to see a beard on God? This is meant symbolically and not to be picturesque of God nor a true picture of the Son of God for you see him as he is. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Kiffin

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have a question... Did you read the articles I posted on my post before? You obviously have not or this would not be question. Please read them. Even God had images carved of angels on the arch of the Covenant. Please read the links I listed.



Ok, did more than just skimming just now (my weakness). I still haven't read Erskine's. It's a little straining on the eye. 

What do you envision when you read or hear about the crucifixion?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I do not place images of what Christ looked like? Do you? BTW, J. I. Packer and my blog address other issues. Reread much slower and more pointedly.


----------



## Kiffin

Honestly, it is hard not to. If it is sin, I need to somehow train my mind not to. How do we read a story and not place mental images of places and characters? How do I hinder my mind picturing a "man" nailed to the cross when I read that account in Scripture?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I still think you need to read the articles linked to more indepth. Take some time to meditate and consider what is being said in light of scripture. Your quick responses are indicative to me that you have not done this. It took me years to come to some of the conclusions I know to be true. I am sure you can say the same thing. And you are wanting two second responses. That aint gonna happen. Take some time to read through the articles and the means Christ has given us for seeing him in the sacraments. 

BTW, I would also recommend a book to you to read by Rev. Danny Hyde.
[url=http://www.heritagebooks.org/products/-In-Living-Color:-Images-of-Christ-and-the-Means-of-Grace.html]In Living Color: Images of Christ and the Means of Grace - Reformation Heritage Books
[/URL]
Before you jump on any band wagon listen to what is being said. You are not doing this (taking time to ingest and think about the whole) in my opinion and in my interaction with you. You want two minute responses to scripture quotations that will answer your eternal questions. That is something that is unwise. I am one of the few people that I have ever known to come to faith in Christ as a Calvinist. I do not know many who understand the Doctrines of Grace from the outset. I got saved reading a bible in a Naval Barracks and believed John 15:16 right away. That doesn't happen for most people. It take years sometimes for true understanding to come about. Take a few days to read about it.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Reepicheep said:


> I have always thought it was interesting that Moses put a serpent up on a pole and Jesus later says it was an _image_ relating to Himself (John 3:14-15). I don't think this is prototypical, but clearly the serpent was an image of Christ, right?


 
Here is what happened to Nehushtan:

2 Kings 18:3-4 KJV
[3] And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.
[4] He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and *brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan*.

This is the passage to show Roman Catholics when they try to bring that up.


----------



## nnatew24

Regarding children's books and illustrations: I don't think a silhouette or similar representation is a violation of the commandment. When the artist is clearly not attempting to portray Christ as a distinguishable figure or in a realistic manner, then I don't believe it violates the 2nd commandment. Jesus was a human being, after all, and "He is the *image* of the invisible God".


----------



## matt01

Joshua said:


> Absolutely. "Thou shalt not MAKE..."



I agree with Joshua.

On a related note, we were in a CRC church last Friday, listening to Handel's Messiah...I looked up at the side walls, and all of the windows had a depiction of Christ in a various stage from his life. I was shocked to see them in that church.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Let me add three points I've made in the past, and may bear repeating:

1) If we make _any_ image of God, it will _certainly_ put us in mind of God. And it is *sinful* not to have _worshipful_ thoughts of God, whenever we think of him. Ergo, if an image of Christ (or any of the other Persons) doesn't lead you to worship, then you don't need it. And if it does lead you, then _by definition_ it is idolatrous.

2) What about Man, made in God's image? Well, if God made something (or told us to make something), and meant by it to lift our thoughts beyond the creation to the God, then it probably fulfills its function when it is properly used. That, however, does not give us the right to create _our own_ such images.

3) Finally, realize that when we make, for instance, an image of Christ (because he was a man, etc.) we are *going in the opposite direction* from the direction that the disciples went (when they walked with Jesus, in his flesh), and the opposite direction from which their witness to Jesus in the Bible is meant to take us.

Those men (and the other followers, like Martha for example) went from an understanding that "Jesus is a human, like me," to this understanding: "Jesus is not JUST a human, like me; but he is God-with-us, Immanuel." In other words, the purpose of them being with Jesus--and by extension our encounter with Jesus in the Gospels, especially--is so that we will move from "knowing Christ after the flesh, to knowing him thus no longer" (2Cor.5:16).

ANY image we make of Jesus is necessarily reductionistic. It is trying to capture within our finite apprehensions One who defies our attempts. This is the wrong "move" directionally. Our thoughts are already too small with Jesus; we need to be moving in the "greater" direction, not trying to capture Jesus "humanity" in a depiction (a division that is inherently anti-Chalcedonian by its very nature).

John's description of the risen Christ (Rev.1) isn't meant for us to fixate mentally upon: a glowing man with a sword protruding from his oral orifice. The description is John's attempt to describe an indescribable sight to us. It is meant to put us in mind of the words of Daniel's prophecy, etc.

The FACT of the incarnation, which is a matter of faith in the Word of God, is sufficient to teach us that Jesus was "like me." That he died, only underscores that fact. That he was holy (as I am not), that he spoke as never any man spake, that he rose from the dead--that he fulfilled God's promises for salvation made during the period of OT revelation--all this is for the purpose of teaching me that Jesus was MORE than man. He was the Son of God.


----------



## Andres

Contra_Mundum said:


> Finally, realize that when we make, for instance, an image of Christ (because he was a man, etc.) we are *going in the opposite direction* from the direction that the disciples went (when they walked with Jesus, in his flesh), and the opposite direction from which their witness to Jesus in the Bible is meant to take us.
> 
> Those men (and the other followers, like Martha for example) went from an understanding that "Jesus is a human, like me," to this understanding: "Jesus is not JUST a human, like me; but he is God-with-us, Immanuel." In other words, the purpose of them being with Jesus--and by extension our encounter with Jesus in the Gospels, especially--is so that we will move from "knowing Christ after the flesh, to knowing him thus no longer" (2Cor.5:16).
> 
> ANY image we make of Jesus is necessarily reductionistic. It is trying to capture within our finite apprehensions One who defies our attempts. This is the wrong "move" directionally. Our thoughts are already too small with Jesus; we need to be moving in the "greater" direction, not trying to capture Jesus "humanity" in a depiction (a division that is inherently anti-Chalcedonian by its very nature).


 
Rev Buchanan, thank you for you insightful post. I was blessed by all of it, but especially enjoyed your above point. For myself, this is the crux of the argument.


----------



## AThornquist

But if we didn't have images of Christ, how would we have learned that he was surprisingly white for that region?


----------



## earl40

Joshua said:


> Absolutely. "Thou shalt not MAKE..."



And all this time I thought your avatar was a picture of Jesus.


----------



## Kiffin

AThornquist said:


> But if we didn't have images of Christ, how would we have learned that he was surprisingly white for that region?


 
I know you're joking and I know what you're saying, but doesn't this suggest that you have a better "picture" of Christ?


----------



## AThornquist

Kiffin said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if we didn't have images of Christ, how would we have learned that he was surprisingly white for that region?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you're joking and I know what you're saying, but *doesn't this suggest that you have a better "picture" of Christ?*
Click to expand...

 
I apologize. I'm not sure what you mean here.


----------



## Kiffin

You disagree with the "European-looking" Jesus right? Why?


----------



## Skyler

There's a difference between making images of God and making images of Jesus' human nature (which was NOT God).


----------



## AThornquist

Kiffin said:


> You disagree with the "European-looking" Jesus right? Why?


 
I disagree with any picture trying to depict Jesus. 2nd Commandment issues aside though (which I am working through but have yet to come to a firm conclusion), there are some pictures that are less accurate than others if one intends to depict "the average Middle-Eastern man." Of course, to even embark upon such a task is silly because it is just as impossible to depict "the average North American white man." Yet even in this case it would be simply counter-intuitive to depict the white man as having dark skin with common Middle-Eastern features, similar to depicting a Middle-Eastern man as white with common North American or European features. 

Let me put it another way: if someone wanted to make a golden calf to worship, I would find it laughable if the calf look like a duck-billed platypus (i.e. a glorified beaver). Do I agree with making the idol in the first place? Of course not. Even still, don't call it a golden calf if it's not a calf.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Skyler said:


> There's a difference between making images of God and making images of Jesus' human nature (which was NOT God).


 
Jonathan,
The problem with your comment is that to make the "image of Jesus human nature" presupposes that it is legitimate to separate (more than for a didactic purpose in comprehension) one of Jesus' two _inseparable_ natures. This move is implicitly Nestorian, and the Chalcedonian Creed opposes any move that divides the two natures: divine and human. They are united without conversion, confusion or composition in "one person, forever."

If you say, "well, that's JUST Jesus' human nature, and I don't worship THAT," you have mistaken the fact that you worship a PERSON anyway, and not a nature. Neither would you say you worship Jesus' DIVINE nature. You worship Jesus, a Person with two natures.

Nor is it legitimate to say that you may think of the human nature without passing on to the Person who possess it. But, if you use an unauthorized image to put you in mind of God, that is idolatry by definition.

The bottom line is, to make the sort of separation that you just made does, actually, propose that it is possible to present the Person of Jesus as NOT an object of worship. This stance is sub-Christian--not YOU, but the position that you are toying with. Please consider the history of the church's mind on this.

Blessings,


----------



## Skyler

Contra_Mundum said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between making images of God and making images of Jesus' human nature (which was NOT God).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan,
> The problem with your comment is that to make the "image of Jesus human nature" presupposes that it is legitimate to separate (more than for a didactic purpose in comprehension) one of Jesus' two _inseparable_ natures. This move is implicitly Nestorian, and the Chalcedonian Creed opposes any move that divides the two natures: divine and human. They are united without conversion, confusion or composition in "one person, forever."
Click to expand...


Nonetheless, it is also valid (or at least I was told it was valid in another thread) to distinguish between Jesus' human nature and his divine nature in the context of his actions (i.e., loving his enemies). If it is true in that case, why not in the case of his physical appearance as well? Or can his divine nature also be said to love his enemies?



> If you say, "well, that's JUST Jesus' human nature, and I don't worship THAT," you have mistaken the fact that you worship a PERSON anyway, and not a nature. Neither would you say you worship Jesus' DIVINE nature. You worship Jesus, a Person with two natures.



Agreed.



> Nor is it legitimate to say that you may think of the human nature without passing on to the Person who possess it. But, if you use an unauthorized image to put you in mind of God, that is idolatry by definition.



Does this not include, also, the Trinity symbol(three intertwining circles) or the cross, since those achieve the same effect?


----------



## Rich Koster

The image I have of Christ is the God/man coming to rescue me from this body of death. Acts 1:11


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Skyler said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between making images of God and making images of Jesus' human nature (which was NOT God).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan,
> The problem with your comment is that to make the "image of Jesus human nature" presupposes that it is legitimate to separate (more than for a didactic purpose in comprehension) one of Jesus' two _inseparable_ natures. This move is implicitly Nestorian, and the Chalcedonian Creed opposes any move that divides the two natures: divine and human. They are united without conversion, confusion or composition in "one person, forever."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, it is also valid (or at least I was told it was valid in another thread) to distinguish between Jesus' human nature and his divine nature in the context of his actions (i.e., loving his enemies). If it is true in that case, why not in the case of his physical appearance as well? Or can his divine nature also be said to love his enemies?
Click to expand...


Skyler. You have to contend with the fathers. You are going way over board and not dealing with what we have said in my opinion. You are also wanting two minute answers to a long standing answer that was answered by the early church as well as the Reformational church. The early church didn't approve of images of Christ. The Reformation went back to that. 

To answer your little question I will quote some passages. 



> (Mat 5:44) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
> 
> (Mat 5:45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
> 
> (Mat 5:46) For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
> 
> (Mat 5:47) And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
> 
> (Mat 5:48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.








> (Joh 5:19) Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
> 
> (Joh 5:20) For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
> 
> (Joh 5:21) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
> 
> (Joh 5:22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:



P.S. did you read with intent the links I provided earlier? I am willing to bet you haven't read them intently nor meditatively.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Jonathan,
regarding your questions:
1) My previous reply acknowledges the arena in which it is legitimate to distinguish (which isn't the same thing as separate, anyway) between the two natures, in order to speak/understand/teach concerning properties of each. But the specific question under consideration has to do with whether or not it is proper to make any "images" (visual/pictographic representations) of one, all, or any of the three Persons of the Godhead (especially of Christ). To assert that one may make such an image as some sort of aid to understanding only begs the question of validity. Not ANY method of learning a subject is legitimate. Consider how "educational" but "inapt" (i.e. sinful) a stereotypical "bachelor party" is for a prospective husband, visual or otherwise.

2) Your second question (in that paragraph) I simply respond asking you to reconceptualize the whole thing, keeping in mind this classic statement, relative to the distinction between "person" and "nature":Persons act.
Natures are.​The divine Christ may act in accord with one nature, or the other, or both at the same time. That's his prerogative. We may understand a statement of Scripture better if we understand that it proceeds from, or has reference to one nature, possibly to the exclusion of the other.

3) I do not recommend using any symbols for God, other than the words on a page. All of them fail at one or many points. But despite its weakness, the Word is nevertheless the best, and it is has the advantage of Authorization. The mystery of the triune Godhead is one of those revealed things I believe in which we are simply meant to contemplate, wonder, and worship a God who is out of our league.

Happy cogitations!


----------

