Images

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Senior
So I know this is very opinionated territory, but I'm still searching. Is there anything in the Bible that would prohibit us from images?

I know the confession teaches they are wrong, but the second commandment has to do with worship, and not just images alone.

One esteemed person just told me that it is all the more okay to have an image of Jesus, because God took on flesh, so now we actually have a proper representation of our Lord (while he was on earth that is).
 
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything [that is intended to represent, depict, portray, or otherwise show to your senses what I -the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land Egypt- look like].

Seems pretty definitive. The making of this is not limited to the context of worship. It's a standalone statement proscribing its very creation. Don't make 'em. Don't countenance them. Don't worship them. Our departed Brother Sproul now knows -and happily assents- that purported images of Christ are folly, and are worthy only to be burned and cast into the Brook Kidron.
 
We are not told what Jesus looked like, I think, for a very good reason: it is his person and work we are to look to and not his physical traits. To the "esteemed" persons assertion: whatever image someone makes up is merely speculation as is far from "a proper representation" on the order of a pic of Charles Manson being an accurate representation of the life of George Gillespie x1,000,000.....
 
It's impossible because it is a moral dilemma involving violating either the 2nd or 3rd (at least) commandments, as Thomas Vincent on the WSC puts it succintly: "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 do stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment." http://www.shortercatechism.com/resources/vincent/wsc_vi_051.html
 
The Second Commandment deals with mode of worship. At the core of the commandment is God's right to set the parameters for his worship. This is precisely why God calls himself "Jealous" in conjunction with this commandment. He is expressing himself as the God who jealously guards his worship against any impurity; idolatry being the most obvious example of this.

Since the Second Commandment governs all questions of mode of worship, it prohibits images of any Person of the Trinity right off the bat, since worshipping God that way is never commanded. See Chris' comment above.
 
If anyone thinks there can be an image of Christ (or any Person of the Trinity) that is innocuous and not meant to inspire worship, they have violated the Third Commandment.

If anyone thinks there can be an image of Christ (or any Person of the Trinity) that is accurate and helpful in enhancing their worship, they have violated the Second Commandment.
 
Ryan,

This is a good topic, one I've thought a lot about. I used to also not see a problem with images of Jesus. Here are some reasons I believe we shouldn't:

1. I had a Bible as a child with images of Jesus. He looked kind of like a Caucasian with wavy brown hair in robes. The real Jesus likely had hair only half an inch long or so, with darker complexion. It is very easy to want to picture Jesus in our image rather than the actual flesh He assumed. Even now, some of those images are difficult to get out of my head.

2. Even if we image with historical accuracy, we could only possibly picture His human nature. The Bible is clear that we cannot picture the divine nature. But since Jesus is a person not a nature, we end up severing the human from the divine when we image Him. If severed, He is no longer Jesus but a figment of our imagination.

3. If we are not to image God and Jesus is God, we shouldn't image Him simply for the reason that He tells us not to.

I'm sure you've checked the Westminster, but Heidelberg is also instructive if you haven't looked at it recently:

"96. What does God require in the second commandment?

That we in no way make any image of God,1 nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word.2

[1] Deut. 4:15–19; Isa. 40:18, 25. Rom. 1:22–24; Acts 17:29. [2] 1 Sam. 15:23; Deut. 12:30–32; Matt. 15:9; *Deut. 4:23–24; *Jn. 4:24.

97. May we not make any image at all?

God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures, though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve God by them.1

[1] Ex. 23:24–25; 34:13–14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:22; 2 Kgs. 18:4; *Jn. 1:18.

98. But may not pictures be tolerated in churches as books for the people?

No, for we should not be wiser than God, who will not have His people taught by dumb idols,1 but by the lively preaching of His Word.2

[1] Jer. 10:8; Hab. 2:18–19. [2] 2 Pet. 1:19; 2 Tim. 3:16–17; Rom. 10:17."
 
"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." (John Calvin, Sermon 23 on Deuteronomy, 23 May, 1555).
 
Also, why would we want to? To teach our children? To feel closer to God? If for our children, we end up making Him smaller. Do we want to teach our children about God by reducing the Person of Christ to a human nature alone? Do we feel closer to God when we can see Him? Don't we live by faith, not by sight?

I think if you consider the question ("why?") alone you will notice quickly that there are only bad reasons, not good ones.

Hope this is helpful. These were some of the most compelling points as I was considering the same question.

Ursinus:

"God is incorporeal and infinite; it is impossible, therefore, that he should be expressed, or represented by an image which is corporeal and finite, without detracting from his divine majesty, according as it is said: “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand; and meted out heaven with a span,” &c. “To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” “To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.” “Who changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” (Is. 40:12, 18, 25. Rom. 1:23.) 8. From the command of God. “Take ye, therefore, good heed unto yourselves, (for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire,) lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female; the likeness of any beast that is,” &c. (Deut. 4:15, 16.) 4. From the cause of this prohibition, which is that these images do not only profit nothing, but also injure men greatly, being the occasion and cause of idolatry and punishment. In short, God ought not to be represented by any graven image, because he does not will it, nor can it be done, nor would it profit any thing if it were done."
 
Last edited:
From an 'New Horizons' article on the OPC website, a quote from Calvin's Institutes ;
Man's nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols.... Man's mind, full as it is of pride and boldness, dares to imagine a god according to its own capacity; as it sluggishly plods, indeed is overwhelmed with the crassest ignorance, it conceives an unreality and an empty appearance as God.... To these evils a new wickedness joins itself, that man tries to express in his work the sort of God he has inwardly conceived. Therefore the mind begets an idol; the hand gives it birth.... Daily experience teaches that flesh is always uneasy until it has obtained some figment like itself in which it may fondly find solace as in an image of God. (1.11.8)
https://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=633
 
You won't find many arguments in favor of Jesus pictures on this board. If you want to read a Reformed report that says yes to Jesus pictures (and it's always a good idea to become familiar with both sides of an argument), an RPCES report made just before those churches joined the PCA is one place to start. The link has been posted on this board before, but I found it here: http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/rpces/docsynod/332.pdf

I'm sympathetic to that report's speculation that the Westminster divines may have been so fed up with the rampant abuse of images in worship in their day that they were tempted to overstate their opposition. Yet, I think that even if the report might possibly be right about that, pictures of Jesus are still a problem.

I teach Bible lessons to kids in settings where folks would typically expect me to use Jesus pictures. But I don't use such pictures, and no one even notices they're missing. I've observed that Jesus pictures invariably present a view that limits him and suggests he is less than then he truly is. Why would I want to do that? I don't even bother arguing about whether or not they're forbidden; I can see they're unhelpful.

Much as the monster in a horror movie is scariest when he's kept off-camera, the glory of Jesus is best displayed when he is unseen. No visual impression of Jesus could possibly do justice to the person. Instead we are given the Bible, and it contains rich, breathtaking, burning pictures of Jesus—in words.

That said, I will occasionally teach a lesson where I sketch a scene such as, say, a boat with a bunch of stick figures in it, and then explain and Jesus and his disciples were in a boat. I don't consider that to be creating a picture of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything [that is intended to represent, depict, portray, or otherwise show to your senses what I -the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land Egypt- look like].

Seems pretty definitive. The making of this is not limited to the context of worship. It's a standalone statement proscribing its very creation. Don't make 'em. Don't countenance them. Don't worship them. Our departed Brother Sproul now knows -and happily assents- that purported images of Christ are folly, and are worthy only to be burned and cast into the Brook Kidron.

Would this prohibition apply to something with a functional purpose, like a duck decoy used for hunting, or a bust of a criminal or terrorist created by our security services to help locate a wanted person? What about a re-creation by archeologists of a statue from the ancient world that survives in the original only in fragments? What about museum displays? Should we refrain from creating and displaying in a natural-history museum a three-dimensional image of the extinct dodo bird? What about an anatomical model of a human designed for use in medical school?

It seems unlikely that God intended for his commandments to make our lives more difficult. We don't serve God by imitating the Taliban.
 
Would this prohibition apply to something with a functional purpose, like a duck decoy used for hunting, or a bust of a criminal or terrorist created by our security services to help locate a wanted person? What about a re-creation by archeologists of a statue from the ancient world that survives in the original only in fragments? What about museum displays? Should we refrain from creating and displaying in a natural-history museum a three-dimensional image of the extinct dodo bird? What about an anatomical model of a human designed for use in medical school?
It would not apply, hence the bit about prohibiting the creation of things intended to portray the Godhead.

It seems unlikely that God intended for his commandments to make our lives more difficult. We don't serve God by imitating the Taliban.
I am not sure I understand your purpose/intention of making this statement. However, I will say that the Lord has given commandments that the natural man contends with as difficult all the time. But to us, they are not grievous, (1 John 5.3).
 
It would not apply, hence the bit about prohibiting the creation of things intended to portray the Godhead.

I am not sure I understand your purpose/intention of making this statement. However, I will say that the Lord has given commandments that the natural man contends with as difficult all the time. But to us, they are not grievous, (1 John 5.3).

You mentioned in your earlier post that we're prohibited from making any graven image (and that would include, for example, a duck decoy). My point was merely that the commandment you referred to has to be taken in the proper context, and that when we do so we realize that literalism here is highly problematic.
 
You mentioned in your earlier post that we're prohibited from making any graven image (and that would include, for example, a duck decoy). My point was merely that the commandment you referred to has to be taken in the proper context, and that when we do so we realize that literalism here is highly problematic.
I mentioned that we're prohibited from making any image THAT is intended to portray the Lord. If someone creates a duck decoy for that purpose, it obtains. That doesn't obtain to someone creating it for hunting duck. I also gave the context, namely that images should not be created portraying the "Lord [their] God which brought [them] out of the land of Egypt." It turns the commandment on its very head to deny that the first portion prohibits the very making of images [intended to depict the God Who brought them out of the idol-making, idol-worshipping bastion that was Egypt].
 
To sum up to the OP: We may not make images or pictures of God
We may not worship any images of anything
We may have sculptures as art.
We may have dolls for the children to play with
We may have effigies for clothing models in stores, for teaching CPR, for learning anatomy in medical school, for marionette shows--for any purpose we wish which does not violate the first two rules.
 
Ryan,

One of the criticisms made against Reformed believers is that they draw the line too sharp on matters such as the Sabbath day and images of Christ. However, if the line is sharply drawn it is not done because of man-made rules but because of what scripture clearly teaches. Andrew Barns is right, does scripture speak to the issue of images? If it does, what does it say? My betters have posted answers to those questions.
 
Thomas-

When Solomon built the Temple, it had cherubim and lions and palm trees and pomegranates. The "sea" had bulls underneath which is interesting given Israel's past temptation to worship a golden calf.

I never heard of anybody against what you describe, like decoys or models. I'd say the discussion is more like walking into a church that has a big picture hanging in the front of long haired "gentle Jesus" holding a lamb and gazing to the sky. Is that compatible with the fact that now we no longer know Jesus after the flesh? (I've seen that in churches.)

I still have some of what I consider to be excellent children's bible story books and the NT section has pictures of Jesus as a man. I haven't tossed them. But you can be sure that we taught our kids about the resurrection and how John described Jesus now in Revelation, in risen power. I am in the camp that thinks it is about worship, not making a sculpture or not.
 
.One esteemed person just told me that it is all the more okay to have an image of Jesus, because God took on flesh, so now we actually have a proper representation of our Lord (while he was on earth that is).

I just got thinking about the statement a little bit more. Do you think it would have been okay for Jacob to image the Man with whom he wrestled, or Moses to image the One with whom he spoke mouth to mouth?

It may also help for you to make a list of pros and cons. What would the pros be? What would the cons be? I'm not sure if you will find any pros...

Hope this helps.
 
That said, I will occasionally teach a lesson where I sketch a scene such as, say, a boat with a bunch of stick figures in it, and then explain and Jesus and his disciples were in a boat. I don't consider that to be creating a picture of Jesus.

Just wondering, what would you say/do if one of the parents came to you and said they are opposed to the drawing of Christ even in stick-figure?
 
I just got thinking about the statement a little bit more. Do you think it would have been okay for Jacob to image the Man with whom he wrestled, or Moses to image the One with whom he spoke mouth to mouth?

It may also help for you to make a list of pros and cons. What would the pros be? What would the cons be? I'm not sure if you will find any pros...

Hope this helps.
Absolutely. I think for me, I don't see many pros to images, but I almost want that freedom to be able to look at a picture of Jesus in front of me. I don't want to feel like I have to turn my head immediately to not see them. There are many images of Jesus in the world, so it would be comforting to know we have the freedom to look upon them.
 
Absolutely. I think for me, I don't see many pros to images, but I almost want that freedom to be able to look at a picture of Jesus in front of me. I don't want to feel like I have to turn my head immediately to not see them. There are many images of Jesus in the world, so it would be comforting to know we have the freedom to look upon them.

Ryan,

Perhaps others would disagree with me, but I don't think you necessarily have to turn your head when you see an image of Jesus any more that you have to turn away when you see an idol. You should not use the image for worship and you shouldn't be circulating the image for instructional purposes. When you see an image of "Jesus," you know that it is not Jesus.

The bronze serpent was good until it was viewed as an object of worship (I'm not inferring that some pictures of Jesus are good). It was not the looking upon the image itself that was evil, it was the idea that it was God (or a god).

I have some historical books that have occasional images of "Jesus." I don't feel the need to scribble them out or turn my eyes away, but I'm certainly not going to instruct my kids through the image or acknowledge that it is an image of my Savior.

Hope that clarifies.
 
Last edited:
I mentioned that we're prohibited from making any image THAT is intended to portray the Lord. If someone creates a duck decoy for that purpose, it obtains. That doesn't obtain to someone creating it for hunting duck. I also gave the context, namely that images should not be created portraying the "Lord [their] God which brought [them] out of the land of Egypt." It turns the commandment on its very head to deny that the first portion prohibits the very making of images [intended to depict the God Who brought them out of the idol-making, idol-worshipping bastion that was Egypt].

I turns out, happily, that we agree after all. The problem (for me; maybe I'm alone here) was the first comma in the first sentence of your first post. It gave me the impression that you may have been saying that all graven images were prohibited and that in addition, all material renderings of God, graven or not graven, were similarly prohibited. Again, it seems we're in agreement: It's the use the image is put to that makes it lawful or unlawful...
 
Images of Jesus do not exist; ergo, it is impossible to look upon one. However, the idol factories of men's hearts exist perpetually, in each of us. This is where the prohibition lies.
 
I turns out, happily, that we agree after all. The problem (for me; maybe I'm alone here) was the first comma in the first sentence of your first post. It gave me the impression that you may have been saying that all graven images were prohibited and that in addition, all material renderings of God, graven or not graven, were similarly prohibited. Again, it seems we're in agreement: It's the use the image is put to that makes it lawful or unlawful...
The creation of any image intended to represent any member of the Godhead [other than that instituted by God, e.g. bread and wine for body and blood] is forbidden. I am not sure how I could be any clearer in expression.
 
Thomas-


I never heard of anybody against what you describe, like decoys or models. I'd say the discussion is more like walking into a church that has a big picture hanging in the front of long haired "gentle Jesus" holding a lamb and gazing to the sky. Is that compatible with the fact that now we no longer know Jesus after the flesh? (I've seen that in churches.)

I still have some of what I consider to be excellent children's bible story books and the NT section has pictures of Jesus as a man. I haven't tossed them. But you can be sure that we taught our kids about the resurrection and how John described Jesus now in Revelation, in risen power. I am in the camp that thinks it is about worship, not making a sculpture or not.

I've actually known Christians who won't allow a statute of any kind in their homes. They're out there.

As for statutes of Jesus in church, I'm generally not a fan (for a number of reasons, all of them more or less spelled out by you and other contributors to this thread). But I think that Jesus as a figure in art isn't always objectionable. I don't think Michelangelo's Pietà (for example) does a disservice to the Christian religion. That said, I do think that this magnificent sculpture would be better off in a museum than a place of worship, strange as that may sound to some...
 
Absolutely. I think for me, I don't see many pros to images, but I almost want that freedom to be able to look at a picture of Jesus in front of me. I don't want to feel like I have to turn my head immediately to not see them. There are many images of Jesus in the world, so it would be comforting to know we have the freedom to look upon them.

It is not sin to look upon someone else's image. In fact Calvin responded as such in letters to similar concerns amongst the French Christians--images were everywhere and they could not help occasionally looking upon one in the ordinary course of their days. The guilt lay upon those who obtruded the images into their sight, not the French protestant who couldn't help but view them. That said, I find it prudent in my own case to avert my eyes where possible simply because I know that my own heart is an idol factory. For me, looking at images creates a greater temptation to create mental images of Christ as I pray or meditate on scripture--something that is sinful. It's no different than suggestive pictures of women. There are many images of scantily clad women in the world and it's almost impossible to avoid them altogether, but the more you look at them the more they intrude upon your thoughts and give occasion for lustful temptation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top