----------------------
The author bases his entire presentation on the idea that making images of Yahweh is biblically impermissible. But he is unable to cite a verse that tells us this. Now, we don't advocate that we should make idols, but we also don't permit the author to assert things the Bible doesn't tell us.
The author bases his entire presentation on the idea that making images of Yahweh is biblically impermissible. But he is unable to cite a verse that tells us this. Now, we don't advocate that we should make idols, but we also don't permit the author to assert things the Bible doesn't tell us.
-----------------------------
Editors’ note:
For another perspective on images of Christ, read “Are Images of Christ OK? Yes.” by Kevin Keating.
Writing against visual images of Christ is hindered without explaining some history. (History, though interesting, doesn't speak to the contents of the Bible.)
Many prominent Christians rejected such images for about eight centuries until the Second Council of Nicaea (AD 787) ruled in favor of images, including their “veneration.” Though Eastern and Western Christians argued against worshiping images (for obvious reasons), the fact that Eastern Christians bowed on their faces before paraded icons, and Western Christians wove images of the Father and Spirit into artwork, should give us pause: Maybe making images—even if we’re not worshiping them—hasn’t worked out too well. (Hmm. The author makes the distinction between making images and worshiping them. He never discusses this again.)
While the ultimate question is what Scripture says about the matter, the tendency to fall into errors like these has always been why the triune God prohibited making images of himself. (We will soon see if indeed the author is able to tell us where God made this prohibition.)
Here are three key arguments against images of Christ.
Editors’ note:
For another perspective on images of Christ, read “Are Images of Christ OK? Yes.” by Kevin Keating.
Writing against visual images of Christ is hindered without explaining some history. (History, though interesting, doesn't speak to the contents of the Bible.)
Many prominent Christians rejected such images for about eight centuries until the Second Council of Nicaea (AD 787) ruled in favor of images, including their “veneration.” Though Eastern and Western Christians argued against worshiping images (for obvious reasons), the fact that Eastern Christians bowed on their faces before paraded icons, and Western Christians wove images of the Father and Spirit into artwork, should give us pause: Maybe making images—even if we’re not worshiping them—hasn’t worked out too well. (Hmm. The author makes the distinction between making images and worshiping them. He never discusses this again.)
While the ultimate question is what Scripture says about the matter, the tendency to fall into errors like these has always been why the triune God prohibited making images of himself. (We will soon see if indeed the author is able to tell us where God made this prohibition.)
Here are three key arguments against images of Christ.
1. The Second Commandment
The second commandment (Ex. 20:4; Deut. 5:8–10) prohibits images of Christ. (Astonishingly, the author will never quote the verses! One would think that the central text for his argument would be quoted. We will do the author's work for him:
Ex. 20:4-6 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
[The Deuteronomy text is identical].
It is clear from the text that Yahweh does not tell us not to make images of Him, but rather prohibits images made in the form of things He has created. And critically, the issue is about making images to worship as idols, not about mere images.
The verses simply does not say anything about making images of Yahweh. )
A simple syllogism illustrates the point:
1. God forbade making images of himself.2. Christ is God.3. Therefore, God forbade making images of Christ.
Deuteronomy 4:15–24 is a commentary on the second commandment. (Let's quote it:
De. 4:15-24 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars — all the heavenly array — do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshipping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.
20 But as for you, the LORD took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are. 21 The LORD was angry with me because of you, and he solemnly swore that I would not cross the Jordan and enter the good land the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance.
22 I will die in this land; I will not cross the Jordan; but you are about to cross over and take possession of that good land. 23 Be careful not to forget the covenant of the LORD your God that he made with you; do not make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything the LORD your God has forbidden. 24 For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
Again the prohibition is against making idols in the image of things Yahweh has created.
To show the fault of the author's syllogism within the context of these verses, let's change out the elements:
1. God forbade making images of His creation.2. The sun, moon, and stars are His creation.3. Therefore, God forbade making images of the sun, moon, and stars.
According to his logic the Bible forbids making any image, period.)
Moses explains to Israel that even though God appeared to them, they must not make any kind of image of him (vv. 15–18) because their hearts were bent toward idolatry (v. 19) and because making such images violated his covenant with them (vv. 23–24).
Unfortunately, Israel broke the command to the letter by making a golden calf representing Yahweh (Ex. 32:1–6). As the NKJV reads, “This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!” (v. 4), (Well, for some reason the translation he quotes renders elleh as "this," but the word is plural and should be translated "these." And "God" is elohim, not Yahweh. Elohim is also plural.
Unfortunately, Israel broke the command to the letter by making a golden calf representing Yahweh (Ex. 32:1–6). As the NKJV reads, “This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!” (v. 4), (Well, for some reason the translation he quotes renders elleh as "this," but the word is plural and should be translated "these." And "God" is elohim, not Yahweh. Elohim is also plural.
The interlinear Bible renders it:
resulting in “a feast to the LORD” (v. 5) before it. Jeroboam later one-upped Aaron by making two calves to represent Yahweh (1 Kings 12:28–29), (This passage uses the exact same word, elohim:
1Kg. 12:28 ...He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”
"Your gods," not simply an image.)
which “became a sin” (v. 30).
In both cases, Israel broke covenant with God by imaging him. Since Jesus is God the Son, should we not hesitate before repeating the pattern?
2. Old Testament Theophanies
Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, God often appeared to his people in human form. Again, the argument is simple:
1. God appeared to his people in human form.2. God prohibited his people from making human images of him.3. Therefore, God appearing in human form doesn’t permit us to make images of him.
Deuteronomy 4 helps us again. Moses says Israel’s “eyes have seen” (v. 9) though they “saw no form” (vv. 12, 15). Israel “saw” God appear on Sinai, Isaiah “saw the Lord seated on his throne” (Isa. 6:1), Ezekiel “saw visions of God” (Ezek. 1:1), and Daniel “looked” on the “Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:9). And yet Isaiah declares, “To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?” (Isa. 40:18). God’s prohibition against images of himself stood alongside repeated divine appearances in human form. While Aaron rationalized making a divine image, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel didn’t see the inference. Christ’s incarnation was new, but God appearing in human form wasn’t. (The author seems to think that no one has actually seen God, probably based on
Jn. 1:18 No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
And,
Ex. 33:20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no-one may see me and live.”
Nevertheless, the author quotes snippets of verses that tell us the opposite. And the fact that He has appeared many times in human form means people actually have seen Him.
We think the basic issue is that no man has seen or can see God because He is invisible:
Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God...
We would then assert that every visible manifestation of God in the OT was the pre-incarnate Jesus. Jesus was and is the visible representation of the invisible God:
Jn. 14:8-9 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father’?
Jesus told Philip he has seen God.
And of course we mustn't forget about John:
Re. 1:12-17 I turned round to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man”, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash round his chest.
14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.
16 In 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.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.
That's a pretty detailed description of someone the author claims no one has seen.)
Nobody saw God as he is, and no image can capture his glory without diminishing its brightness. (How does the author know that an image of Jesus diminishes the brightness of His glory?)
3. The Incarnation
Here’s one final syllogism:
1. Jesus is God the Son who took on a human nature.2. The second commandment forbids making images of anyone in the category of God.3. Therefore, we cannot make images of God the Son.
(The author is simply repeating arguments.)
Making images of Christ creates thorny dilemmas. Either we depict the person of the Son and violate the second commandment, or we depict his humanity by divorcing it from his divine person.
In the first case we violate God’s law, and in the second we (unintentionally) commit heresy. Why we want images of Christ comes into play here too. Do images of Christ stir up devotion to him? If so, then we’re worshiping God by means of images. (Ah, so now it's conditional. The author now suggests the image must stir up devotion. Well, actually, the image must be regarded as an idol and worshiped.)
In the first case we violate God’s law, and in the second we (unintentionally) commit heresy. Why we want images of Christ comes into play here too. Do images of Christ stir up devotion to him? If so, then we’re worshiping God by means of images. (Ah, so now it's conditional. The author now suggests the image must stir up devotion. Well, actually, the image must be regarded as an idol and worshiped.)
And don’t we use such images devotionally? If not, then why have them? (So it's either have the image and worship it, or you must not have the image at all. Darned if you worship it, darned if you don't.)
Would we want to say we’re training ourselves to think about Jesus without worshiping him? Thus images of Christ are either idolatrous or in vain.
Ultimately, we should reject images of Christ because we shouldn’t seek to be wiser than God. Respecting Scripture’s authority and sufficiency, we could have no warrant to make images of God the Son unless Scripture required it. (Scripture doesn't require people sitting in pews, children's church, or the offering plate. There is no mention in Scripture of a man standing behind a podium giving sermons. Nor does the Scripture tell us to put a cross on the wall behind the preacher, or post last week's attendance on a plaque.)
Ultimately, we should reject images of Christ because we shouldn’t seek to be wiser than God. Respecting Scripture’s authority and sufficiency, we could have no warrant to make images of God the Son unless Scripture required it. (Scripture doesn't require people sitting in pews, children's church, or the offering plate. There is no mention in Scripture of a man standing behind a podium giving sermons. Nor does the Scripture tell us to put a cross on the wall behind the preacher, or post last week's attendance on a plaque.)
We can psychologize about the fact that the disciples saw Jesus and remembered what he looked like, but we didn’t.
One day we’ll see the God-man as he is, and we’ll be like him (1 John 3:1–4). In heaven, we’ll walk by sight and not by faith, but now we walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). Our rule is this: “Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory” (1 Pet. 1:8). We do see “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6)—but this light shines “in our hearts.” Seeing isn’t believing, but believing is seeing.
One day we’ll see the God-man as he is, and we’ll be like him (1 John 3:1–4). In heaven, we’ll walk by sight and not by faith, but now we walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). Our rule is this: “Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory” (1 Pet. 1:8). We do see “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6)—but this light shines “in our hearts.” Seeing isn’t believing, but believing is seeing.
Are we pushing our eschatology forward too much by trying to “see” Christ through means other than Word and sacrament? Images have always led to idolatry—both in Old Testament history with golden calves and in church history by making images of Christ (and the Father and the Spirit). They become either focal points or funnels for our devotion. (The author cedes his case. Now he says that images only need to have the potential to become idols.)
But as Agur wisely wrote, “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5–6). (For those who don't know, Proverbs chapter 30 is attributed to the sayings of Agur son of Jakeh [vs. 1]. This is of course totally irrelevant to the matter at hand, as are the quoted verses.)
Though advocates of images of Christ may love Christ and mean well, we love him best by living according to his Word and looking to his return in glory.
Ryan M. McGraw is professor of systematic theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and adjunct professor of doctoral studies at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.
Ryan M. McGraw is professor of systematic theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and adjunct professor of doctoral studies at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.
No comments:
Post a Comment