SkillsMasters
Puritan Board Freshman
I've heard an argument that says any images or pictures of Christ would have to violate either the second or third commandment. Can anyone expand upon what that argument is?
Question: Pictures of Jesus violate either the second or third commandment?
- Thread starter SkillsMasters
- Start date
- Status
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
The argument is simple. Jesus is both God and man. To represent Him by a picture would not actually be a representation of Him anyway, since we don't know what He looks like. But if Jesus is both God and man in one person, there is no way to represent that person of two natures by means of a picture. The golden calf in Exodus 32 was meant to be a representation of the one true God, not a false god. But God does not have a physical body. The only way Jesus can be properly understood is through the Word of God. Therefore, any attempt to represent Jesus by means of pictures is an attack on the sufficiency of the Word of God.
mpb
Puritan Board Freshman
John Murray has probably one of the best explanations on why images of Christ are 2nd commandment violations here:
“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 prescribed 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.”
Also, Neil Stewart gives a helpful word about it here:
“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 prescribed 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.”
Also, Neil Stewart gives a helpful word about it here:
reformed grit
Puritan Board Freshman
Just to be clear though, images and pictures are not evil in and of themselves. It's what comes out of the heart-mind-soul with which the Commandments are concerned.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth..."
The images and pictures are evil in and of themselves if they are representing God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. What comes out of the heart, mind, and soul in breaking the commandments are also evil.
reformed grit
Puritan Board Freshman
Perhaps we're posting a bit passed each other, but I don't find the words God, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit evil.
user98Luke
Puritan Board Freshman
How do we know the golden calf was supposed to represent the real God?
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
They called the golden calf Jehovah.
The words are not evil. We are talking about making images of the one God in three persons (something that is impossible to do because in doing so you misrepresent who God is (a breaking also of the 3rd commandment)).
user98Luke
Puritan Board Freshman
Are you talking about Exodus 32:5?
reformed grit
Puritan Board Freshman
We'd agree humans have a propensity of "making images" as idols. I've met folk even conflating the Bible (the Word of God) with Jesus (the Word of God) - treating the Bible as an icon almost too holy to even touch, let alone read on the toilet or mark up with personal notes.
Branson
Puritan Board Freshman
I’ve always found this quote from Thomas Vincent helpful:
“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."
“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."
cmiersma
Puritan Board Freshman
The apostle John had a real, mental image of Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:13), which implies that he was still recognizable. One could undoubtedly have taken a photograph of him, or drawn a picture of him while he was on earth. Of course, it is only possible to depict his human nature by drawing. I would avoid doing so, to avoid giving offence. There is too much risk of going in the direction of violating the prohibition of idolatry in Acts 15:20, which I regard as a loose summary of the ten commandments. I refrain from commenting on the second commandment specifically, as I view the letter of the law as abolished except as a means of convicting people of sin (Eph. 2:15; Canons Head 3/4 Art. 5). Also, one would have to question whether it would be a matter of love toward him to make an image of him. I'm not terribly concerned about fish symbols though.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes. The American Standard Version makes it more explicit: "And when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow shall be a feast to Jehovah."
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Yes.
reformed grit
Puritan Board Freshman
... or even the Lamb of God or Lion of Judah. All I was trying to clarify toward the OP is that 1) things like typology and symbols are common throughout Scripture (drawing a lion or using such in a Narnia film are not inherently evil as a thing), and 2) the words Jesus Christ are a human made image meant to exactly portray who we mean by the Second Person of the trinity. We ought NOT to worship the words Jesus Christ. And we agree it would be Commandment breaking to worship Aslan as God or read the Chronicles of Narnia as C. S. Lewis depicting Aslan as God the Spirit, just as it would to carve a giant hen relief or sculpture covering congregants with the feathers of its wings (ie. Psalm 91) on the LORD's table.
Words and language do not function in the same way as images. They do not depict. They symbolize. “Jesus Christ” is not an image of Christ any more than “Taylor” is an image of me.
reformed grit
Puritan Board Freshman
We'd agree there can be a distinction. I've personally met folk for whom the name Jesus Christ does depict Jesus Christ, imbued with the power of God in an idolatrous way; just as I assure you some do with the Bible. Yes, one might argue that both their image and understanding of Jesus Christ are certainly askew.
aaronsk
Puritan Board Freshman
I grew up thinking this way.
I would say there is a distinction. Words are not images, but symbols. Otherwise, if someone wanted me to show them a picture (image) of my wife, I could just pull out a piece of paper and write her name on it and give it to them and be done with it. But nobody, even the people you speak of, would accept such a trick. It’s because words are not images. They can provide the necessary information to cause images to be formed in the mind, but the words themselves are mere symbols, distinct from the image they may cause to be formed.
And, of course, this is practical because writing Jesus’ name is not inherently sinful, because it is not an image of him. (I know there are people who, as you say, believe otherwise, but they’re simply wrong.) But making an image of him is inherently sinful.
user98Luke
Puritan Board Freshman
Could it be argued that only Aaron really saw the calf as a representation of God, because the Israelites only asked for lowercase ‘gods’
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
They were worshipping the golden calf. Aaron stated that they were going to worship Jehovah.
The information is clear…
Andrew35
Puritan Board Sophomore
I've typically understood crosses (and fish) as having a more communicative function than reverential. As such, I don't see it as a violation in itself. Closer to language than a true, visual representation.
Granted that it could be used so.
The case is not so clear-cut to me as with images of God.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Why do people wear crosses? To them what does it represent to them?
I usually question people on this who use them in some way. And the real answer of course is "to remind me of the cross/death of Christ."
My response is then: Then you are committing idolatry, by replacing what the Lord has given you for that purpose for something else. He's given you the Lord's Supper, and you've replaced it or thought you were wiser than God by needing a cross that is not commanded.
Last edited:
aaronsk
Puritan Board Freshman
So it would be lawful to use a cross as an education aid (thinking of my 3 year old who has no concept of roman crucifixion) but only so long as it is not used as a worshipful representation. So we aught to take care in the use of it as it is so easily misued (perhaps not hanging them all around the house)?
What about drawings that help us understand this historical circumstances? Can we only study them if they do not depict our Lord? So I know there is another thread now on the chosen which I do think is in violation because I dont think it possible to watch the show and not worship the Christ portrayed on screen (yes I watched it). But how do we teach the brutality Christ endured to a generation so far removed from the original events as to not have a concept of the implements and tactics?
We have a cross (from Hobbylobby of course) that has depctions of certain NT stories. When i look at it I am of course reminded of the biblical stories - how is so different say, from seeing a dead tree and remembering Jesus cursing the fig tree?
I have attached a picture of it but if it will offend your conscience please don’t open it. Genuinely asking/curious by the way. I have not sorted this out fully myself yet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
I think you just glossed over everything I just said concerning the cross though not intentionally it seems. The design and use of the cross is a singular purpose to show forth, represent, and/or remind of the death of Christ. This is a 2nd commandment violation because the making and the use of it is to replace the ordinance of Christ.
You read the Bible, you celebrate the Lord's supper. You meditate upon God's word. Use what the Lord has given you, and stop making or using things that He has not granted you or commanded you to use for such purposes. You want to know and understand history? Read the bible to know the circumstances and history. This is what Jehovah has provided.
This is a 2nd and 3rd commandment violation. He gave you His Word which is completely sufficient, nothing else needs added by man. Seeing a dead tree and remembering what Jesus did is called 'meditating'. I see a light and dwell on Jesus as the Light. This is simple meditation on God's Word also called "occasional meditation". It is another thing to buy or make something to replace God's Word.
This offends me since I don't have to open it to see it.
SkillsMasters
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm a little confused on what the second commandment actually means. When I read the text it seems to just prohibit the making of idols. May you expand upon the text? Thanks.
Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Jamie,
You should probably pause and go read the section of the Westminster standards that deals with explaining the prohibited things by the second commandment. According to your profile, you subscribe to the Westminster standards. You should be able to find this information in the larger catechism of the Westminster standards.
See the below link for your convenience:
WLC 109: What are the sins forbidden in the Second Commandment? :: The Westminster Standards with Video and Audio Teaching Resources
Answer: The sins forbidden in the Second Commandment are, all devising1, counseling2, commanding3, using4, and anywise approving, any religious
thewestminsterstandards.com
Last edited:
- Status
