Pictures of Christ

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here are some of the reasons I hold to the Reformed tradition concerning images of Christ.
The Second Commandment and Pictures of Christ - The PuritanBoard
I use to question this often. But recently a friend named Andrew Meyers posted this comment. It seemed to illuminate an answer to my confusion.

Here was his insight.

Historically, Muslims have interpreted the Second Commandment to forbid all images of any kind whatsoever, but Jews and Christians have not. It is clear from the context that the Second Commandment has to do specifically with worship. It prohibits any representation of the Godhead or any worship of graven images. God himself expounded the Second Commandment thusly:

"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 on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven." Deut. 4.15-19

That is what historic Reformed Confessions and Catechisms teach in their exposition of this Commandment. God himself required the making of certain images in the temple/tabernacle, such as cherubim. The Lord Jesus himself had occasion to observe the image of Caesar on a coin and did not condemn the use of money thereby. Pictures and photographs are lawful as long as they don't violate the Second or the Seventh Commandments. The whole focus of the Second Commandment is worship and any representation of God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit must inherently violate that commandment because if it does not engender worship it is vain and if it does engender worship it is vain.

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." Acts 17.29
 
Just wondering. It seems the majority of "Christianity" would have no problem with pictures of Jesus, etc. Generally speaking, why is that? Is it a misunderstanding of the interpretation of the scripture? a disregard for what the scriptures teach? a law vs grace thing? All of the above? None of the above?

Ignorance of church history and the Scriptures. That was my problem.
 
I have a rather nice depiction of the Last Supper in my study, over my cigar humidor. I think it looks nice there and don't see anything wrong with it.
 
Just wondering. It seems the majority of "Christianity" would have no problem with pictures of Jesus, etc. Generally speaking, why is that? Is it a misunderstanding of the interpretation of the scripture? a disregard for what the scriptures teach? a law vs grace thing? All of the above? None of the above?

Personally, it's simply a disagreement with the confession. As Christ walked the earth among us, I don't think we can say it's wrong to have pictures of him or even imagine what he looked like. If those images become an object of reverence, then it is a violation of the second commandment.
 
Personally, it's simply a disagreement with the confession. As Christ walked the earth among us, I don't think we can say it's wrong to have pictures of him or even imagine what he looked like. If those images become an object of reverence, then it is a violation of the second commandment.

Is it the divine or human nature you display?

Have your separated the two?

Can you have a supposed picture of Jesus you don’t reverence?

If you don’t reverence, why display it? Doesn't that take make reference to Jesus in vain?

If you do reverence it, isn’t it idolatry?
 
Personally, it's simply a disagreement with the confession. As Christ walked the earth among us, I don't think we can say it's wrong to have pictures of him or even imagine what he looked like. If those images become an object of reverence, then it is a violation of the second commandment.

Is it the divine or human nature you display?

I don't know that the divine nature can be "displayed" in a picture; the picture would only show his physical body, would it not?

Can you have a supposed picture of Jesus you don’t reverence?

I don't see why not. I can understand that some would have difficulty with that, and I wouldn't want to risk causing him to stumble. But I don't think it's something that we have to assume everyone will stumble at.

If you don’t reverence, why display it? Doesn't that take make reference to Jesus in vain?

Is reverence a necessity for display? If so, why do you put up pictures of anyone(or do you)?

If you do reverence it, isn’t it idolatry?

It most certainly is.

edit: Not to promote unconfessional views, you understand, I'm just answering your question.
 
Personally, it's simply a disagreement with the confession. As Christ walked the earth among us, I don't think we can say it's wrong to have pictures of him or even imagine what he looked like. If those images become an object of reverence, then it is a violation of the second commandment.

Is it the divine or human nature you display?

I don't know that the divine nature can be "displayed" in a picture; the picture would only show his physical body, would it not?

In the gospels, people worshiped Jesus in the flesh:

Matt. 2:2, 11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Jn. 9:38; 20:28.

The Shorter Catechism teaches:

Q. 21. Who is the redeemer of God's elect?
A.
The only redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever.​

The two distinct natures in one divine person is historic Christian orthodoxy; the contrary being the Nestorian heresy.

The human form of Jesus was worshiped as divine; because it was inseparable from his divine nature as one divine person. Jesus did not forbid such worship as the apostles did when men attempted to worship them.

To propose a picture representing only the human nature of Jesus is to suggest something contrary to God’s revelation of his incarnate son. Jesus was God in the flesh, inseparable, "one person, forever."
 
When I read these posts I find it clear that most of the people that have been here the longest do not like or use images. Many of these same people have also lost their fear of calling some of our Brothers in Christ idolators. That to me is a bigger problem then pictures and works of art that include scenes from the life of Christ. No one points at the picture of the Last Supper and say's, "That is Christ in the middle. Let's bow down and worship the risen King."
 
To Elder Mulder, you sound like DH and his relatives: DH also has the same issue with decorative crosses which he takes issue with for the same reason you mention. :worms:
 
When I read these posts I find it clear that most of the people that have been here the longest do not like or use images. Many of these same people have also lost their fear of calling some of our Brothers in Christ idolators.

You need to provide some quotes if you are going to make these kinds of blanket accusations. Probably what has happened is that you have mistaken the labeling of a practice as 'idolatry' with the labeling of a person as an 'idolater'.

All of us are idolaters if we have ever coveted. (Col 3:5) Therefore, the most you can say if anyone has ever called you an idolater is to agree and thank the Lord for Christ's atonement.
 
To Elder Mulder, you sound like DH and his relatives: DH also has the same issue with decorative crosses which he takes issue with for the same reason you mention. :worms:

I have to confess that I take a, though somewhat lesser, issue with decorative crosses as well. I keep seeing crosses, hearing "it was The Cross" and "cling to The Cross" as though it's some superstitious icon, forgetting about God and His Sovereignty and Christ's atonement. I know it'd supposed to be representative, but it bugs me as do fishy emblems on cars and other such.
 
To Elder Mulder, you sound like DH and his relatives: DH also has the same issue with decorative crosses which he takes issue with for the same reason you mention. :worms:

I have to confess that I take a, though somewhat lesser, issue with decorative crosses as well. I keep seeing crosses, hearing "it was The Cross" and "cling to The Cross" as though it's some superstitious icon, forgetting about God and His Sovereignty and Christ's atonement. I know it'd supposed to be representative, but it bugs me as do fishy emblems on cars and other such.

I can sympathize, but, speaking as a Pastor, the cross is sometimes useful as a mental picture of the myriad of doctrines that come together in the death of Christ. But that blasted fish! What does that even mean anyway?
 
on the supposed pictures of Christ, to me it is always: is that it? I mean does that look like Christ to you? In my mind He is WAY more glorious and terrifying than such pictures could ever portray.

But, it saddens me to see people enthralled by such images. It really is idolatry, that is settling for a lesser form of what really is much more glorious. How can anyone see and think that it is Christ? I mean come on, ever read Revelations? :lol:
 
To Elder Mulder, you sound like DH and his relatives: DH also has the same issue with decorative crosses which he takes issue with for the same reason you mention. :worms:

I have to confess that I take a, though somewhat lesser, issue with decorative crosses as well. I keep seeing crosses, hearing "it was The Cross" and "cling to The Cross" as though it's some superstitious icon, forgetting about God and His Sovereignty and Christ's atonement. I know it'd supposed to be representative, but it bugs me as do fishy emblems on cars and other such.

I can sympathize, but, speaking as a Pastor, the cross is sometimes useful as a mental picture of the myriad of doctrines that come together in the death of Christ. But that blasted fish! What does that even mean anyway?
i prefer the cross to the fish personally. :2cents:
 
To Elder Mulder, you sound like DH and his relatives: DH also has the same issue with decorative crosses which he takes issue with for the same reason you mention. :worms:

I have to confess that I take a, though somewhat lesser, issue with decorative crosses as well. I keep seeing crosses, hearing "it was The Cross" and "cling to The Cross" as though it's some superstitious icon, forgetting about God and His Sovereignty and Christ's atonement. I know it'd supposed to be representative, but it bugs me as do fishy emblems on cars and other such.

I can sympathize, but, speaking as a Pastor, the cross is sometimes useful as a mental picture of the myriad of doctrines that come together in the death of Christ. But that blasted fish! What does that even mean anyway?

The fish comes from [FONT=&quot]ΙΧΘΥΣ[/FONT]

which in Greek is the word for fish. Each of the letters in that word is the first letter of words in the phrase "Jesus Christ, God, Son, Savior"
 
When I read these posts I find it clear that most of the people that have been here the longest do not like or use images. Many of these same people have also lost their fear of calling some of our Brothers in Christ idolators. That to me is a bigger problem then pictures and works of art that include scenes from the life of Christ. No one points at the picture of the Last Supper and say's, "That is Christ in the middle. Let's bow down and worship the risen King."

The Second Commandment is not (primarily) about idolatry - in the sense of worshipping a false God or worshipping an item as God. That is the First Commandment. The Second Commandment is about improper worship and making images of God.
 
My issue with the fish comes from a comment made by a Highway Patrolman: "oh look! another flying fishie" in regard to the Jesus fish on the car going 90 up the interstate/expressway. And the fish is proudly displayed by the driver who cuts you off in rush hour traffic and gives you a one fingered salute. And so on. And don't get me started on the "Christian Yellow Pages." :eek: This guide uses the fish is a commercial symbol. :oops:
 
When I read these posts I find it clear that most of the people that have been here the longest do not like or use images. Many of these same people have also lost their fear of calling some of our Brothers in Christ idolators. That to me is a bigger problem then pictures and works of art that include scenes from the life of Christ. No one points at the picture of the Last Supper and say's, "That is Christ in the middle. Let's bow down and worship the risen King."

:amen:

I would like you to picture the temptation of Christ in your head. You just created an image in your mind. You do that regardless of whether or not you recognize it, with any Biblical story. That is all a picture is. There is a huge difference in having a depiction of Christ on the wall and worshipping it. Having such images is not a breach of the second commandment. You have a right to your own opinion, as I do mine. I think to teach that pictures of Christ are wrong, or crosses (unless you bow down to them, which is another story), is going far beyond the context intended by the second commandment. The images mentioned are in reference to idols made for the purpose of adoration and worship, particularly household idols. I will say that some people do cross the line sometimes with pictures and crosses. I attended an Anglican Church one time, and although I don't see anything wrong with a Crucifix, in general, it bothered me when the parishioners bowed their knee to it, before taking the Eucharist.
 
Last edited:
When I read these posts I find it clear that most of the people that have been here the longest do not like or use images. Many of these same people have also lost their fear of calling some of our Brothers in Christ idolators. That to me is a bigger problem then pictures and works of art that include scenes from the life of Christ. No one points at the picture of the Last Supper and say's, "That is Christ in the middle. Let's bow down and worship the risen King."

The Second Commandment is not (primarily) about idolatry - in the sense of worshipping a false God or worshipping an item as God. That is the First Commandment. The Second Commandment is about improper worship and making images of God.

Time for another plug for Danny Hyde's book?
 
Just wondering. It seems the majority of "Christianity" would have no problem with pictures of Jesus, etc. Generally speaking, why is that? Is it a misunderstanding of the interpretation of the scripture? a disregard for what the scriptures teach? a law vs grace thing? All of the above? None of the above?

Personally, it's simply a disagreement with the confession. As Christ walked the earth among us, I don't think we can say it's wrong to have pictures of him or even imagine what he looked like. If those images become an object of reverence, then it is a violation of the second commandment.

Check the story of the golden calves in Exodus. The Israelites were guilty of worshipping the true God falsely, NOT for giving worship to false gods.
 
To Elder Mulder, you sound like DH and his relatives: DH also has the same issue with decorative crosses which he takes issue with for the same reason you mention. :worms:

(Cowering) Oh dear, I knew someone would go there! I've pondered and pondered the rightness and/or wrongness of crosses, here, there or wherever! I have a wall in my home that has about 20 or more various crosses that surround a Kincaid painting, Bridge of Faith. The crosses were gifts and to me and are reminders of the price paid for my faith and salvation and are definitely not something I worship. Still at times I do wonder if it in any way is a breach of scripture or could in any way be a stumbling block to anyone else.
I do not personally wear or admire the wearing of crosses, necklaces, earrings and such, just have them on the wall, all sizes, some simple, some elaborate, some with scripture on them. Thoughts?
 
I actually am repulsed now at pictures of Jesus. I've been rather ambivalent in the past but the older I get the more repulsed I become. So much for the world famous Art Gallery at my Alma Mater BJU. I had a roomate who came to BJU for Graduate School and he was an Art Major and he has to go speak with Bob Jr because he opposed pictures of Jesus but after Bob Jr explained to him why it wasn't wrong he accepted it as Truth and went on to get his Master's Degree.

I'm all for the Bread and Wine as Christ's instituted representation of His Body and Blood and the Means of Grace it conveys.

Same here. We have the sacraments. God has given us all we need in order to see Christ.
 
To Elder Mulder, you sound like DH and his relatives: DH also has the same issue with decorative crosses which he takes issue with for the same reason you mention. :worms:

(Cowering) Oh dear, I knew someone would go there! I've pondered and pondered the rightness and/or wrongness of crosses, here, there or wherever! I have a wall in my home that has about 20 or more various crosses that surround a Kincaid painting, Bridge of Faith. The crosses were gifts and to me and are reminders of the price paid for my faith and salvation and are definitely not something I worship. Still at times I do wonder if it in any way is a breach of scripture or could in any way be a stumbling block to anyone else.
I do not personally wear or admire the wearing of crosses, necklaces, earrings and such, just have them on the wall, all sizes, some simple, some elaborate, some with scripture on them. Thoughts?
I have no problem with a cross as jewelery or art providing it is worn or viewed with the right attitude. DH takes a harder line. :2cents:
 
As the old Sunday school teacher story goes: On one Sunday morning the Sunday school teacher was walking by one of the children who was drawing a picture. She asked him what he was drawing. Johnny exclaimed, "I am drawing a picture of Jesus!" The teacher responded, "Now Johnny, no one knows what Jesus looked like", and his response was, "Well of course not! I haven't finished drawing him yet!" Later on, the teacher again passed by Johnny's desk and remarked, "I thought you were going to draw a picture of Jesus, why then does it look just like you?"

So then, when man draws an image of Christ, it is always in his own image. It falls short of the Glory of the One who sits in glory beside the Father. He is now King of Kings, and should not be DISFIGURED into the image of sinful man. Just as none of us would want to be misrepresented by anothers image of us "according to the flesh".
 
I do not personally wear or admire the wearing of crosses, necklaces, earrings and such, just have them on the wall, all sizes, some simple, some elaborate, some with scripture on them. Thoughts?

I have a celtic cross above my desk, in my study. It was a gift from one of my former parishioners. If I thought it was wrong to display it, I would have tossed it in the trash. The church I am a pastor at, has a cross on the altar, with some candles. We never bow down to them, neither do I pray at my desk, while admiring the cross. The cross is just a symbol, not an idol, although it can become one for some. I also wear a cross over my tie, when I go to Church. I wear a robe when I preach, so it can't be seen, except when I take the robe off. It was a gift from my mother, when I went into the pastoral ministry. Again, If I thought it was idolatrous, I would throw it away! I have also pondered this issue, not because I thought I was wrong, but because others think it is. Paul mentions those who have a "weak conscience" (1 Cor. 8:7). We must be careful not to use what we perceive as our liberty to become a stumblingblock to those this offends. In my case, my church does not have problem with these things. We are in accord. If someone does have a problem, then they can always go to the URCNA church in our city. They better throw away their DVD of the Passion, before they do. :lol:
 
Besides the obvious nestorian error of images of Jesus that has been pointed out already (that is, the impossibility of separating the natures of Christ without destroying--for himself--the true object of his faith), we also have the implications of Paul's own statement, 2Co 5:16 "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more."

Paul's statement begins by saying that he will not estimate a mere man, any man, by his appearance, not crediting an ounce of worth to the body. The spiritual state of the man is where he is to be "known". Indeed, he once regarded Christ after the flesh, and it is doubtful that he means seeing Jesus, even if he ever did which we have no indication of it. But no more, in any event.

Here's Calvin on the latter words of the verse:
Nay, though we have known Christ. The meaning is — “Though Christ lived for a time in this world, and was known by mankind in those things that have to do with the condition of the present life, he must now be known in another way — spiritually, so that we may have no worldly thoughts respecting him.” ... he speaks here, not of the substance of his body, but of external appearance, nor does he affirm that the flesh is no longer perceived by us in Christ, but says, that Christ is not judged of from that...

Hence, if we do not now recognize Christ’s flesh, we lose the whole of that confidence and consolation that we ought to have in him. But we acknowledge Christ as man, and as our brother in his flesh — not in a fleshly manner; because we rest solely in the consideration of his spiritual gifts. Hence he is spiritual to us, not as if he laid aside the body, and became a spirit, but because he regenerates and governs his own people by the influence of his Spirit.
For Calvin, it was enough that we see in the Lord's Supper the bodily truth of Christ. We recognize him there, and only there. While we joyfully acknowledge that he is physically absent from us, but Spiritually present, we wait to see with our eyes what we only now behold by faith.

When we physicalize the ascended Christ, we ARE regarding him after the flesh, and there is no justification for that error. Especially when we have been both warned against it, and given a gift whereby we may and ought to "see" him.
 
John Calvin wrote, “The human heart is a factory of idols"

John Calvin wrote, “The human heart is a factory of idols

Just wondering. It seems the majority of "Christianity" would have no problem with pictures of Jesus, etc. Generally speaking, why is that? Is it a misunderstanding of the interpretation of the scripture? a disregard for what the scriptures teach? a law vs grace thing? All of the above? None of the above?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top