Images of Jesus, right or wrong?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Also, you have to think. What religion comes to your mind today that has a serious problem with idolatry or statue worship? Quick. Don't think about it. What religion comes into your mind? Do you think that this religion does not actually think that the statue is the god itself and they are just using the statue as a means (or focal point) to contact their god? How is that different when people bow down to statues of Mary when they pray to her?

Shintoism?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Shintoism?

My wife is from Brazil. She knows of a Brazillian religion that sacrifices animals to certain gods. People who wanted to put a spell on someone to get them to love them would go to this religion and do sacrifices, etc. If they wanted a curse put upon a person, they would go to this religion, as well. Ironically, this particular religion has joined with certain Catholic churches in the Northern part of Brazil (if my memory serves me correctly in what she said). They would have joint worship together. In this Brazillian sacrifice religion, they had a choice to go to different gods, and in Catholicism they had their choice to go to different saints. Personally, I don't see the difference between the two concepts. For me: This is a violation of the 1st commandment (Which would often times include the breaking of the commandment forbidding idolatry, as well).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

My point is that kissing in Orthodoxy is an act done not only to our icons but the word of God itself. It's also done between people. Is kissing in itself an act of idolatry then when done to anything or anyone, bible included? Or should we allow context for what is being kissed and the personal reasons why an object or person is being kissed to determine it's status as idolatry?

I wouldn't compare the bible to a golden calf.

Jesus never told us to love objects or things but we are to love people instead. Hence, why we can kiss people and not objects or inanimate objects. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Also, the icons you revere are not really true images of what is real. They are not the actual images of what anyone looked like.

Furthermore, kissing is done not to have a one way affection, but it is to have a two way affection shared. That is what kissing is all about. Judas kissed Jesus, but it was an act of betrayal. It was not done with true affection. Jesus desired true affection with a kiss. But it was not done when Judas kissed him. So to kiss a book that cannot return your affection is kind of pointless. All our adoration to be to God. Jesus said we should worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Kissing God's Word or icons is never included in that ever in Scripture.

Keeping God's Word (and loving the souls of all men) is showing our affection for the Lord (John 14:15) and or for His words.

 

[JackRT]

Some years ago I visited a Hindu temple. I stood before the altar area staring in silent amazement at the multitude of images of various deities, some of them very bizarre indeed. I had been there several minutes when I heard a gentle voice behind me say "God is One." I turned to meet the pundit (priest) of the temple. As he escorted me around the altar area he explained that while God is One, we in our finitude are unable to comprehend the fullness of God in a single "take". Each one of the "deities" before us was simply a different manifestation of God's Oneness. We Christians have done much the same with our trinity theory. Interestingly enough, the pundit was also a nuclear chemistry professor at a nearby university.

 

[Athanasius377]

When we post pictures of Jesus, we are saying that this is God. This is wrong because it can lead people to think that this is God and they can potentially bow down to it.

That is not what anyone is saying. The problem here is Christological. Because God was incarnate in Jesus who really was man (and God) in space and time he can be depicted. That image is not to be bowed down to or worshiped or served. It is not God rather it is an image depicting the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. To say that one cannot depict Jesus is in a sense denying his humanity. We do not depict God the Father as no one has seen him (John 1:18). Jesus was seen by those in close proximity during his earthly ministry and could be seen by the sense of sight. This is a property of having a physical body which according to scripture in the doctrine of the Incarnation Jesus does possess.

To put it another way, I have an Orthodox Icon of Jesus on my wall. I purchased it because I agree with the theology that it depicts via image. At no time have I ever thought that it was God in and of itself, nor have I ever felt the need to bow down and serve this Icon. No one has ever seen felt that it should be worshiped either. If people began to worship this icon I would remove it immediately but so far that has never happened.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Jesus never told us to love objects or things but we are to love people instead. Hence, why we can kiss people and not objects or inanimate objects. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Also, the icons you revere are not really true images of what is real. They are not the actual images of what anyone looked like.

Furthermore, kissing is done not to have a one way affection, but it is to have a two way affection shared. That is what kissing is all about. Judas kissed Jesus, but it was an act of betrayal. It was not done with true affection. Jesus desired true affection with a kiss. But it was not done when Judas kissed him. So to kiss a book that cannot return your affection is kind of pointless. All our adoration to be to God. Jesus said we should worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Kissing God's Word or icons is never included in that ever in Scripture.

Keeping God's Word (and loving the souls of all men) is showing our affection for the Lord (John 14:15) and or for His words.

Jesus never told us to do a lot of things yet we do them all the same. The question is whether or not the act of veneration constitutes idolatry, not whether Jesus condoned it. Doing only what Jesus commanded leaves us with limited options to what we can and should not do every day. You haven't established that kissing the scripture is like kissing the idol of a calf. The intent is obviously not to worship the book but to show reverence for what the book represents (God's teaching). The same goes towards Icons of the Saints, Angels and Jesus himself. Calling the act itself pointless when it obviously has a deep meaning towards those who do it is a little less than charitable.You are deeming the actions done by people like myself as being akin to Judas, as not being true affection. I can tell you those who actually kiss the cross are doing it out of sincerity, at least I hope so, certainty I do.

Icons are deliberately non-literal depictions. Jesus probably didn't go around wearing scarlet red and blue robes yet these are symbolic of his majesty and person. Orthodox Iconography is deliberately stylized in that way, to evoke the spiritual truth as well as the material truth of the matter. Furthermore I would contest that icons need to literally depict what a person looks like in order to be legitimate, they do not and to suggest they do is to incorporate a type of legalism that Icons do not need.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The problem is that it is simply a violation of Exodus 20:4 to make an image of God.

It is only a violation that if one bows down and worships it. Read the whole passage and not just a couple of words in it.

 

[TuxAme]

Lets read the passage, shall we?

4 "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:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,..." (Exodus 20:4-5).

Okay. Verse 4 says not to make any graven image or any LIKENESS of ANYTHING (meaning a drawing) in heaven above or in the earth beneath. Does this mean we cannot make drawings or statues of any kind? No. God later had the Israelites create an Ark with Cherubim on it. God later told Moses to create a brass serpent. But Exodus 20:5 sheds light on what KIND of image we are not to create. It says we are not to bow down to them or serve them. This means that they are making that image into a god. This means that Exodus 20:4-5 is saying that we are not to create images of God (Whether it be a graven image or a drawn or painted image). Why? Because it can lead a person to worship that false image (very easily).

Jesus says we are to worship God in Spirit and in truth (See John 4:24). How exactly is one doing that if they are worshiping a lie? Jesus is not white. That image is a lie. Jesus is not European. Such an image is a lie. Jesus is Jewish and He would have been Middle Eastern in appearance. So you have two problems here. One, there is a command that forbids a person to make images of God. Two, the promotion of Jesus being white is the promotion of a lie (and is also a violation of Scripture). So this is a double whammy here. It's not good. We should not have pictures or statues of Jesus. They should be destroyed or thrown out immediately if they are in a person's possession.

I'm not too horribly concerned with what race people might portray Jesus as, and I'm not too worried about whether or not the artist portrays Him with long hair and a beard, either. All I'm concerned with, for the purpose of the thread, is whether it's right to make an image of Him at all. So let's not bother discussing how Jesus should (or shouldn't) be portrayed unless we've come to agreement on the legitimacy of portraying Him in the first place.

Now, you're quoting from Exodus. Are you suggesting that bowing down to an image is the same as serving the image, rather than what the image represents? If I kneel in front of a crucifix, am I serving the wood and plaster rather than the Lord whose image it bears? I would have no reason to serve the crucifix before realizing Who it represents, but now that I know Who it is being represented, you suspect that I am turning around and serving the wood and plaster that I earlier refused?

Or do you instead recognize that God isn't jealous of mere images made by the hands of men? but rather, His jealousy is sparked when we make of that image more than what it really is? In other words, it's what we make of an image that makes it bad. I doubt that God would be upset at the mere presence of the golden calf. Again, it's what the Israelites made of it that sparked His jealousy. Those of us who recognize the rightful place of religious imagery don't make the mistake that they made. We neither treat the combination of wood, plaster and paint as something divine of its own, nor (unless we're referring to an image of Jesus, the Holy Spirit or the Father) do we recognize the person the image is of to be divine, either.

God made use of images Himself, as you mentioned. For example, the bronze serpent. He both ordered its creation, and instructed the Israelites to look at it to be saved from the serpents that had been afflicting them (side note- curious how God desired to use an image of a creature to save the Israelites from the actual creatures). All that looked at it were saved. Though this thing, which once had a very righteous purpose- later became an idol to them. And so, King Hezekiah had it destroyed. This seems to prove my theory, that God doesn't hate the images in themselves, but what we make of them.

You fall into idolatry when you attribute more worth to an object than it- or the thing it represents- deserves. Merely creating or owning the image isn't enough to fall into this sin, as Scripture shows. Why do you suggest otherwise?

 

[FenderTL5]

..In class rooms, we should not have pictures of Jesus, but a written description of His appearance based upon what the Bible says. Anything else beyond that is idolatry..
..it should be stressed that nobody knows what Jesus looks like in the classroom. Why? Because it is the truth.

Would it be accurate to say that you consider all illustrated Bibles, for children or adults, as idolatrous?
You would oppose handouts/coloring pages etc for children's Sunday School teaching about Christ also as idolatry?

I'm not sure if you have said whether you extend that to depictions of other Bible/historical characters, such as Daniel or David and Goliath, others etc. If not, then we've both been said to be ridiculous and lacking common sense:

it would seem to be common sense to not put up a picture of someone when you have no information of what they actually looked like.

it would only take someone asking "how do you know he looks like that?" to make the picture become ridiculous.

The discussion is interesting to me on a few points, such as - how far is this iconoclasm extended in modern times? Also, since this issue was addressed in depth by those far more adept than most of us at the Second Council of Nicea, it would seem the old adage is true; those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[TuxAme]

I find it curious that we are supposed to be so fearful of physical images, but not the ones that we create in our own minds. What's the difference between a physical image and a mental one that God should love the one and hate the other?

 

[GodsGrace101]

So by extension I guess, what do you think of cross necklaces and cross earrings?

How about the face of Jesus tattooed on the upper arm?
Nice job too.
On a young man who prayed for a healing and got it.
I think it's a great testimony.
(even though I don't really like tattoos).

 

[FenderTL5]

Icons are deliberately non-literal depictions. Jesus probably didn't go around wearing scarlet red and blue robes yet these are symbolic of his majesty and person. Orthodox Iconography is deliberately stylized in that way, to evoke the spiritual truth as well as the material truth of the matter. Furthermore I would contest that icons need to literally depict what a person looks like in order to be legitimate, they do not and to suggest they do is to incorporate a type of legalism that Icons do not need.

This is one of the things that I love about Orthodox Icons, the intentional, non-literal depictions in order to portray spiritual truths. The icons have a depth of meaning that the Renaissance masters completely miss in their moment-in-time realism.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Has anyone posted this?

Second Council of Nicea, about 725AD

• written and
• unwrittenecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us.{Council formulates for the first time what the Church has always believed regarding icons}One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another’s message.Given this state of affairs and stepping out as though on the royal highway, following as we are
  
  
• the God-spoken teaching of our holy fathers and
• the tradition of the catholic church —
• for we recognize that this tradition comes from the holy Spirit who dwells in her–
• we decree with full precision and care that,
• like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross,
• the revered and holy images,
• whether painted or
• made of mosaic
• or of other suitable material,
• are to be exposed
• in the holy churches of God,
• on sacred instruments and vestments,
• on walls and panels,
• in houses and by public ways,
• these are the images of
• our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of
• our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of
• the revered angels and of
• any of the saintly holy men.
• The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration {latria} in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are drawn to honour these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honour paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image.

source: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum07.htm

 

[scottyp588]

I didn't realize this was such a popular topic. I feel that images of Jesus are mostly marketing campaigns. There are billboards and signs everywhere. Not to mention those tacky Christian clothes that are ripoffs of popular culture/companies. Why do you need an image of him anyway? There's a high probability that he looked nothing like whatever image you have of him. Just seems like a good way to make money off of others.

 

[zoidar]

I believe visions where people see images of Jesus are all false. Why? Well, because God knows that such images would lead us to want to draw or make statues of those images of Him (Which is idolatry). Such pictures can lead to the potential worship (or bowing down or praying) to such images (Which is even more wrong)

Actually I had a vision. I normally don't talk about it, but I did. I know it was real, but I will probably not be able to convince you of that.

Besides, any picture of God is a violation of Exodus 20:4. Bowing down is the next violation of that command (Exodus 20:5). But just making an image of God is the first half of the violation (Exodus 20:4).

Let's look at what Exodus 20:4-5 say.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them or serve them ; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God

You shall not make yourself any idol or likeness of anything that is in heaven above, of those creatures that fly in the sky, birds ... or on the earth beneath the sky, i.o.w. on land, horses, cats ... or of those that are in the water under the earth, fishes. So can't we make images of creatures, is that what is being said? No, we are not to make images of animals for worship. You are not to make your own God. That is what the commandment is about. If you do make your own God, God will be jealous. Why would He be jealous if you make an image of Him?

I also believe if we have the Holy Spirit we know Christ not only by character but also by appearance. If Christ walked by us today on the street, we would recognize him, because we know him. So I believe if we know Christ through the Holy Spirit, we also know him by looks.

And before anyone asks, why there then are different images of Jesus. I believe because many who paint Jesus don't know him through the Holy Spirit, and those that do know him paint him from how they see him. If I and my brother both painted my dad (from the memory), there would be two different pictures of him, since we recognize and focus on different things in his appearance. Even so the pictures would likely have similarities, same obvious character features, like a beard, long hair etc.

 

[Mantishand]

----------

 

[JackRT]

I am an artist an am also wondering about this. I have lots of stuff I would like to create but am perplexed as if I should or not. Like the tree of life with the archangel protecting it with the flaming sword. That kind of stuff. Attached is a piece I did that I'm really not sure if its a sin or not.

If you don't know if its a sin, its not.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Having images of someone you love and cherish goes back beyond the beginning of recorded history. Why would you not have images of the One you love and cherish beyond all others?

 

[Daniel9v9]

Making an image of God is what Exodus 20:4-5 is all about in regards to idolatry.
Exodus 20:4-5 is not talking about crosses because a cross is not an image of God.
While a symbol of a cross can be an idol if somebody puts cross like images in their home to such a degree that it is insane, it is not technically an image of God (of which Exodus 20:4-5 talks about).

Oh, and if you believe Paul is talking about idolatry in Romans 14, you have to prove that such is the case with a specific verse that says that. If you don't have one, then you are merely adding to what Scripture says.

No. Romans 14 is not excusing idolatry, but is correctly dealing with adiaphora in the Church. We need to carefully discriminate between the freedom we have in Christ, and that which is sinful.

Imagery in and of itself is not any more sinful than words; that is, they can be, but they are not sinful by default. What you're getting at is Aniconism, which you can read all about here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Christianity

Any form of idolatry is sin. However, knowing that there is only one God, we can be assured that an idol in itself is nothing, as explained in 1 Corinthians 8. Again, here we can see Paul talking about the freedom and confidence we have in Christ.

Let me give a practical example of how a poor application of Exodus 20:4-5 can easily spin out of control:

A) How many pen strokes are you allowed before an image of Christ becomes a sin?
B) Is an abstract rendition of Christ OK?
C) What if I re-arrange the letters of "JESUS" to look like a figure?
D) If I believe something that has been made looks like Christ, is it sin? (Pareidolia)
With situations like the above, it becomes an arbitrary and artificial line to draw, which is not in the Bible, but is typical of Judaism and Islam, that has no place in the Gospel, for the Gospel is not a matter of "do not handle, do not touch", but is rather a matter of God's grace.

Or:
1. Is a cross OK? Would it not be worship of wood, silver, gold and stone?
2. Is the Ichthys OK? Would it not be worship of a fish?
3. Is the Agnus Dei OK? Would it not be worship of a lamb?
4. Is a crucifix OK? Would it not be re-crucifying Christ? Would it not be worship of a false Christ?
No - not by merit of being a symbol. These means are neither holy nor unholy in and of themselves, for they are only outward means and confessions, whereas we worship the one true God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and one true Lord Jesus Christ. However, if someone were to treat an image as something holy and divine, then it becomes problematic and a form of idolatry. Therefore, Iconography is correctly adiaphora.

It's helpful to properly understand what adiaphora is.

Positively:
- Adiaphora are all things neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture. They are kept for the purpose of edification, discipline and good order in the church. They have to do with the freedom we have in Christ.

- Genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference, in and of themselves, are no worship of God, nor any part of it, but must be properly distinguished from such as are, as it's written in Matthew 15:9

- The congregation of God of every place and every time has, according to its circumstances, the good right, power, and authority in matters truly adiaphora to change, to diminish, and to increase them, without thoughtlessness and offense, in an orderly and becoming way, as at any time it may be regarded most profitable, most beneficial, and best for preserving good order, maintaining Christian discipline and for eujtaxiva worthy of the profession of the Gospel, and the edification of the Church. Moreover, how we can yield and give way with a good conscience to the weak in faith in such external adiaphora, Paul teaches in Romans 14, and proves it by his example in Acts 16:3; Acts 21:26; 1 Corinthians 9:19.

Negatively:
- When under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are proposed as are in principle contrary to God's Word, these are not to be regarded as adiaphora.

- When there are useless, foolish displays, that are profitable neither for good order nor Christian discipline, nor evangelical propriety in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference.

- Adiaphora is not to be forced nor demanded, and so injure or burden our neighbour, as if it was a requirement of our faith. This was taught by the Apostles, by the early church (cf. Easter Controversy), at the Reformation (cf. Augsburg Confession) and still held today. Any adiaphora that cause harm is to be avoided.

Lastly, I think there are other channels of idolatry that are much more common and problematic in our time, such as the love for security and comfort, love for pleasure, love of self in form of pride, love of status and career, love for individualism and disregard for our neighbour, love for personal interpretation and disregard for the church and schism etc, which are all idolatry.

I'm sorry for this lengthy post, but I hope you can appreciate that - even if you hold Christian imagery to be sin - a significant portion of the church disagree, and for good Biblical reasons, and therefore it's good to be patient and not judge one another.

 

[Anderson Corey]

I think making the photos of Jesus is not right. if we want to give him respect then you to respect within your heart. there is no need to show your faith in the God.