Monday, March 01, 2010

Are All Images of Christ Unlawful?

I read the following paragraph here:
Icons violate the Second Commandment that bans visual representations of God, including Jesus Christ. This is also known as “idolatry.” The Scripture makes clear that God hates idolatry and forbids a representation in art of what is divine.32 Making images to repre-sent God corrupts those who use them.33 Images teach lies about God.34 God cannot be represented in art and all who practice idolatry are commanded to repent.35 Just as in the Old Testament, so also in the New Testament does the Holy Spirit warn true believers, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”36.
Then I did a search on the subject of 'portraying Jesus in images or pictures for art or worship' and found an article by Jeffrey J. Meyers called 'Vere Homo, The Case for Pictures of Jesus: a Critical Examination of Seeing Jesus by Peter Barnes' I have a special interest in this subject for several reasons: because I love art, especially art that depicts humanity; because I am a visual artist that loves to draw the human face and form; because I am a believer and love Jesus Christ; because I myself have drawn or painted pictures trying to depict Jesus in a Bible story setting or of His face during His passion; and finally because, while I don't think any one picture has captured Him, I believe seeing pictures of Jesus in action along with pictures that foreshadow or symbolize Him such as in the video slide show I did of 'He Chose the Nails' can act as a storytelling device to remind us of aspects of God's amazing plan for the salvation of mankind. Because of all these reasons, reading that first paragraph filled me with dismay; I want to please God and not be disobedient to Him. I questioned my husband about it, and he said he generally doesn't like pictures or movies of Jesus because they never can capture the reality of who He is. He felt that it may not necessarily be wrong, but it would depend on the use of the images and the heart of the person who created them or used them. So I did the search and found the above article, which basically said the same thing my husband said. The author believes that according to early church history, images were considered lawful for art and education but not for uses of devotion and worship. Of course, in history this changed when much of the organized church decided to allow images for worship. The reformation in general reversed this decision in its churches and went back to either no images or images used for education and art only. His article is a refutation of a severe Reformed position that allows no images of any kind for any purpose. The author shows that this position is absurd scripturally and historically. He believes that it can be shown that icons, statues, portraits that are used for worship, veneration, and devotion are unlawful but that images made and used for education and art are lawful. He also discusses the difference between the art that God commanded to be created and used in the temple, which was used to show aspects of His glory and plan, and images that were created or appropriated by men to use in worshipping God or other gods. I believe Meyers does a good job of sorting out the different aspects of this subject.

13 comments:

Moonshadow said...

I hope I have time to read all of what Meyers wrote because it is an interesting question.

I made the mistake of giving an image of Christ the Teacher to my Reformed (PCA) Bible teacher once after a series on Ecclesiastes. She actually took me aside and explained to me very gently that she could not accept the plaque because she mistook it for an actual icon. Which is was not. She had no idea how rare those things truly are.

I haven't seen Gibson's Passion because she basically talked me out of it, convinced me that I wouldn't want my mind filled with those images. And I suppose she is right - we have to be careful what we expose ourselves to. But then I don't know how we can ever utter the Lord's name (and, granted, some don't - they will say as I have above: "Lord" and get around it)

My two cents. I will say that I think my Reformed friend who still rejects any use of images accepts the fact that her PCA pastor takes a more balanced view and she's willing to accept people with other convictions as also "truly" Reformed.

But another thing that's strange to me is the very idea of litmus tests for fellow Christians, even informally or subconsciously. I guess it's strange because I don't think I'd pass any.

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Jennie, one of the reasons why we do not have an official portrait of what Jesus really looked like in the first century is because the Pharisees forbade images of any type - religious or secular. Therefore, not even family portraits were allowed.

The first and second commandment forbids idolatry. The first commandment forbids idolizing false gods (devils,or money, or people, etc.) and the second commandment forbids the worship of images. God is not saying we cannot make images, because in the temple there were many images of 'things above' such as the cherubim on the ark of the covenant, and 'things in the earth' such as the brazen serpent. The command is therefore not that we cannot have images, but that we should not worship them.

As for Jesus, it is lawful to make images of Him because Jesus entered history as the revelation of God. The fact that God has revealed Himself to us in the image of Jesus Christ, makes it lawful for us to have an image. Please, please however do bow down to a picture of Jesus! If looking at a picture or movie about Jesus takes your mind to the real Christ in heaven, then it is okay. If looking at the picture causes you to rever the picture, then you are in trouble! If you cannot differentiate between the two, then get rid of all images! Better be safe than sorry.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Oh! Another thing. Jesus can be depicted as being of any race we choose because He is the Son of man. Jesus can be any race He chooses to be. Yes, He came in the first century as a Jew, but if He had chosen the Egyptians to be His chosen people, then He would have come as an Egyptian.

When Jesus comes back, He won't come as a Jew! He will the express physical image of glory, and we have good descriptions of this in the Bible.

Jennie said...

Teresa said,
I haven't seen Gibson's Passion because she basically talked me out of it, convinced me that I wouldn't want my mind filled with those images. And I suppose she is right - we have to be careful what we expose ourselves to. But then I don't know how we can ever utter the Lord's name (and, granted, some don't - they will say as I have above: "Lord" and get around it)

I didn't see 'The Passion' for the same reason, and also because I had read it was very Catholic and at that time I had begun questioning about it, whereas when I had first heard about the movie being made I had been very excited about it. I didn't want to picture Jim Caviezel every time I thought of Jesus. I don't think of art that pictures Jesus in the same way as a movie like that. (for one thing it was such an intense movie I was sure the images would be seared in my brain. The 'Jesus' movie is not like that. It's very bland.) In art I think, as Meyers said, that portraits of Christ can be misused, but images of His actions as reminders of the Bible stories are not likely to be a problem.




I'm not sure what you mean about uttering the Lord's name. Do some people think it's wrong to say the name Jesus, or Yeshua?

Jennie said...

But another thing that's strange to me is the very idea of litmus tests for fellow Christians, even informally or subconsciously. I guess it's strange because I don't think I'd pass any.

I'm not sure what you mean by this either. Are you talking about the fact that we're comparing icons to art and saying one is ok and the other isn't? I wouldn't consider that a 'litmus test for a Christian', just a comparison of practices to scripture and to the earliest church practices. As an artist I think icons are very beautiful, but as a Christian I wouldn't feel right to even own one, much less to use it to aid in prayer or devotion.

Jennie said...

Hillary said,
Jennie, one of the reasons why we do not have an official portrait of what Jesus really looked like in the first century is because the Pharisees forbade images of any type - religious or secular. Therefore, not even family portraits were allowed.

I hadn't heard that, though I'm not surprised. Imagine though if there had been a portrait of Him. It would have become an object of worship in itself. I think it's a good thing there isn't one.

I agree with you that images are not unlawful in themselves. It depends on how they are used. I do think that some types of images are more likely to be a danger than others. As Meyers brought out, portraits and of course icons can easily be misused because they are meant to try to bring the person portrayed 'to life' for the viewer, or to help them in prayer or worship.

Jennie said...

Hillary,
Oh! Another thing. Jesus can be depicted as being of any race we choose because He is the Son of man. Jesus can be any race He chooses to be. Yes, He came in the first century as a Jew, but if He had chosen the Egyptians to be His chosen people, then He would have come as an Egyptian.

When Jesus comes back, He won't come as a Jew! He will the express physical image of glory, and we have good descriptions of this in the Bible.


To me, I like to see Jesus depicted as a Jew, and there is a wide range of Jewish types, of course. However, I can't feel what people of other races feel when looking at a picture of Him portrayed as their own race, or what they feel when they look at pictures of Him NOT portrayed as their own race, so I can't say anything about that. I don't think of His Jewishness as being a block to my being able to relate to Him, however. I also think it's possible that many of us have Israelite blood and don't realize it, since the 10 tribes were scattered and assimilated all over the world.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Jennie wrote:

"I don't think of His Jewishness as being a block to my being able to relate to Him, however. I also think it's possible that many of us have Israelite blood and don't realize it, since the 10 tribes were scattered and assimilated all over the world."
-----------------------------------

When did God become bound to be of a particular race? Are you saying that Jesus is of the Jewish race? Of what race was God when there were no Jews around, such as in the time of Adam, or Noah, or Abraham? God can choose to be of any race He wants. He is not bound by our racial characteristics. He is the Maker and Creator of all mankind.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Jennie wrote:
"It would have become an object of worship in itself. I think it's a good thing there isn't one. "
---------------------------------

I totally agree with that statement! People would have fought wars to get a hold of a portrait of Jesus. People would have worshipped those portraits. People would have also gotten hooked on visualizing Jesus looking a certain way - the first century look, and not accepting of His new modern look of today. Here is Jesus' new look found in Revelation 1:12-16.

12I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

Amazing isn't it!

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Just as a matter of curosity, I do have a partial physical/poetic description of Jesus as He was while walking the earth as a man.

Song of Solomon 5:10-16

10My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.

11His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven.

12His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set.

13His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh.

14His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires.

15His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.

16His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.


Verses 10-13 is His physical description, and verses 14-16 is His poetic/prophetic description.

Seems as if Jesus, as a man, had mixed race characteristics.

White/ruddy skin (vs. 10)- characteristic of white races
Bushy/kinky hair (vs. 11)- characteristic of black races
Dove eyes (vs. 12)- characteristic of Middle eastern/Oriental races



The three races of Shem, Ham and Japtheth all rolled in one person - Jesus Christ! He is truly the Son of man.

Jennie said...

When did God become bound to be of a particular race? Are you saying that Jesus is of the Jewish race? Of what race was God when there were no Jews around, such as in the time of Adam, or Noah, or Abraham? God can choose to be of any race He wants. He is not bound by our racial characteristics. He is the Maker and Creator of all mankind.

Hillary,
Jesus certainly was BORN an Israelite when He came to earth. I don't know what happened to His DNA when He rose from the dead; I don't think it matters to know this. Of course He wasn't any race before He became a man by being conceived in Mary's womb. He was only God then, not yet man.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Great! And He is of no race today, with neither father or mother, or genealogy(DNA) per Hebrews 7:3.

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

I bring this up because many are looking for 'Jewish Messiah' to come. He already came in Jesus, when Jesus walked the earth as man, but the same Jesus who is to come again will not come as a 'Jewish Messiah' this second time, but verily as God Himself, the Creator, Judge, and Ruler of all mankind.

He may have been born a Jew when He entered history, but He after His death and resurrection, He was no longer bound to any particular race - He is God! God is not bound to any race.

Peace and Blessings.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

He is God - He is not of any particular race!