Honor Christ this Easter: Cast Out Your Images of Him

As I told a friend when speaking to him concerning the subject of images and their place in Christian life and worship, I told him that I am a man of strong convictions. Upon things that I believe to be certain in life, I believe on them strongly and fight opposition to them strongly, and, upon things that are not so certain, I tend to let those things slide as matters of opinion until it is demonstrated to me otherwise. For living in such a manner, I have been called by some to a legalist, by some to be divisive, and by some to be nitpicky and overbearing. Despite this, I pray that in this particular matter at least you will see in my discourse the same love that you see in yourself when you in tears tell a beloved person of their future judgment and desserts in hell. For of the Ten Commandments, there is but one that carries with it a particular judgment, and it is a weighty judgment indeed. Therefore, for the sake of your children, your grandchildren, and your great-grandchildren, I pray that you take heed to what I write in this post, because whether or not you affirm it, your failings with regard to this commandment will surely as the Lord lives affect all of them.

By and large the subject at hand, expressly images that are supposed depictions of Jesus Christ, is relegated to the realm of opinion rather than to the realm of certainty. I am not sure why there is such lack of questioning with regards to this subject, but I suppose is greatly based upon the Catholic influence on the church, to whom images are not merely decorations but aids for worship and have been so for centuries. Also, visual depictions of Jesus Christ might very well fall into the same realm as notions such as regarding the church as a building, tithing, and taking the communion elements off a silver platter—such things have been practiced so long that no one knows differently and therefore assume that they are proper notions. I therefore challenge you in this matter, as I would in all matters, to allow a bit of doubt to creep into your religious practices and to test them with the declarations of Scripture. Do not merely say to yourself, “I do not see in the Ten Commandments a command that specifically says, ‘Do not draw pictures of Jesus Christ,’” but ask yourself, “How can I glorify God more with my practices?” “How can demonstrate the glory of God in face of Christ better to world that spits on images of him?” (cf. 2Cor. 4).

The Commandment Itself
Despite traditional certainty, in reality there has never been uniformity on the numbering of the Ten Commandments (henceforth the “Decalogue”). The Jews numbered it one way, Augustine and the Catholics another, and the Reformers yet another. The reason this is so is because there are more than ten imperatives given in Decalogue. In what we traditionally label the Second Commandment, there are actually two distinct commands:

4 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, Yahweh 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 (Ex. 20:4-6).

Again in short, the Second Commandment, is in fact two commandments, the first being, “You shall not make for yourself any likeness, etc.” and the second being, “You shall not bow down to them, etc.” This quite clearly stands against the common interpretation of this commandment being that one should not make images that are designed to be worshiped. In other words, according to this interpretations it is okay to make images of Jesus Christ as long as we do not “worship” such images, which in turn demands the question, “Is it therefore okay to make images of the Father or the Holy Spirit as long as one does not bow down to them?” Or, as is more practical to the text, “Would the Israelites not have been in the wrong if they had only made for themselves the golden calf and not have worshiped it?” I do not think any orthodox person would give a positive answer to either of the questions above and therefore negate their own interpretation of the commands.

The Tritheistic Declaration of Images of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is quite clear on his declarations of oneness with the Father in the New Testament. Though he was in human flesh, he made several declarations such as, “I and the Father are one,” and, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” In other words, though Christ became flesh and is presently in the flesh in Glory, he is no less one with the Father and the Spirit than he was in eternity past. The Godhead is and always has been one and will forever be one. Therefore, to say, as we said before, that it is improper to make images of the Father and the Spirit and yet it is okay to make images of Jesus Christ is tantamount to declaring a disjunction or ontological difference in the Godhead. In other words, it declares that one, the Three are in fact Three and not One, and two, there is some degree of Deity that is attributed to the Father and the Spirit in the Second Commandment that is not attributed to the Son. This must be so, for the Second Commandment, unlike us, does not give allowances as to when and at what point God can be portrayed visually. The command does not say, “You shall not make images unless I come to you in the flesh,” as he had come in the flesh to Abraham and Jacob, but it says “You shall not make images.” We are all too eager to allow exceptions where we are given none.

The Testimony of the Tabernacle
The apostle John writes, “The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14). John picks up just as the apostle to the Hebrews does that Christ is the fulfillment of picture of the tabernacle. Jesus Christ is the tent of meeting where God has dwelt among men. Christ is the fulfillment of ritual sacrifices, of the picturing of the lamp stand, the showbread, the fine embroidery; Christ is he who went into the Holy of Holies and rent the veil that separated God from men; He is the Mediator of the New Covenant, our Once for All Sacrifice, Our High Priest, our Advocate, our Satisfaction, and the Author and Finisher of our faith. He is in all ways the fulfillment of the Shadow of the Tabernacle given to Moses.

If we think of Christ in this way, viz. the fulfillment of the shadow given by the tabernacle, we must ask ourselves, “Why was so much time and care and description given to that which was to be a shadow of Christ, and why are we so quick and careless and nondescript in our portrayals of the True Tabernacle?” Chapter after chapter is dedicated to the tabernacle and its elements in the Pentateuch, and even that was not sufficient for its construction. It was also required that the Holy Spirit come down upon certain skilled craftsman to create with perfection that which could not be described with words. If such was the case for that which was a shadow of Jesus Christ, how much more fear and trembling should encompass us when we even think about creating an image of Jesus Christ!

Images of Christ are Possible because Christ became Flesh
It is a common thought that since Christ became a human being that it is now permissible to create images of Christ. This common thought exists in spite of it not being condoned by Scripture or ever encouraged in any conceivable way. For, unlike the tabernacle which was designed to be a visual representation of Christ to the Jews, there is nothing in the New Testament that indicates what Christ looked like or should be portrayed like. This, rather than encouraging creating images of Christ, should discourage it, for, since we do not know what he, who is the perfect of Image of the Father, looks like, we should not be so quick in our desire to portray him! Our quickness to create images of Jesus Christ says two things about us: one, it says of us that we think Christ was wrong when he said, “If you have seen me (in the flesh), you have seen the Father,” and two, we think little of honoring God as he honored himself in the Son and thereby defile him, whether we do it in ignorance or not.

Whoever Causes One of These Little Ones Who Believe in Me to Sin…
A common argument for pictures of Jesus is, “It’s for the children.” We, for some reason, believe that children require pictures of Jesus, or they will never know him at all. Yet these same children who for some reason desperately need pictures of Jesus to understand who he is are the same children who could (if we taught them) learn foreign languages a thousand times more quickly and effectively than we could as adults. Children not only have the capacity for understanding Jesus through words, but they would know Jesus better and rightly apart from pictures.

I hesitate to share this, but it is a very pertinent example. A poor child, who was mistreated and abandoned, was taken in by some well meaning Christians who taught her about Jesus with picture books and with normal “Christian” teaching methods. This young child came to love the Jesus whom she had been taught about and shown in books and was one time taken to an Easter play of sorts where a man was dressed up as the children book Jesus. When this little girl saw the man who was dressed as the Jesus she saw in her book—the Jesus whom she loved, she ran down the aisle there, yelling, “Jesus, Jesus!” and hugged the man up on stage. While I am sure many who saw this sight were quite touched by it, when I heard of it my heart dropped with disgust, because this little girl who knew not differently, worshipped a man at an idolatrous drama. Allow me to repeat myself in case you missed it: she worshipped the man! This, dear brothers and sisters, is not a trivial matter, for Christ said, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Mk. 9:42). This poor child, because of what had been shown to her in picture books, worshiped a man in an ill-advised drama rather than the man Jesus Christ who sits at the right hand of the Father.

I doubt that God had children’s picture books in mind when he wrote with his finger the curse that followed these imperatives, but those who are concerned about their children should consider the curse when they place pictures of Jesus before their children’s eyes, for if the commandment does rightly apply to Jesus Christ as it does to the Father and the Spirit, then children will not only have been subjected to idolatry and will thereby be more prone to stumbling, but to those who break the command (parents in this instance), their following generations will be cursed because of it. The Lord writes concerning those who break his command, “I, Yahweh 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, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20:6, 7). If we take this curse seriously in conjunction with disobedience to the preceding commandments, I believe if we genuinely loved our children, we would be wise not to tread so closely to the boundaries of disobedience.

A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words
The saying that a picture is worth a thousand words is indeed a true saying. Whether it is intended or not, pictures by there very nature say more than words ever can. If it is picture of a person, what the pictured person is wearing can speak volumes about that person. The same can be said about the person’s facial expression, the scene in which person is portrayed, and countless other things. Therefore, whether it is meant to or not, every picture that intends to portray Jesus Christ says a thousand words about him that were never said about him. Allow me to say that again: Every picture of Jesus Christ says a thousand words about him that were never said about him. And everyone who has grown up around supposed pictures of Jesus have been affected by them in one way or another. If you are like me, you may have difficulty not imagining Jesus as a peace-mongering hippy, who sat on the sides of grassy hills with long-flowing hair blowing in the breeze. Others, because of such portraits would have difficulty imaging a Jesus that would storm into a temple with a whip and drive out two-ton oxen without seeming to care whom they stampeded over. Others, moreover, would have difficulty imaging a Christ calling down woes upon the Pharisees as he does in Matthew 23. All of this because we were shown a Jesus in a picture who smiled all the time and who always had lambs and children walking beside him. We have no place in our minds for a Christ is will return in Terror and Righteous Judgment slaying thousands and vindicating his holy name.

Final Thoughts
To this day, I have yet to hear a decent argument or even a truly pragmatic reason as to why we should ever even think about creating images of Jesus Christ. The benefits for even possibly breaking a commandment of God that bears such horrible consequences that has no real benefit seems to be utterly foolish to me. And still, people will continue make there movies, wear their t-shirts, buy their children’s books. Why? Because it seems okay to us. Because mama read to us out of the same picture books. Because we love to display our nativities at Christmas. Because we have always had an Easter play. And yet none of the reasons have any hint of honoring God in Christ as he prescribes. We are so hung up in our traditions and our pragmatism that we are more than willing to defile the name of Jesus Christ for them. Woe be to us!

Categories: Theology

Tags: , ,

14 replies

  1. It's curious that Ex 20 has the commandment and in Ex 25 God commands the making of the Cherubim to adorn the Ark. This "image" or "icon" wasn't worshipped by the Israelites, but rather disposed them towards the metaphysical to worship their God.

    In 1 Kings 6:23 and following, Solomon likewise has Cherubim and actually carves other things inside the Temple.

    And, Ez 41:15 and following – Ezekiel sees in the Heavenly temple carvings of men, lions, trees, etc.

    We're also told that Jesus is the "image" (εικον) of God in Col 1:15. Whether modern notions of artistic accuracy are necessary for a proper depiction of this Icon are debatable. Also, as the Church is an extension and participation in the Incarnation, Christ shares in "whiteness" "blackness" "Asianness", etc. (cf. James Cone's "Black Theology and Black Power"). Thus, depicitions of Christ, though they may not be "accurate" in our sense, are accurate in portraying that Christ is Christ of all and His humanity is like ours in all things but sin.

    There are two main roots to Iconoclastic ideas, I think. One is Nestorianism and, unfortunately, this is revived by Zwingli in the Reformation (cf. Locher's "Zwingli's Thought:New Perspectives, (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1981)" pg 173). This Nestorianism forgets that the ultimate subject of attribution in a rational being is the person and not the nature, and thus we worship Christ's person (which is the only "icon" anyone should worship).

    The second root of Iconoclastic ideas is Islam. I won't fill your com box with a history of the Second Council of Nicea, but it's interesting to see the origins of these views.


  2. It's not terribly curious since it says of those who made it:

    Bezalel and Oholiab and every craftsman in whom the LORD has put skill and intelligence to know how to do any work in the construction of the sanctuary shall work in accordance with all that the LORD has commanded (Ex. 36:1).

    I find it telling that God did not merely give them detailed instructions, but that he put his knowledge for their construction in chosen craftsmen.


  3. I don't disagree. Iconographers certainly have skill and wisdom given by God's graces.


  4. Iconographers certainly have skill and wisdom given by God’s graces.

    I would disagree with that, though, but I suppose you knew that already.


  5. I read this awhile back and found it here online. St. John Damascus' defense of Icons:


  6. I find it more likely that this passage is talking only of things to be worshiped, as does its context (both the verse before and the verses after), than to say it prohibits creating images of anything on heaven or on earth. It's very hard to do software development without drawing cylinders representing databases (which are on the earth, though they have no material form). Do I correctly understand your interpretation?

    I do agree, though, that we can lead children astray with inaccurate images and plays. Although my parents and Sunday School teachers consistently taught us that the images were not necessarily what the actual people and events looked like, etc., some children, being the concrete thinkers they were, still had some difficulty understanding that Jesus was brown, there was only 1 Christ and not 3, etc. I would just scrap the pictures altogether for the children, or else make the images very cartoony to prevent children from looking beyond what is presented in Scripture.

    Accuracy is an issue for both the creator of an image and the viewer–Not only is the creator of the image responsible for communicating the truth clearly in a way his viewer will understand, but also the viewer is responsible for correctly determining the underlying meaning behind the image. Only a young child or a fool would, e.g., think that a _mere_ man is Jesus because he looks like the man in the picture, or that Jesus was white, or …. It is the responsibility of the viewer to understand that none of the above is what the image is communicating. That said, you exaggerate grossly by saying that _every_ image of Jesus says a thousand wrong words.

    "To this day, I have yet to hear a decent argument or even a truly pragmatic reason as to why we should ever even think about creating images of Jesus Christ."

    Do you exaggerate? How about to share the Scripture with others? As you said yourself, a picture is worth a thousand words, and with the right words, we can more effectively share the Scriptures. Heck, just watching Prince of Egypt helps me to better understand Moses' situation as he confronted family on the issue of setting his people free.


  7. I think you did misunderstand my interpretation for I think it is clear from the context that God is speaking of things that are unseen, not all things in general, therefore speaking of things that are supposedly gods or at least spiritual in nature. Notice the language: You are not to make 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. I think its language is similar to that of Deuteronomy where the apostle quotes in Romans 10: "Who will ascend into heaven (that is to bring Christ down), or who will descend into the abyss (that is to bring Christ up from the dead)." These places are clearly out of reach man's knowledge and ability, and I think the same can be said of this commandment. We are not to make images of gods (or God) or spiritual beings in ignorance. Be it as it may, the command is "Do not make any likeness" not "Do not make any likeness with intention of worshiping it." God could not be any clearer than he has been.

    Also, the problem with images of Christ is the fact that Christ incarnate is and was the image of the invisible God, and we simply do not know what all that entails. It is quite possible (I think it to be likely so), that Jesus Christ could not possibly look any differently as a human being than he did when he walked this earth and as he presently does in glory. Unbeknownst to us, his physical features, his garments, even the angle of his pinky toe might portray some of perfection or glory in himself that we simply cannot know at this present time. I do not think this is farfetched for if such details were true of the tabernacle that was an image, how much more would they be true of the Tabernacle himself!

    Therefore, in our portraits of Jesus, we might (and do) in our ignorance spit in the face of the Lord by defiling his image. Just as the Israelites would be worthy of the wrath and fury of Yahweh if they decided to construct the tabernacle according to their own imagings, so are we when we do not portray Christ rightly as he is pictorially (which is every time, I might add).

    Do you exaggerate? How about to share the Scripture with others?

    Personally, I share Scripture with others by sharing Scripture. Scirpture by its very construction is "the writings." Morever, Jesus is the Word, and the Gospel comes in Word and in Power, not in picture and human accomodation. At no point in the New Testament is there even the faint hint of pictures of Christ being used for teaching (or even a physical description of him for that matter), so where is the justification? There is no biblical warrant for the use of pictures, and there is ample argument against their use.

    At the end of the day, it is all about honoring God. I do not believe those who use images of God (even in ignorance) honor him as they ought, because one, the commandment is not even considered, and two, if it is considered, they do not have enough fear and reverence for God in Christ to avoid defiling him with misrepresentations.

    You may disagree with me (as many do no this subject), I am simply playing the prophet. If I am wrong, I lose nothing and honor God; if those who oppose me on this matter are wrong, they are promised a curse that spans four generations and worse defiles the name of God in the face of Christ. I don't know about you, but I feel better on my side.


  8. Thank you for clearing up your interpretation; that makes much more sense.

    I agree that Jesus' physical appearance demonstrates in some way God's glory, and that our images of Him based on what knowledge we have will always demonstrate our fallenness.

    "Therefore, in our portraits of Jesus, we might (and do) in our ignorance spit in the face of the Lord by defiling his image. Just as the Israelites would be worthy of the wrath and fury of Yahweh if they decided to construct the tabernacle according to their own imagings, so are we when we do not portray Christ rightly as he is pictorially (which is every time, I might add)."

    I agree with this only to the extent that teaching God's word through words has the same effect due to our fallenness. You seem to say that drawing an image of Jesus with blond hair communicates that Jesus had blond hair. Is this what you mean to say? That is precisely where I disagree with you. Depicting Jesus with X hair color or Y clothing is saying _nothing_ about His physical appearance, and is therefore vacuously truthful.

    Depicting Jesus walking outside on a sunny day with children and sheep following depicts His gentleness and shepherding nature (which agree with Scripture, eh?), while saying _nothing_ of His wrath. Such an image is vacuously true with regards to His wrath. If no sermon or blog post is expected to discuss _all_ of God's qualities equally, then certainly no image should be expected to show all of His qualities either.

    Now, you may find something that an image seems to be saying which is not truthful. If so, you find an inaccuracy in what it says to _you_; whether or not it communicates what you think it communicates is a more difficult topic to discern, and should be discussed before concluded.


  9. Now, you may find something that an image seems to be saying which is not truthful. If so, you find an inaccuracy in what it says to _you_; whether or not it communicates what you think it communicates is a more difficult topic to discern, and should be discussed before concluded.

    The problem is it is not about me and my interpretation, it is about God and his command. There is simply a lack of unhealthy fear for God and his precepts. I simply do not understand why anyone who desires to honor God would want to make images of him when he has clearly forbidden it. The question is not about accuracy or "what it says to me," but it is about the command. If you in good conscience can continue to use images, then go ahead, perhaps to your own peril. I simply cannot.


  10. I should clarify something I just said.

    Disobeying God in construction of the Tabernacle is comparable to miscommunicating in an image of Christ or in teaching God's Word in that they both misrepresent Him. They might differ in that the first is intentional, the latter 2 might be unintentional.

    I meant to say that teachers have a responsibility to share God's Word accurately, but will inevitably fail at some point, and be dealt with more harshly than others (James 3:1-2). Images are a form of communication, and as such can be used to _teach_. Therefore, those who create images of Christ should have the same "fear and reverence for God in Christ to avoid defiling him with misrepresentations" that teachers using verbal communication should have, as described in James 3.


  11. You're missing the point. Words and teaching through words is constantly prescribed through Scripture as the appropriate medium to communicate God's truth. Teaching through pictures is never prescribed. Never. In fact, it's forbidden. It simply cannot be justified. Anyone who draws pictures has no fear and reverence for God in Christ. They simply don't. I do not care where "their heart is" on the matter.


  12. Indeed, using words to teach is prescribed and using images is not. Whether or not it is forbidden in the Second Commandment (going by what I suppose is the common numbering of the Commandments) or any other passage is the central issue, on which we seem to be at an impasse.

    Either way, I think it's good and healthy for us to openly discuss our thoughts and opinions in order to progress to a more accurate understanding of Scripture. I do find your posts and comments insightful, thought-provoking, and helpful; otherwise, I would not be so enthusiastic about posting.


  13. There's a fundamental flaw in imagining "words vs pictures". Words evoke pictures. Words don't mean anything just sitting there alone – there's no inherent meaning in any of the words I've typed. John's Revelation, for instance, gives us a view of Heaven. He gives us a picture of Heaven – are we to avoid thinking about the pictures he evokes out of fear of some mental idolatry?

    Secondly, Icons have existed as a mode of exegesis since the Church's earliest times. That's wild to think about in our modern exegetical thinking, but the ancients saw Icons not just as pretty pictures, but as a means by which one interpreted the Scriptures.


  14. The Pharisees had quite a few centuries behind their wrong and God-dishonoring traditions. Traditions are never beyond scrutiny.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: