Images of Jesus, right or wrong?

[Athanasius377]

Since the Incarnation God entered into His creation in space and time through Christ. He was truly man and had a body. As such there is no reason why one cannot depict Him in an image. The problem can arise if the image becomes the object of worship. If that were to occur then the image should be removed so the error can be corrected. Second, there is no prohibition against images. The second commandment states that no graven image which is then bowed down to or served.

Exodus 20:4 (ESV)
“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, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Otherwise one has a hard time making sense of the command to make the Ark of the Covenant with graven image of cherubim on the Mercy Seat.

Ex 25:17–21 (ESV)
You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. 18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. 21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you

Or the Bronze Serpent when the Lord sent fiery serpents against Israel as punishment. They were to look upon a graven image and live.

Numbers 21:8-9 (ESV)
And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

So it seems the problem isn't with the graven image rather it was how they were treated. We find during the reign of Hezekiah the serpent was named Nehushtan and had been the object of worship. At that point Hezekiah destroyed it along with all the idols in Judah.

2 Ki 18:4 (ESV)
4 He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).

It seems there is a good case for images and specifically images of Christ (as part of the doctrine of the Incarnation). Images can and were aids in teaching the Faith as historically the populace was likely illiterate. The image only becomes problematic if the image becomes an idol.

 

[zoidar]

How is this different from thinking of God in the manner you desire Him?

You are not to think of God how you desire him to be, but from how He is. But we don't have the perfect understanding of God. That doesn't mean we make a golden calf each time we think of Him. If we deliberately make God's character into something He isn't we are making ourself a golden calf.

Yes you are. CS Lewis mentions it in Letters to Malcolm and a Grief Observed. You can set up a mental idol as easily, but more surreptitiously, than an actual one. Every now and then, God needs to disabuse us of our complacent notions, lest we replaced the Living waters with a stagnant pool.
I think Cardinal Newman said something similar, but I am unsure where.

Man, you must have problems praying if you have to fight off images that comes in your head of Christ.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The first images of Jesus I believe is from 200AD.

https://earlychurchhistory.org/arts/oldest-christian-church/

The oldest extant image meant to represent Jesus is probably a piece of graffiti from the late first or early second century AD in Rome. It was actually to mock a Christian, by showing a crucified figure with a donkey head - refering to a common Hellenistic slur that the Holy of Holies had contained a donkey head.

You can only say that you don't know what he looked like. People know what he looked like. I know what he looked like.

Yes, if God wanted to know what he looked like he would show himself in visions, and he does.

A painting is not a photo. It won't be perfect. Still the characteristics can be there. Does an image of Christ have to be "perfect"?

Whatever it is, it certainly is unlikely to be accurate to life. Western depictions were initially clean-shaven, and the 'bearded Christ' we know, first became popular in the East before making its way West.

I vaguely remember some myth of John having painted Christ, popular in the middle ages, but the details escape me. If someone knows of it, please share.

 

[Heavenhome]

You can only say that you don't know what he looked like. People know what he looked like. I know what he looked like.

Yes, if God wanted to know what he looked like he would show himself in visions, and he does.

A painting is not a photo. It won't be perfect. Still the characteristics can be there. Does an image of Christ have to be "perfect"?

Yes you are right I don't know what He looks like but I am sure I will when He returns if I am alive at the second coming.
I see by replies to this thread that I am in a minority but that's OK, what really matters is that I know Him and have been saved by Him through the cross, will one day see Him face to face and dwell in heaven forever.
I love Him with every piece of my heart and soul. Amen?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Just for a little balance here, many Church Fathers opposed depictions of Christ. The Synod of Elvira in 306 AD opposed painting pictures of Christ too (though Protestants and Catholics interpret the wording here a bit differently). There was also the Iconoclasm of the 7th and 8th centuries.
So there has always been some ambiguity as to whether or not Christ can be depicted, and it is from this tradition that Calvin came to reject images in entirety.

Everyone agrees images shouldn't be worshipped, but there is an argument for not putting the temptation before weak-willed humans to do so. As the Parable of the Sheep and Goats show, we may think ourselves following Christ, when 'we know Him not'. This is like the Golden Calf, which again was supposed to be a representation of YHWH, not some other god.

 

[zoidar]

The oldest extant image meant to represent Jesus is probably a piece of graffiti from the late first or early second century AD in Rome. It was actually to mock a Christian, by showing a crucified figure with a donkey head - refering to a common Hellenistic slur that the Holy of Holies had contained a donkey head.

It wasn't meant to represent Jesus, it was meant to dis-represent Jesus, making like you say a false image of him. But we don't know, when the first images of Jesus appeared. I would be surprised if not some Christians drawed Jesus in the first century.

Whatever it is, it certainly is unlikely to be accurate to life. Western depictions were initially clean-shaven, and the 'bearded Christ' we know, first became popular in the East before making its way West.

I vaguely remember some myth of John having painted Christ, popular in the middle ages, but the details escape me. If someone knows of it, please share.

"Western depictions were initially clean-shaven". You have to give me a source to that claim.

You then don't believe that Christ appear to people visually?

 

[SamJakobs]

I do think making images of Jesus is okay since he became man and lived among humans. But God the Father, I think told the jews not to make statues of him in the Old Testament.

Totally agree with this and God isn't going to punish us for drawing or painting a picture of Jesus but he will punish us if we all of a sudden worship an image or statue.

 

[zoidar]

Yes you are right I don't know what He looks like but I am sure I will when He returns if I am alive at the second coming.
I see by replies to this thread that I am in a minority but that's OK, what really matters is that I know Him and have been saved by Him through the cross, will one day see Him face to face and dwell in heaven forever.
I love Him with every piece of my heart and soul. Amen?

Amen! Wonderful! It makes me happy to read about your love for him. God bless you brother (or sister)!

 

[SkyWriting]

Historically, there has been a minority of radicals who firmly reject all kinds of Christian iconography. However, surely anything that points to Christ is good, and anything that distracts from Christ is evil. Providing it's adiaphora - things neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture - judge for yourself.

What we can't do is deny or force adiaphora on others. Romans 14 explains this well.

God is Spirit.
So all pointers should be similar.

 

[Heavenhome]

S

Amen! Wonderful! It makes me happy to read about your love for him. God bless you brother (or sister)!

Sister! And thank you for your kind words. God bless you

 

[faroukfarouk]

Totally agree with this and God isn't going to punish us for drawing or painting a picture of Jesus but he will punish us if we all of a sudden worship an image or statue.

In the end it's what the heart does with the message of God's Word that counts for time and eternity.

 

[MartyF]

Hello,

I don’t think it is right. But I don’t think it is necessarily wrong. For some, like prayer beads, it helps one to focus on God during prayer or other times. Images can help focus and remind one of his or her beliefs.

Some use the bible in a similar fashion. They may carry it into battle for comfort even though they don’t plan on reading it during the battle. Or they may carry one to signify their beliefs. They purchase them with leather binding and gold leaf. They use expensive paper or insist on archaic editions which sound a certain way. They carry small ones which may be hard to read but are more symbolic than utilitarian.

That being said, it is unlikely that Jesus had long golden blonde hair.

I wouldn’t encourage it. But I won’t condemn it either. We didn’t get to see the Red Sea part and I don’t think God is upset if we have a few crutches in our faith to him.

Marty

 

[Mountainmike]

I think it is wrong as we do not know what Jesus looked like and if God wanted us to know He would have told us. So where do all the ideas of what Jesus looks like, come from?
Certainly not from the Bible.

Many would say that God did tell us.

Since most of the icons are based on the known image of the shroud of turin ,whose assumed history as the mandylion which surfaced in edessa, assumed to have been bricked up for a couple of centuries: the common icon even contains a few irregularities peculiar to the shroud.

Icon history traces to the time of mandylion and is why the images are all consistent. Tracing such iconography through pictures, stained glass and so on, is one of the strands of Ian Wilsons work on the shroud. Read it.

It ultimately travelled hrough constantinople to france, or so the pollen (and eyewitness in constantinople ) tell us - where it became for a while the secret image of the knights templar - they speak of a face as part of initiation.

Fanti's tests hopefully have finally demolished the last clutchers at the straw of the false RC date, and the relic is now accepted as what it was. First Century, holy land. Totally inexplicable , a document of the passion with authentic pre and post mortem pathology, and most certainly not an artwork. It also corresponds with the sudarium at Oviedo, with so many poitns of common forensic, no court would doubt that the two were teh same victim in a criminal trial. The sudarium traceable to 7th century.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

we shouldn't have any images of Jesus because we don't know what he looked like.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It wasn't meant to represent Jesus, it was meant to dis-represent Jesus, making like you say a false image of him. But we don't know, when the first images of Jesus appeared. I would be surprised if not some Christians drawed Jesus in the first century.

Maybe. Don't know of an extant one. They mostly used symbols like the Icthys though, since they were being persecuted and all.

"Western depictions were initially clean-shaven". You have to give me a source to that claim.

I quickly googled it. Sorry for not giving a more academic reference, but you can find one easily with a bit more extensive searching.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/ChristBeardless.html

You then don't believe that Christ appear to people visually?

Maybe. I won't pontificate on that. He appeared to the Apostles at least. I don't think Jesus would be so vain to care how 'real to life' He is depicted. Our current depiction looks distinguished and compassionate, often a man of sorrows, and I think that good enough, don't you think?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't see anything wrong with religious images, including images of Jesus, as long as we don't bow down and worship them. That is the trust of the commandment about graven images - that they are not made to be worshiped.

By that line of thinking, we are not guilty if we do not promote images of murder, adultery, and theft?
Jesus says in John 4:24 that we are to worship God in spirit and in truth.
If we promote false images of Jesus, we can potentially lead a person to worship that image we promote (Whether we want that to happen or not). It goes with the territory of promoting such said image. Jesus is also not white, and many portray Jesus as looking white in their icon (i.e. idol) of Him.

Also, the command in Exodus 20:4-5 is not just bowing down to these images but it is in MAKING them, too. The first half of the command forbids us in making any image in heaven above (Exodus 20:4). This is obviously in reference to what we believe to be God. Why? Because the second half of the command says not to bow down to such an image (letting us know that this is an image of what we believe to be God) (Exodus 20:5); And because that is what making images of God leads to. If we make drawings of Jesus, people can actually think that is Him on some level and when they pray, they will have that picture of Jesus in their mind. It is subtle. But it is the deceptive way of idolatry. We are commanded in the New Testament to keep ourselves from idols (1 John 5:21). How exactly are you doing that?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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

I would say it is safer not to display things like the cross too much in one's home because that would be making a symbol to have power. Jesus is more than just a symbol. Jesus is a person. Jesus is God (who is spirit). There is a point of overdoing it with something like a cross. BUT.... having a picture or small necklace of a cross (in minimal use) is NOT the same thing as making an image of anything above in Heaven (like a picture of Jesus).

Exodus 20:4 says,

"You shall not make unto yourself any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, ..." (Exodus 20:4).

This is with the intent of making an image of a deity that one could potentially worship because it says for you not to bow down to such an image (See Exodus 20:5). Making an image of Jesus is an image of God that one could potentially bow down to. A cross is not a person like God or an image in Heaven above or below that represents what God looks like. Idols back in the Old Testament were actually what they thought that god looked like. These were generally graven images (statues), but they obviously would extend to pictures, too; For a picture of a false god is the same as a statue of a false god. They both can lead one to falsely worship such an image. That is what idolatry is all about.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Historically, there has been a minority of radicals who firmly reject all kinds of Christian iconography. However, surely anything that points to Christ is good, and anything that distracts from Christ is evil. Providing it's adiaphora - things neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture - judge for yourself.

I don't reject the use of a cross here and there or a picture of the tomb, etc. That is not the same thing as the command given to us in Exodus 20:4-5. The first part of the command simply tells us to not making any graven image in heaven above and the earth below, etc. This is in context to second half of the command that says not to bow down to such an image. In other words, who should you bow down to? God. So this command is saying not to make any images of God. It's not talking about crosses and or drawings of things that are not what we believe to be God. When people post pictures of Jesus, they are saying that this is God. Well, most people believe Jesus is God (like myself). So that is what they are saying when they post pictures of Jesus. They are saying.... "Hey look! This is my God!" That is what they are saying (whether they want that to happen or not). In other words, it is a lie. The picture is not really what Jesus looks like. A picture is merely a different form of communication than words. We are told not to lie in the Bible. So if we can lie with our words, we can most certainly lie with our pictures or artwork or images that we create or promote. We have to be true with everything that we do.

What we can't do is deny or force adiaphora on others. Romans 14 explains this well.

Actually, Romans 14 mentions NOTHING about creating or promoting images. It talks about our liberty in Christ in regards to what we can eat and on what day we choose to rest and worship God.

Also, Romans 14:21 says,

"It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. " (Romans 14:21).

So if you believe Romans 14 extends to making idol images of our Lord (when it doesn't specifically say that), than this would mean that you should not approve of the open public display of them because they can lead others who are weak to stumble into idolatry.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You can only say that you don't know what he looked like. People know what he looked like. I know what he looked like.

Yes, if God wanted to know what he looked like he would show himself in visions, and he does.

A painting is not a photo. It won't be perfect. Still the characteristics can be there. Does an image of Christ have to be "perfect"?

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)

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).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Since the Incarnation God entered into His creation in space and time through Christ. He was truly man and had a body. As such there is no reason why one cannot depict Him in an image. The problem can arise if the image becomes the object of worship. If that were to occur then the image should be removed so the error can be corrected. Second, there is no prohibition against images. The second commandment states that no graven image which is then bowed down to or served.

Exodus 20:4 (ESV)
“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, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Otherwise one has a hard time making sense of the command to make the Ark of the Covenant with graven image of cherubim on the Mercy Seat.

Ex 25:17–21 (ESV)
You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. 18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. 21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you

Or the Bronze Serpent when the Lord sent fiery serpents against Israel as punishment. They were to look upon a graven image and live.

Numbers 21:8-9 (ESV)
And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

So it seems the problem isn't with the graven image rather it was how they were treated. We find during the reign of Hezekiah the serpent was named Nehushtan and had been the object of worship. At that point Hezekiah destroyed it along with all the idols in Judah.

2 Ki 18:4 (ESV)
4 He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).

It seems there is a good case for images and specifically images of Christ (as part of the doctrine of the Incarnation). Images can and were aids in teaching the Faith as historically the populace was likely illiterate. The image only becomes problematic if the image becomes an idol.

God forbids us to murder or take life on our choosing (even in the Old Testament). But God did command the murder of His enemies many times. The same is true with image making. But one thing you will notice is that when God did tell the Israelites to make an image, it was not an image of God. God told to create images of cherubim on the Ark, but God never said for them to bow down to these images. God never said that these two cherubim was a depiction of Himself. The same is true of the brass serpent. God did not say to bow down to this image and God did not say it was an image of Him. In fact, we later learn in Scripture that the brass serpent was turned into an idol; And guess what happened? It was destroyed. Why? Because people were starting to think that the brass serpent was like a God. 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.