Are images of Jesus allowed?

[Emun]

But nobody who does have His image, and no church which has His image, is doing anything wrong, and you are the one who errors if you would force your opinion on everyone else.

I don't want to force anything on anyone. It is only a loving warning. Who ignores this warning is himself to blame. It is a huge sin to paint God a face. Muslims understand this and fear God so much that they would not do such a thing. In this respect, Muslims are one step ahead of some Christians.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I don't want to force anything on anyone. It is only a loving warning. Who ignores this warning is himself to blame. It is a huge sin to paint God a face. Muslims understand this and fear God so much that they would not do such a thing. In this respect, Muslims are one step ahead of some Christians.

Muslims don't believe Jesus is the son of God, nor in the Holy Trinity.
I wouldn't use their beliefs to try and understand Christianity.

Fact is, no one has seen God, but only the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity, Christ.

The artist depictions are not images of Christ literally, but reminders about Christ when he
dwelt among us and they're used to remind us of the Gospel event. We don't worship
the art depiction, but the one who the art is about.

Just as photographs of your family members are not them, but what they looked like when the
photo was taken and are used to remind us of them.

 

[ViaCrucis]

God became visible as a human being in the Old Testament. He appeared to Jacob and Samson's father as a man. He also visited Abraham in the form of a human being. Theophanies existed even before Jesus. And none of them had the idea to make a picture

So what? I don't understand what you're trying to say. The bush was not God, so you can make a picture of it. As I mentioned above, I said that it is permissible to make a picture of all except God.

When God manifests as a burning bush, it's okay to depict that. But when God comes down, is born of the Virgin, and has real skin and bones and sheds real blood from a real cross, we can't depict that?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Emun]

When God manifests as a burning bush, it's okay to depict that. But when God comes down, is born of the Virgin, and has real skin and bones and sheds real blood from a real cross, we can't depict that?

-CryptoLutheran

Firstly, where does scripture says the burning bush was God? It says God was IN the burning bush. Moses saw the Angel of the Lord in the bush.

Secondly, I am specifically addressing images that are with faces.

 

[Emun]

Look at the temple of Solomon. God commanded Solomon to make images of animals, angels and plants to decorate the temple, but never did He command Solomon to make an image of Him. Or look at the modern synagogues of today, do you see anywhere an image of a man that is supposed to represent God? You don't see any.

I agree with John Calvin when he says that images of Jesus are Satanic works.

 

[YahuahSaves]

You see it often and regularly. Christians who either have an image of Jesus hanging on their wall at home or have a picture of Jesus as their profile picture on social media. There are also Christians who bow down before an image of Jesus (or Mary).

My question is: Is that reprehensible to make an image of God?

Paul said in Acts 17:29: "Because we are descended from God, it is absurd to think that we can represent God in statues made of gold, silver or hewn stones. These are, after all, only creations of our art and our imaginations."

Isn't that a clear statement?

My other question is: Why do people always tend to make an image of God? We see this already in the early times of mankind and until today it is still common. How do you explain this phenomenon?

Yes it is absurd to think we can depict God.
For he is Spirit.
Note the scripture doesn't say "Jesus".
it's a human need to "paint a picture", to satisfy the confines of our "natural" understanding.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Firstly, where does scripture says the burning bush was God? It says God was IN the burning bush. Moses saw the Angel of the Lord in the bush.

Secondly, I am specifically addressing images that are with faces.

If you go and read about the incident with Jacob, you'll see that it says Jacob wrestled with an angel, and it also says that it was a man, and then also that it says that Jacob wrestled with God.

Most Christian exegetes, ancient and modern, maintain that many times the Malak YHWH, aka Angel of the LORD, is a theopany--it's God, not only that, it's a Christophany; the pre-incarnate Logos.

So, yes, I feel confident in saying that what Moses encountered when he saw the burning bush was nothing other than YHWH. So I don't see the difference between depicting one Theophany while saying another is wrong. I don't believe that we can say showing Moses before the burning bush is fine, but depicting the Malak YHWH would be wrong (e.g. with Jacob). I'd even argue, in fact, that depicting Jesus should be even more acceptable because we are talking about He who bore real flesh, actual skin and bone. We aren't dealing with a mere manifestation, a mere Theophany, but with the Ensarkos Theos, God-in-the-flesh.

It seems to me that you are engaging merely in goal-post shifting and cherry-picking what you personally dislike.

As far as what Calvin said on the matter, as I'm not a Calvinist and don't consider Calvin much of an authority on theology or Scripture, if he saw images of Christ as "satanic works", I can freely admit that I just don't care what Calvin felt about the subject. Calvin also denied that Jesus Christ is truly and bodily present in His Supper and tried to claim that Jesus couldn't be in His Supper because He's at the right hand of the Father. So Calvin's opinions don't mean much to me.

I do care, however, about the historic opinions of the Christian Church which have been consistent for the last two thousand years, and the true biblical teaching which the Church has clung to on the subject. Which is why I celebrate sacred images, rather than condemn them.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Emun]

If you go and read about the incident with Jacob, you'll see that it says Jacob wrestled with an angel, and it also says that it was a man, and then also that it says that Jacob wrestled with God.

Most Christian exegetes, ancient and modern, maintain that many times the Malak YHWH, aka Angel of the LORD, is a theopany--it's God, not only that, it's a Christophany; the pre-incarnate Logos.

So, yes, I feel confident in saying that what Moses encountered when he saw the burning bush was nothing other than YHWH. So I don't see the difference between depicting one Theophany while saying another is wrong. I don't believe that we can say showing Moses before the burning bush is fine, but depicting the Malak YHWH would be wrong (e.g. with Jacob). I'd even argue, in fact, that depicting Jesus should be even more acceptable because we are talking about He who bore real flesh, actual skin and bone. We aren't dealing with a mere manifestation, a mere Theophany, but with the Ensarkos Theos, God-in-the-flesh.

It seems to me that you are engaging merely in goal-post shifting and cherry-picking what you personally dislike.

As far as what Calvin said on the matter, as I'm not a Calvinist and don't consider Calvin much of an authority on theology or Scripture, if he saw images of Christ as "satanic works", I can freely admit that I just don't care what Calvin felt about the subject. Calvin also denied that Jesus Christ is truly and bodily present in His Supper and tried to claim that Jesus couldn't be in His Supper because He's at the right hand of the Father. So Calvin's opinions don't mean much to me.

I do care, however, about the historic opinions of the Christian Church which have been consistent for the last two thousand years, and the true biblical teaching which the Church has clung to on the subject. Which is why I celebrate sacred images, rather than condemn them.

-CryptoLutheran

Even if the burning bush was a manifestation of God, you still cannot compare it to a human manifestation. A human being has a face, but a bush does not. The reprehensible thing about an image of God is the face.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Even if the burning bush was a manifestation of God, you still cannot compare it to a human manifestation. A human being has a face, but a bush does not. The reprehensible thing about an image of God is the face.

Is there a specific Scripture passage you have in mind that makes depicting Jesus' face a particular issue for you?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Strong in Him]

You see it often and regularly. Christians who either have an image of Jesus hanging on their wall at home or have a picture of Jesus as their profile picture on social media.

They have a picture of what they think Jesus looked like.
But no one knows. There are no surviving photographs.

 

[Emun]

Is there a specific Scripture passage you have in mind that makes depicting Jesus' face a particular issue for you?

-CryptoLutheran

It is self-evident that it is forbidden to paint God a face. Go to a Reformed church, a Syanagoge or a mosque, you will not find an image of God, because these people fear God. Only catholic-minded Christians see it differently.

It is a question of Godliness not to do it. Why do you desire to make images of God? Why do you want to do it so badly? You can make pictures of anything else, isn't that enough for you?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

“Icons are theology in imagery, the icon expresses through color what the Gospel proclaims in words”. - The Icon: Window on the Kingdom

Remember that for the first thousand years of Christianity, the literacy rate might have been 1-5%. So how could the common person learn? Even a simple picture could be drawn for teaching. These can get quite expressive and teach some deep truths such as the Nativity. We see Mary, Joseph and Christ in the center of the icon along with a ray of light demonstrating the Divinity of God. Notice that the face of Jesus is that of an adult, showing that He was fully human. He is wrapped not in swaddling clothes and in a manager but rather in burial cloths and in a coffin, showing that His death is in the future. The ox and the donkey watch over Him as Isaiah says "The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master's manger; Israel has no knowledge, my people have no understanding" (Isa 1: 2-3). The Magi are arriving while an angel proclaims the tidings of the birth to a shepherd.

The cave is painted black, indicating the darkness in the world, with the light illuminating it as in the first chapter of John. Mary is dressed in a blue undertunic with a red robe, showing that she carried the divine in her humanity. Christ is ordinarily drawn with a red tunic and blue cloak, showing his divinity and humanity.

In the Orthodox house, an icon corner is used as a church in the house. This is mine. Not only do I have a full spread of icons, but censor, candles as well as service and prayer books.

 

[zoidar]

They have a picture of what they think Jesus looked like.
But no one knows. There are no surviving photographs.

Unless he has appeared in a vision...

 

[zoidar]

“Icons are theology in imagery, the icon expresses through color what the Gospel proclaims in words”. - The Icon: Window on the Kingdom

Remember that for the first thousand years of Christianity, the literacy rate might have been 1-5%. So how could the common person learn? Even a simple picture could be drawn for teaching. These can get quite expressive and teach some deep truths such as the Nativity. We see Mary, Joseph and Christ in the center of the icon along with a ray of light demonstrating the Divinity of God. Notice that the face of Jesus is that of an adult, showing that He was fully human. He is wrapped not in swaddling clothes and in a manager but rather in burial cloths and in a coffin, showing that His death is in the future. The ox and the donkey watch over Him as Isaiah says "The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master's manger; Israel has no knowledge, my people have no understanding" (Isa 1: 2-3). The Magi are arriving while an angel proclaims the tidings of the birth to a shepherd.

The cave is painted black, indicating the darkness in the world, with the light illuminating it as in the first chapter of John. Mary is dressed in a blue undertunic with a red robe, showing that she carried the divine in her humanity. Christ is ordinarily drawn with a red tunic and blue cloak, showing his divinity and humanity.

View attachment 324105


In the Orthodox house, an icon corner is used as a church in the house. This is mine. Not only do I have a full spread of icons, but censor, candles as well as service and prayer books.

View attachment 324104

You are not holding back I see, beautiful home/prayer corner you got.

I have two icons and a crucifix in my prayer room.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

You are not holding back I see, beautiful home/prayer corner you got.

I have two icons and a crucifix in my prayer room.

Thanks! I don't use it as much as I should though

 

[zoidar]

Thanks! I don't use it as much as I should though

The same with my prayer room.

I think just 5 minutes in prayer each day would be a great start.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is self-evident that it is forbidden to paint God a face. Go to a Reformed church, a Syanagoge or a mosque, you will not find an image of God, because these people fear God. Only catholic-minded Christians see it differently.

It is a question of Godliness not to do it. Why do you desire to make images of God? Why do you want to do it so badly? You can make pictures of anything else, isn't that enough for you?

Synagogues wouldn't have an image of Christ for obvious reasons.
Mosques don't have images at all because it is a Muslim prohibition unique to their religion.
Reformed churches don't because of their tradition.

None of the above tells me that I shouldn't, and that "Catholic-minded Christians" do it isn't a reason not to. I am one of those catholic Christians. I'm a Lutheran.

You need to come up with a better reason other than "because this is how I feel".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

“Icons are theology in imagery, the icon expresses through color what the Gospel proclaims in words”. - The Icon: Window on the Kingdom

Remember that for the first thousand years of Christianity, the literacy rate might have been 1-5%. So how could the common person learn? Even a simple picture could be drawn for teaching. These can get quite expressive and teach some deep truths such as the Nativity. We see Mary, Joseph and Christ in the center of the icon along with a ray of light demonstrating the Divinity of God. Notice that the face of Jesus is that of an adult, showing that He was fully human. He is wrapped not in swaddling clothes and in a manager but rather in burial cloths and in a coffin, showing that His death is in the future. The ox and the donkey watch over Him as Isaiah says "The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master's manger; Israel has no knowledge, my people have no understanding" (Isa 1: 2-3). The Magi are arriving while an angel proclaims the tidings of the birth to a shepherd.

The cave is painted black, indicating the darkness in the world, with the light illuminating it as in the first chapter of John. Mary is dressed in a blue undertunic with a red robe, showing that she carried the divine in her humanity. Christ is ordinarily drawn with a red tunic and blue cloak, showing his divinity and humanity.

View attachment 324105


In the Orthodox house, an icon corner is used as a church in the house. This is mine. Not only do I have a full spread of icons, but censor, candles as well as service and prayer books.

View attachment 324104

That's really nice. While I don't currently have one in my home, lots of Lutherans have home/family altars that can range from the very simple to the more elaborate. A simple prayer desk with the Bible and a crucifix, to a more robust collection of icons, such as what you have in your home.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Emun]

None of the above tells me that I shouldn't,

All of the above tells you that it is a sin to make an image of God. That's the point.

You need to come up with a better reason other than "because this is how I feel".

You can read the reasons here. 5 Reasons not to Use Images of Jesus - Reformed Arsenal

 

[black-pawn]

If you are not a dispensationalist and not a Preterist, what do you believe?

You see it often and regularly. Christians who either have an image of Jesus hanging on their wall at home or have a picture of Jesus as their profile picture on social media. There are also Christians who bow down before an image of Jesus (or Mary).

My question is: Is that reprehensible to make an image of God?

Paul said in Acts 17:29: "Because we are descended from God, it is absurd to think that we can represent God in statues made of gold, silver or hewn stones. These are, after all, only creations of our art and our imaginations."

Isn't that a clear statement?

My other question is: Why do people always tend to make an image of God? We see this already in the early times of mankind and until today it is still common. How do you explain this phenomenon?

If Jesus is your superhero, you have reduced the image of a limitless, uncreated, eternal God--- the Holy One to the level of man-made heroes. You are just as guilty as Catholics who do the same.

To answer your question. Yes, it is reprehensible to make an image of a limitless God who is not a creature. but the creator of all that there is. He is holy which means nothing can define Him unless he first reveals Himself to us (Jn 1:3; Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:1-3, 8, 10; Rev. 1:8, 22:13).