Huge if true! ✝️
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (126)
sorted by:
Well it's a good thing that these artists aren't trying to capture Jesus but instead point to him symbolically. No one thinks Jesus is made of stone. No one thinks a statue of Jesus is actually the real Jesus. That's stupid. It's like saying we're not allowed to talk and write about the Bible because nothing we write could ever possibly hope to contain the full Word of God. Was it a sin to make those angel statues on the Ark? Give me a break. This is obviously not against the spirit of the law. Quit straining gnats.
Ah, yes, "symbolic" art. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes the art doesn’t inevitably influence the worshiper, that an image is nothing more than a helpful signpost pointing in the right direction, like a church sign that says "Jesus is Lord." But that’s simply not how things work, is it?
The fact is, art and images don’t just point to things, they shape and form our understanding of them. The image of Christ is not just an abstract "symbol" of something else; it becomes the way we picture Jesus, and the way we picture Him can influence how we understand Him. You’re asking us to separate the act of depicting from the act of worshiping, as though the two don’t inform each other. But they do. The image becomes the lens through which we view Christ, and that lens is always tinted by the artist’s worldview, intentions, and biases.
Now, as for the angels on the Ark, you're playing the "well, the Old Testament did it" card. Yes, the cherubim were part of the Ark of the Covenant, but there is a significant difference. The cherubim were commanded by God to be made, they were not the product of human whim. God gave specific instructions, and the images were never for worship. They were reminders of the holiness of God, not His incarnation. You can’t make that kind of analogy with the modern depictions of Jesus. No, the second commandment doesn't prohibit all art, but it prohibits the making of images that present God in a way that misrepresents or diminishes His glory, and no amount of artifice can stop us from treating images like idols once we have them in our midst.
And here’s where you miss it: this isn’t about "straining gnats" or being overly scrupulous, it’s about the nature of the commandment itself. "You shall not make for yourself a graven image" is a rule that pertains to more than just what you put on a wall, it’s a warning against the inclination of our hearts to reduce the ineffable, the eternal, the glorious, into something we can handle.
Jesus Himself is not a concept to be confined to clay or canvas; He is the Living Word. The moment you allow the mind to imagine Him as a physical object, you risk turning the eternal into an idol that is too small, a cozy Jesus you can hug, or worse, one that’s no longer terrifying in His glory, but a man with the comforting warmth of a wax figure at a museum.
So, no, it’s not "stupid" to think that images of Christ could lead us astray. It’s not gnats we’re straining at, t’s the principle of maintaining the full grandeur of Christ in our hearts and minds, free from human limitation and imagination. You want to capture Jesus in stone, wood, or paint? Fine, but understand that what you create will inevitably mold how you think about Him, and what you think about Him matters a great deal.
Multiple traditional churches and creeds / confessions have forbidden images of God / Jesus for decades.
CS Lewis even famously addresses this in a unique was in The Screwtape Letters.
So what do we do, since most of us have never seen Jesus in person? Are we just not allowed to have a mental image of him at all, because nothing we imagine could be accurate?
How would you respond if I were to tell you you couldn't quote the Bible because individual verses could be taken out of context and spun to mean things they really don't? Because that happens a lot. Just look at any Christian denomination whose teachings you disagree with.
Speaking of, "decades" are nothing over the span of the millenia we've had the Church for. Iconoclasm has been considered a heresy for at least 1,200 years, and plenty of art from centuries before that that somehow escaped condemnation (What I'm saying is, this teaching isn't a deviation). There's plenty to read on that if you care so much about preventing people from worshipping Jesus in this way. Or maybe just read Galatians and see what Paul has to say about the old law.
I hear you, but let’s take a step back and consider why the Reformed tradition takes such a strong stance on the Second Commandment.
The central issue here isn’t about images of Christ being "helpful" in contemplating the Incarnation. It’s about what Scripture clearly commands in the Second Commandment, which forbids the making of graven images or any likeness of God to be used in worship (Exodus 20:4-5). The concern is that any image, even if well-intended, can easily become a stumbling block to true worship of God. The Bible is clear that God is Spirit (John 4:24), and Christ, in his glory, transcends anything we could represent in material form.
The Protestant position holds that since the Scriptures are sufficient, we don’t need to resort to physical images to aid in worship. Our worship should be "in spirit and truth" (John 4:24), guided by the Word alone. While I understand the historical precedent of using images, we see those practices as a violation of God’s command, not merely a matter of preference. The potential danger is that these images can foster idolatry, even if it’s not the intention of the worshippers. The human heart is prone to idol-making, and images, even of Christ, can quickly move from aids to objects of devotion in themselves.
As for Scripture, the fact that it’s often misused by others doesn’t invalidate its authority. The correct reading of Scripture, in context, is clear: the second commandment forbids any visual representation of the divine, including the portrayal of Christ. The fact that some Church Fathers or councils affirmed iconography doesn't change the biblical mandate. We take Paul’s teachings on the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and the fact that God has revealed himself fully in Christ as reason enough to reject all visual representations. Christ isn’t reduced to a likeness, and his glory shouldn’t be diminished by our human attempts to capture him in a material form.
On Galatians, Paul clearly teaches that the old law doesn’t save, but that doesn’t mean we’re free to disregard God’s commandments, especially the moral law. The moral law, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments, still holds authority. The church’s abandonment of the old ceremonial law doesn’t mean we can ignore the ethical and moral teachings that remain in effect.
Now what did Jesus say about the law? He was quite clear.
So, from a historical Protestant perspective, the argument against religious imagery isn’t just about tradition or preference, it’s about fidelity to God’s Word. Worshipping Christ in truth means worshipping him as he has revealed himself in Scripture, without adding to that revelation through human-made images. Even if the concern is simply for "aids" in worship, we can be faithful without them, holding to the sufficiency and finality of God’s self-revelation through Scripture and the person of Christ.