Pictures of Jesus?

[Monergist]

Just curious; Does anyone else here have a problem with them?

Exodus 20:4-6 (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.

 

[blackbird]

Timothy!

You mean those pictures we sometimes see in our Sunday School classes--or in the hallways of church--or some analogy we see through scripture?? If an analogy or type of Jesus in scripture--lets study it and rejoice in the glory!! Lets go from glory to glory!! But pictures in a hallway or a Sunday School class--or a statue set up in a worship center--means nothing to me--there's absolutely no power provided in those sort of objects we hang on walls or place on a platform.

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

[Sam]

I don't put up pictures of Jesus in my home. Almost every picture of Him that I see is of a different man. There is probably a picture out there that is the true likeness of Him because He did live among others in man form that may have sketched His photo. The pictures that are hanging on most walls, I am sure are not the true Christ. I don't know what kind of man posed in the pictures we see so I for one will not have them in my home. I believe that the Lord is warning us of things like this in the scriptures. ~Sheila~

 

[Kiffin]

The context of the prohibition against graven images is making them to Worship. Certaintly the cherubuim in the Temple were images but did not violate the commandments since they were not made to worship. If one takes the belief otherwise then even driver's licence photos,the Iwo Jima memorial etc...are sinful.

 

[donnA]

Scripture always has to be taken in context, otherwise the interpetation isn't going to be correct.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Islam is so concerned with this concept of worshiping an image or picture that all of their art and decoration is calligraphic, not representative.

Except for the cresent moon. That is a throwback to their idolatrous beginning and worship of the moon demonic god "allah". Find it incongruous.

BTW, there are NO pictures, icons, statues, etc, of Jesus. None. Artistic license to call them by that name, but not valid. No one knows what He looked like.

 

[Monergist]

Originally posted by Kiffin:
The context of the prohibition against graven images is making them to Worship. Certaintly the cherubuim in the Temple were images but did not violate the commandments since they were not made to worship. If one takes the belief otherwise then even driver's licence photos,the Iwo Jima memorial etc...are sinful.

Right. I have no problem with pictures, or images, per se. But I do have a problem with pictures that I see depicting the second person of the Trinity. For a number of reasons.

Every produced image of Christ dishonors Him, because it obscures His glory. The model is always a man--who is always a sinful creature. No image depicting his suffering comes remotely close to capturing the real suffering He endured, for, as Isaiah tells us, His visage was scarred more than any man.

J.I. Packer says it well:

...the crucifix obscures the glory of Christ, for it hides the fact of his deity, his victory on the cross, and his present kingdom. It displays His human weakness, but it conceals His divine strength; it depicts the reality of His pain, but keeps out of our sight the reality of His joy and His power. In both these cases, the symbol is unworthy most of all because of what it fails to display. And so are all other visible representations of deity

and

It also rules out the use of pictures and statues of Jesus Christ as a man, although Jesus himself was and remains man; for all pictures and statues are necessarily made after the "likeness" of ideal manhood as we conceive it, and therefore come under the ban which the commandment imposes.

From Knowing God.

 

[blackbird]

How about those things you can get--where you look at little dots or lines or curves on a piece of paper for a given amount of time and then the instructions say, "Now, close your eyes and see the image of Jesus!!??" That always boggles my mind--how my eyes can do that--make that object thats really not there--appear and move around my sight frame with my eyes shut!! Really!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

[Abiyah]

Those done by artists, for sale as originals or
prints, are awfully silly, in my opinion. I have
yet to see one of a truly Jewish Y'shua--it is
as though someone wants to whitewash His
Jewishness away. But then people have
been whitewashing His Jewishness in all
kinds of media, as though our God made a
mistake when He chose that culture to birth
our Messiah.

However, I have no problem when He is
depicted correctly in children's books for
the idea of visually promoting an idea.

 

[MissAbbyIFBaptist]

I don't like em. I have a problem with the pictures of His with long hair. It makes Him look like a hippy. The Bible has scripture about it not being right for a man to have long hair. Now why would He have long hair, and then have wrote something against it in the Bible? That's contridicting, and and that makes me mad.
Oh, needless to say, no one knows what He looks like. One day in Heaven we'll see Him, but not untill then.
Ãbby

 

[Kiffin]

Timothy,

I have great respect for Dr. Packer but a picture of Jesus suffering on the cross or a crucifix are not designed to give a full picture of everything about Christ but is attempting to give a visual representation of the agony Christ endured. It generaly is not intended to give a literal representation. Packer fails to mention that if we apply the ban in the way he wishes, it would include photos of himself and his family, or any other respresentation of anything. He can't have it both ways.

If someone was to point to a picture, manger scene or crucifix and say that is what Jesus looked like then he would have a argument. Pictures, crucifixes etc... are just visual reminders of Christ Incarnation, passion, death and resurrection but are not intended to be literal representations.

The reason Jesus is shown in most art as a Europeon is that Europeon Caucasians identify with Him visually in such a picture, that His death and love is for them. I saw a African picture of Jesus on the cross in which he was Black and those surrounding the cross were African tribes people. Once again Jesus is pictured that way because they identify with Him visually in such a picture. I have seen similar pictures of Jesus as Chinese. The art is not intended to be literal but that His death and love is for them. I am reminded by such art of 1 John 2:1-2 that Jesus death was not limited to one race but His atonement was for people of all races and nations.

I respect those who disagree but I know of nat anyone who seens a picture or Icon of Jesus and actualy believe He looked that way.

 

[Abiyah]

We all recognize that the varying "Jesuses" are
attempts for various peoples to "own" him,
but I find it interesting that No One in the
modern day paintings is bothering to paint h\
Himm even close to what He was! We are no
longer living in the days when people were just
ignorant or when people did not know the truth
of His heritage, yet I have yet to see a sincere
attempt by a quality artist to address His
Jewishness. This is what irritates me. 8o)

By the way, someone brought up the models
used by a popularr artist to paint our Lord. It i
s said that years after one model was usedto
paint our Lord, the same model was used to
paint satan.

 

[Jim1999]

In my opinion, there is a simple reason why we don't have an accurate picture of the Lord Jesus.

There have been enough pieces of the original cross found to re-build the Queen Mary. Enough nails from the cross found to erect a palace. These were all sold as artifacts. Imagine the value of an original picture of the Lord Jesus.

I have tried many times to paint a verbal picture of Christ, and frankly, I come up short each time. I cannot begin to imagine what God looks like, or the Holy Spirit. This one thing I do know, the Jesus of the Bible, loves me and is the magnet of my faith, and when I see Him, I will know Him because He will know me. Does anything else matter?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Johnv]

Read the Commandment carefully: IT's a two parter: (1) to make the image in order to (2) worship it.

Making graven images is not banned. Worshiping graven images is.

 

[Monergist]

Two other points that I would like to make:

1) Is it not likely that the mention of the name of Jesus would bring to the mind of most people some mental image-- some representation-- that they had seen somewhere?

2) Would it be right to put up pictures of other women and defend it by saying that they "represent" my wife? Would that be honoring to her? How then, is images of sinful men which are meant to represent Christ glorifying Him?

I don't mean to split hairs. But I have been distressed by careless use of pictures of "Jesus." What really sets me off about this is some still shots used from the JESUS film which I have seen displayed on the overhead during the "praise & worship" time of a Baptist church service.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by TimothyW:
........ How then, is images of sinful men which are meant to represent Christ glorifying Him?

I don't mean to split hairs. But I have been distressed by careless use of pictures of "Jesus." What really sets me off about this is some still shots used from the JESUS film which I have seen displayed on the overhead during the "praise & worship" time of a Baptist church service.

Are you then against any portrayal of Jesus in a movie such as the "Jesus" film?

Karen

 

[Monergist]

Originally posted by Karen:

Are you then against any portrayal of Jesus in a movie such as the "Jesus" film?

Let's just say that I'm not comfortable with it.

"Faith comes by hearing..." is the Biblical principal. I know that the popular opinion is that this film is an effective means of evangelism, but I have to question whether it is.

What then are we to say of pictures of Christ? First of all, it must be said that we have no data whatsoever on the basis of which to make a pictorial representation; we have no descriptions of his physical features which would enable even the most accomplished artist to make an approximate portrait. In view of the profound influence exerted by a picture, especially on the minds of young people, we should perceive the peril involved in a portrayal for which there is no warrant, a portrayal which is the creation of pure imagination. It may help to point up the folly to ask: what would be the reaction of a disciple, who had actually seen the Lord in the days of his flesh, to a portrait which would be the work of imagination on the part of one who had never seen the Saviour? We can readily detect what his recoil would be.

No impression we have of Jesus should be created without the proper revelatory data, and every impression, every thought, should evoke worship. Hence, since we possess no revelatory data for a picture or portrait in the proper sense of the term, we are precluded from making one or using any that have been made.

Secondly, pictures of Christ are in principle a violation of the second commandment. A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship. But since the materials for this medium of worship are not derived from the only revelation we possess respecting Jesus, namely, Scripture, the worship is constrained by a creation of the human mind that has no revelatory warrant. This is will worship. For the principle of the second commandment is that we are to worship God only in ways prescribed and authorized by him. It is a grievous sin to have worship constrained by a human figment, and that is what a picture of the Saviour involves.

John Murray, from http://www.crta.org/misc/

[ November 12, 2002, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: TimothyW ]

 

[Abiyah]

Okay. I got a little sleep and am awake now.
Ssure, it is irritating, but 8o) so what? When Ii
am awake, it is admittedly a little less irritating.
8o)

 

[Aaron]

What expression would you paint on the face of a sinless man?

It is beyond human ability and inevitably results in a profaned picture of Christ.

 

[Johnv]

Funny thing. Most portraits of Christ are of a serious expression. As of late, Ive seen a few portraits, and even statues, of Christ with a joyous expression on his face.