Reformed Consensus on Images of Christ

[davenporter]

Hi folks,

I am curious on a few issues surrounding the 2nd commandment and the broadly Reformed world's take on images of Christ.

It seems the consensus on this board (and indeed the teaching of the Westminster Standards) is clearly that any image/visual representation of God or Christ (including His human nature) is prohibited, and for good reasons, which I have read. You do not have to convince me.

I am wondering why it seems that the more broadly/less Reformed (i.e. many PCA congregants) in my experience do not adhere to this part of the confession. Particularly I am speaking of R.C. Sproul -- yesterday I read in Tabletalk (from August 2010) that he does not consider the 2nd commandment as ruling out images of Christ, but that Christ is an exception. It is my understanding that many others in the PCA and certainly almost all in broad evangelicalism do not hold to such clear standards that are clearly represented in the Larger Catechism and easily argued for on the basis of logical deduction, and it seems that the historical Reformed view has been to reject any images of Christ whatsoever. I've noticed this also with the Sabbath issue -- one of my PCA friends didn't even know the Sabbath was in the Confession! Why are the 2nd and 4th commandments no longer revered among many even within the Reformed camp, whereas it appears there used to be a consensus? (Or is my idea of a consensus a misconception?)

Finally, I am wondering how one with such a conviction (that images of Christ are not permissible) should act toward family members who are evangelical (not Reformed) Christians and do not hold to such a view (e.g. if one receives as a gift a picture of "Jesus" or a nativity set or a children's book with pictures of "Jesus"). How awkward, right? Of course, I would rather please God, but I would also prefer not to frustrate my family more than I ought! It is an issue of obedience to God's Law, and of course is of great importance, but I want them to see that we do not keep it out of some false hope in justification by the Law, but out of love for the Lord and His Law.

(Mods: if this is in the wrong forum, my apologies; feel free to move it)

 

[OPC'n]

Sproul makes an exception for Christ bc he believes that the pics of him are showing his man part of his
God/man essence. That's a very simplified way to putting what he believes. Part of the 2nd Commandment states,

“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. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them,..."

So this commandment is talking about praying to things that replace God. We can have pics of fish etc on our walls or even figurines but they are to be just that and not something we bow down to. I use to hold to Sproul's thinking but what I came to realize is that it never fails with mankind that we look upon it as it actually being him and thus it is a graven image. Perhaps you could ask your family what they think of when they have pics of Jesus and go from there teaching them how in their hearts they are treating it as a graven image even though they don't bow down to the pic.....in their hearts they are.

 

[Covenant Joel]

As to the why question, I don't know that I have any solid answers. It has often surprised me how many in my own denomination do not seem to consider the Confession's teaching on the Confession. Part of the why probably has to do with technological advances (this doesn't mean that these are good reasons, or even that opponents of the Confession's teaching would use these reasons, but speaking historically). You didn't have to worry about the same issues of travel, electricity, and so on in the past. I would even suggest we could use some more clear, helpful, Reformed reflection on some of those issues.

As to how to deal with family members who do not share your convictions, I think being open and honest is a good place to start. I think many of my friends and family find my views a bit bizarre, as they simply haven't been exposed much to the whole discussion of the Sabbath. But if you can clearly explain why you practice what you do, and if you can simultaneously tell them that you aren't looking down your nose at them, then you'll find that they can deal with that, even if they don't agree. It can get complicated at times, but honesty and loving communication can go a long way.

E.g., I have people invite me out to eat regularly on Sunday. I like to just tell them, "Thanks so much for the offer, we'd really love to get together with you sometime. I don't eat out on Sunday, because I don't want to force anyone to work when I wouldn't myself do that job. But how about you come over to our place after church next Sunday so we can talk and eat together?"

 

[OPC'n]

Thank you, Josh! I should add when I said, "that it never fails with mankind that we look upon it as it actually being him and thus it is a graven image." that I don't know what's in Sproul's heart. I do know he thinks of them a great art work according to what he has said in the past. Perhaps he doesn't look upon them the way I explained. I know he is reformed and he is a godly man and one of my favorite teachers.

 

[davenporter]

Thanks, good thoughts. For clarification, I would explain that these are extended family members. My wife and I are in agreement on this issue.

Joshua, could you expand a little on what you would view to be sin regarding these images? For example, could I in good conscience go visit a family member's home where there is a clear violation posted on the wall?

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Note John Murray's reasoning, which I find very sound:

The question of the propriety of pictorial representations of the Saviour is one that merits examination. It must be granted that the worship of Christ is central in our holy faith, and the thought of the Saviour must in every instance be accompanied with that reverence which belongs to his worship. We cannot think of him without the apprehension of the majesty that is his. If we do not entertain the sense of his majesty, then we are guilty of impiety and we dishonor him.

It will also be granted that the only purpose that could properly be served by a pictorial representation is that it would convey to us some thought or lesson representing him, consonant with truth and promotive of worship. Hence the question is inescapable: is a pictorial representation a legitimate way of conveying truth regarding him and of contributing to the worship which this truth should evoke?

We are all aware of the influence exerted on the mind and heart by pictures. Pictures are powerful media of communication. How suggestive they are for good or for evil and all the more so when accompanied by the comment of the spoken or written word! It is futile, therefore, to deny the influence exerted upon mind and heart by a picture of Christ. And if such is legitimate, the influence exerted should be one constraining to worship and adoration. To claim any lower aim as that served by a picture of the Saviour would be contradiction of the place which he must occupy in thought, affection, and honour.

The plea for the propriety of pictures of Christ is based on the fact that he was truly man, that he had a human body, that he was visible in his human nature to the physical senses, and that a picture assists us to take in the stupendous reality of his incarnation, in a word, that he was made in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man.

Our Lord had a true body. He could have been photographed. A portrait could have been made of him and, if a good portrait, it would have reproduced his likeness.

Without doubt the disciples in the days of his flesh had a vivid mental image of Jesus' appearance and they could not but have retained that recollection to the end of their days. They could never have entertained the thought of him as he had sojourned with them without something of that mental image and they could not have entertained it without adoration and worship. The very features which they remembered would have been part and parcel of their conception of him and reminiscent of what he had been to them in his humiliation and in the glory of his resurrection appearance. Much more might be said regarding the significance for the disciples of Jesus' physical features.
Jesus is also glorified in the body and that body is visible. It will also become visible to us at his glorious appearing "he will be seen the second time without sin by those who look for him unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28).

What then are we to say of pictures of Christ? First of all, it must be said that we have no data whatsoever on the basis of which to make a pictorial representation; we have no descriptions of his physical features which would enable even the most accomplished artist to make an approximate portrait. In view of the profound influence exerted by a picture, especially on the minds of young people, we should perceive the peril involved in a portrayal for which there is no warrant, a portrayal which is the creation of pure imagination. It may help to point up the folly to ask: what would be the reaction of a disciple, who had actually seen the Lord in the days of his flesh, to a portrait which would be the work of imagination on the part of one who had never seen the Saviour? We can readily detect what his recoil would be.

No impression we have of Jesus should be created without the proper revelatory data, and every impression, every thought, should evoke worship. Hence, since we possess no revelatory data for a picture or portrait in the proper sense of the term, we are precluded from making one or using any that have been made.

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.

Thirdly, the second commandment forbids bowing down to an image or likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. A picture of the Saviour purports to be a representation or likeness of him who is now in heaven or, at least, of him when he sojourned upon the earth. It is plainly forbidden, therefore, to bow down in worship before such a representation or likeness. This exposes the iniquity involved in the practice of exhibiting pictorial representations of the Saviour in places of worship. When we worship before a picture of our Lord, whether it be in the form of a mural, or on canvas, or in stained glass, we are doing what the second commandment expressly forbids. This is rendered all the more apparent when we bear in mind that the only reason why a picture of him should be exhibited in a place is the supposition that it contributes to the worship of him who is our Lord. The practice only demonstrates how insensitive we readily become to the commandments of God and to the inroads of idolatry. May the Churches of Christ be awake to the deceptive expedients by which the archenemy ever seeks to corrupt the worship of the Saviour.

In summary, what is at stake in this question is the unique place which Jesus Christ as the God-man occupies in our faith and worship and the unique place which the Scripture occupies as the only revelation, the only medium of communication, respecting him whom we worship as Lord and Saviour. The incarnate Word and the written Word are correlative. We dare not use other media of impression or of sentiment but those of his institution and prescription. Every thought and impression of him should evoke worship. We worship him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God. To use a likeness of Christ as an aid to worship is forbidden by the second commandment as much in his case as in that of the Father and Spirit.

 

[Jack K]

I am wondering why it seems that the more broadly/less Reformed (i.e. many PCA congregants) in my experience do not adhere to this part of the confession.

To answer the question (rather than argue the issue)...

Certainly, many in the Reformed camp just do what they see in the larger evangelical world. Others have considered the issue and have become convinced that some depictions in some situations are allowed or even helpful. If you're trying to learn and want to research the recent history on the issue and the reasons some give for allowing some pictures, the starting place is probably the 1981 RPCES synod overture (never adopted).

 

[earl40]

I am going to ask a "what if'"....so if I may. What if Jesus had been born in a family who had an artist in it, would it have been a sin for for him to have drawn a likeness while He was with us on earth? If so would Jesus have stopped him from doing what he was doing? Or is it the general consensus that our Lord chose a time when this just simply would not happen?

 

[KevinInReno]

My wife and I growing up Roman Catholic both have seen the clear worship of depictions of Christ. I do believe it's a gross violation of the 2nd commandment. Ultimately the Lord our God is one. Jesus is one with the Father and Spirit. Any depiction of Jesus is a depiction of our God. Hence a violation of the Lord's 2nd commandment.

 

[KevinInReno]

I am going to ask a "what if'"....so if I may. What if Jesus had been born in a family who had an artist in it, would it have been a sin for for him to have drawn a likeness while He was with us on earth? If so would Jesus have stopped him from doing what he was doing? Or is it the general consensus that our Lord chose a time when this just simply would not happen?

I would state in this hypothetical... the sin going on would be failing to recognize the Lord was in his or her presence.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Just to throw in another objection to images of Christ, these images have greatly contributed to the progressive feminization of Jesus that has occured over the last hundred years or so. Most of these paintings depict him as soft and harmless with long flowing locks of hair.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

And don't forget the blue-eyed, blonde haired, caucasian "Christ" pictures that were so common when I was a child.

 

[KevinInReno]

I always marvel at how time and time again Christ can be depicted with long hair... as if no one who has ever drawn this long haired depiction ever read the book of Timothy. I'm pretty confident Christ had short hair. I would be willing to wager quite a pretty penny in my new hometown.

 

[J. Dean]

Sproul makes an exception for Christ bc he believes that the pics of him are showing his man part of his
God/man essence. That's a very simplified way to putting what he believes. Part of the 2nd Commandment states,

“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. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them,..."

So this commandment is talking about praying to things that replace God. We can have pics of fish etc on our walls or even figurines but they are to be just that and not something we bow down to. I use to hold to Sproul's thinking but what I came to realize is that it never fails with mankind that we look upon it as it actually being him and thus it is a graven image. Perhaps you could ask your family what they think of when they have pics of Jesus and go from there teaching them how in their hearts they are treating it as a graven image even though they don't bow down to the pic.....in their hearts they are.

In fairness to Sproul and others, though, who do not hold to the strict interpretation of the 2nd commandment, just because something like a picture of Christ has the potential to be turned into an object of worship does not necessarily make it wrong. That's like saying justification by faith alone is bad because it has the potential to be abused and turned into Antinomianism. That something CAN be abused is not cause alone for shunning it.

The EPC church I attend for Bible study has a large stained-glass portrait of Jesus Christ on its back wall behind the pulpit, but never have I seen or known of anybody, nor have I myself, look to that image as an object of worship. Not everybody who has a picture of Christ immediately falls into the Catholic trap of worshipping the image, and we need to be fair-minded and careful when we discuss this and not stereotype.

That being said, I do agree that many images of Christ do not do Him justice, and the Caucasian/effeminate portraits I've seen of him are less than appealing.

 

[Tim]

Many of these comments have been off-topic.

Our brother in his original post has asked why so many confessional Christians do not adhere to this part of the confession, and how we should respond to them. Let us give him the discussion he has requested.

Might all this have something to do with a trend from strict to looser subscription to the confessions?

 

[OPC'n]

Sproul makes an exception for Christ bc he believes that the pics of him are showing his man part of his
God/man essence. That's a very simplified way to putting what he believes. Part of the 2nd Commandment states,

“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. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them,..."

So this commandment is talking about praying to things that replace God. We can have pics of fish etc on our walls or even figurines but they are to be just that and not something we bow down to. I use to hold to Sproul's thinking but what I came to realize is that it never fails with mankind that we look upon it as it actually being him and thus it is a graven image. Perhaps you could ask your family what they think of when they have pics of Jesus and go from there teaching them how in their hearts they are treating it as a graven image even though they don't bow down to the pic.....in their hearts they are.

In fairness to Sproul and others, though, who do not hold to the strict interpretation of the 2nd commandment, just because something like a picture of Christ has the potential to be turned into an object of worship does not necessarily make it wrong. That's like saying justification by faith alone is bad because it has the potential to be abused and turned into Antinomianism. That something CAN be abused is not cause alone for shunning it.

The EPC church I attend for Bible study has a large stained-glass portrait of Jesus Christ on its back wall behind the pulpit, but never have I seen or known of anybody, nor have I myself, look to that image as an object of worship. Not everybody who has a picture of Christ immediately falls into the Catholic trap of worshipping the image, and we need to be fair-minded and careful when we discuss this and not stereotype.

That being said, I do agree that many images of Christ do not do Him justice, and the Caucasian/effeminate portraits I've seen of him are less than appealing.

I guess you didn't read my second comment

 

[Moireach]

This is a good and relevant question for Reformed churches to consider today, who seem to be increasingly weak on this doctrine.

Obviously it's primarily very simply a symptom of backsliding. There are, doubtless, all kinds of reasons for compromise. I'll let you know what the main reason I've come across is.

The main one is the pressure of innovating in methods of evangelism. The Bible insructs us to "proclaim the gospel". And the Biblical example is that of preaching, teaching and persuading, being ready to a give a reason for the hope within us.

This isn't attractive to worldly people though, and it's not visual. And we live in a visual age. So what I have seen is reformed people taking part in Dramas of the Gospel, with a person actually acting as Jesus Christ. I was shocked that a conservative person who has been accepted to train for the ministry in a WCF confessing denomination took part in this play, and was given permission to by one of the most conservative ministers in the whole WCF confessing denomination.

This idea of innovating to a more entertaining and attractive evangelism also manifests itself is in using the Mel Gibson movie. I have seen this also in a WCF confessing denomination, whose minister of course vowed on the WCF.

These are the "subtle" ways this commandment start to be broken. You won't see framed photos of a man with long brown hair and facial hair till a wee while later!

 

[toddpedlar]

And don't forget the blue-eyed, blonde haired, caucasian "Christ" pictures that were so common when I was a child.

You must be referring to the ubiquitous "Jesus' senior portrait" prints...

 

[Marrow Man]

Might all this have something to do with a trend from strict to looser subscription to the confessions?

I think that loose subscription is merely a symptom of a bigger problem. There are cultural/worldly influences that shape our view of things. We live in a visual age, as we are often told (but that is not the true impetus, as images existed long before the medium of TV), but in reality we take our cues from others. Other churches have images, so we think that must be a good idea. Where did those churches get the idea? Well, the pagans always had their images, didn't they? They certainly didn't get the idea from Holy Scripture.

For any interested, here is a paper I wrote while in seminary on the issue. It deals more with the ethical aspect of the issue (it was for an ethics class).

Ethical Considerations of Images of Christ « Gairney Bridge

 

[toddpedlar]

In fairness to Sproul and others, though, who do not hold to the strict interpretation of the 2nd commandment, just because something like a picture of Christ has the potential to be turned into an object of worship does not necessarily make it wrong. That's like saying justification by faith alone is bad because it has the potential to be abused and turned into Antinomianism. That something CAN be abused is not cause alone for shunning it.

The EPC church I attend for Bible study has a large stained-glass portrait of Jesus Christ on its back wall behind the pulpit, but never have I seen or known of anybody, nor have I myself, look to that image as an object of worship. Not everybody who has a picture of Christ immediately falls into the Catholic trap of worshipping the image, and we need to be fair-minded and careful when we discuss this and not stereotype.

That being said, I do agree that many images of Christ do not do Him justice, and the Caucasian/effeminate portraits I've seen of him are less than appealing.

Two things.

First, the commandment forbids the making of the image of God, not the worshipping of it. The latter is forbidden by the First Commandment.

Second, no image of Christ could EVER do Him justice because it either a) separates His humanity from His Divinity, thus being a false image of a "pretend" Jesus that never existed, or b) depicts God, which is clearly forbidden in the second Commandment

 

[Moireach]

And don't forget the blue-eyed, blonde haired, caucasian "Christ" pictures that were so common when I was a child.

Ha! Were you brought up in the 1930s in Germany!?
I've never heard of that before!

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

No, the 1960's/70's, but they were everywhere in rural baptist churches back then. The little baptist church my Grandmother attended (which was otherwise pretty straight) passed out "Jesus fans" with an aryan representation of the Lord since they had no air conditioning. I was stunned as an "older youngster" when I first realized the Lord was a Jew, and most likely NOT a blond, blue-eyed white guy with hair like Robert Plant.

 

[davenporter]

Good points, everyone. I wonder how much the notion of "contextualization" being espoused at various seminaries and denominations these days has contributed to Christians' weakening commitment to the confession/Bible.

I see this issue as clearly Biblical, with no exception or way out of it for any Christian -- evangelical OR Reformed. I wonder if my position on the RPW contributes to that perspective. I really think that we have forgotten that God is, "Holy, Holy, Holy" and think that Jesus is just our buddy, or, like many have suggested, an effeminate hippie with flowing locks of hair, which is utter blasphemy against God. Also, we have forgotten all of the creeds that our fathers in the faith had to fight for to promote the orthodox Christ as being one person in two distinct natures. Now modern liberalism wants to say that Jesus was just a good human teacher (who apparently had a lying issue). Oughtn't we fight against such blasphemy and exalt the name (3rd commandment) of Christ and worship Him in holiness (2nd commandment)?

At the same time, I am newly Reformed, and I am a little fiery on some of these issues, and I don't want to take it overboard. I feel strongly about these things since I have become convinced of them from Scripture and logical deduction from it, but at the same time I do want to be balanced and gracious, understanding that my evangelical family members will need to work through a lot of these things, and I will probably have to bear with being called a legalist or Pharisee many times. And maybe an antinomian at other times. But at the same time, it is crucial to always be growing in righteousness, and recognizing the holiness of God, and continually seeing more and more of our sin, and seeing the power of God overcome that sin in our lives. I think that being loving on this issue necessitates being both firm and patient.

 

[Covenant Joel]

Good points, everyone. I wonder how much the notion of "contextualization" being espoused at various seminaries and denominations these days has contributed to Christians' weakening commitment to the confession/Bible.

You might need to explain what you mean by that. Contextualization itself is not an inherently unbiblical idea, that I can see. Of course, it can be done badly and can be based on unbiblical principles. But I don't think that the simple idea of contextualization is what the problem is in this situation.

 

[davenporter]

Good points, everyone. I wonder how much the notion of "contextualization" being espoused at various seminaries and denominations these days has contributed to Christians' weakening commitment to the confession/Bible.

You might need to explain what you mean by that. Contextualization itself is not an inherently unbiblical idea, that I can see. Of course, it can be done badly and can be based on unbiblical principles. But I don't think that the simple idea of contextualization is what the problem is in this situation.

What I mean by contextualization is the concern to make our worship services appealing to the current trends in modern culture. I'm not sure if that's the same definition you would use.

 

[Covenant Joel]

What I mean by contextualization is the concern to make our worship services appealing to the current trends in modern culture. I'm not sure if that's the same definition you would use.

I see what you mean. That's not exactly what the term means in missiological literature. But as that's not the focus of the thread, I'll just stop there.

 

[J. Dean]

I guess you didn't read my second comment

I did miss that. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[J. Dean]

Two things.

First, the commandment forbids the making of the image of God, not the worshipping of it. The latter is forbidden by the First Commandment.

Second, no image of Christ could EVER do Him justice because it either a) separates His humanity from His Divinity, thus being a false image of a "pretend" Jesus that never existed, or b) depicts God, which is clearly forbidden in the second Commandment

So would it have been a sin for somebody to paint a picture of Jesus in a family portrait had the means for Mary and Joseph to do so been available? Again, the cited interpretation of the first and second commandments as shaped by the Puritans is not held by all Christians, even many in the Reformed camp.

 

[toddpedlar]

Two things.

First, the commandment forbids the making of the image of God, not the worshipping of it. The latter is forbidden by the First Commandment.

Second, no image of Christ could EVER do Him justice because it either a) separates His humanity from His Divinity, thus being a false image of a "pretend" Jesus that never existed, or b) depicts God, which is clearly forbidden in the second Commandment

So would it have been a sin for somebody to paint a picture of Jesus in a family portrait had the means for Mary and Joseph to do so been available? Again, the cited interpretation of the first and second commandments as shaped by the Puritans is not held by all Christians, even many in the Reformed camp.

Your question about someone painting a picture is a diversion and doesn't help you make your argument at all. We're talking about now, not then. (and yes, had the person known that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, it would have been sinful to depict him)

Second, the interpretation of the first and second commandments that I presented is not something the Puritans invented as new, but is much older. The direct discussion of images of Christ dates at the very least well back before the East/West split to the Council of Constantinople in 754.

Third, the interpretation of the first and second commandments regarding the making of images of God (including images of Christ, the second person of the Trinity) in any fashion for any purpose is consistent with the confessional standards of this board. The fact that some that claim connection to the Reformers may believe that images are ok does not make the stance confessional. It simply is not - it blatantly contradicts the confessions.

 

[Andres]

At the same time, I am newly Reformed, and I am a little fiery on some of these issues, and I don't want to take it overboard. I feel strongly about these things since I have become convinced of them from Scripture and logical deduction from it, but at the same time I do want to be balanced and gracious, understanding that my evangelical family members will need to work through a lot of these things, and I will probably have to bear with being called a legalist or Pharisee many times. And maybe an antinomian at other times. But at the same time, it is crucial to always be growing in righteousness, and recognizing the holiness of God, and continually seeing more and more of our sin, and seeing the power of God overcome that sin in our lives. I think that being loving on this issue necessitates being both firm and patient.

You have a good attitude and I commend your stance on seeking to uphold the 2nd commandment. I would concur with what Josh said earlier - perhaps you could have more leniency with family members than with a church. For example, if I went to a family members home that displayed a 2nd commandment violation, I would most likely still return to that family members home. But if I visited a church with an obvious 2nd commandment violation, i wouldn't see myself returning to that church. And when I say leniency with family, I don't mean that you simply overlook the sin, but instead you love them enough that you charitably give them grace as they grow in their understanding of the 2nd commandment.