“Carved Images” back then were not merely made for aesthetic purposes. They were made to be worshiped. In the same way all the “god statues” in India are worshiped (people literally pay to pray to them). The purpose of this video, however, was not made so that it could be worshiped. I think the intent of this video is clear.
If you hold to the idea that “the Bible strictly forbids men making Images of God in any fashion,” then you must not agree with church plays at Christmas time when a baby represents Jesus at the inn or when someone dresses like Jesus for the crucifixion scene. Such a legalistic view of the commandment I think overlooks the heart and intent of the message: do not worship false idols. This could be anything, not just images. It could be money, a job, or a girl ;-).
It’s not talking about money, a job, or a girl. It’s talking about: Making an image. You are correct to say that I dont agree with Christmas or Easter plays that depict an image of God. This view is not legalistic but biblical. The heart or the intent of the verse is to forbid sinful men from creating an image and worshiping it as god. This includes making images of things above in heaven. Thus if Jesus is in heaven we should then not make an images of him. An image of Jesus is a stumbling block. The scriptures tell us to worship Christ. If we make a image of him, are hearts are inclined to worship the depiction in our hearts. The images we do have of Jesus are incorrect, Jesus was not a white male but an ethnic Jew of that time. I would not throw out the term ‘legalistic’ so quickly.
Matthew 22:35-38:
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment…
With this in mind, the 2nd commandments intent is for men to not worship and pray to images of God/Jesus (inaccurate images as you rightly point out). After all, how can someone love God with all their mind if they are worshiping a false image of God, right? This is called idolatry. Idolatry can take many forms. It is not limited to worshiping false images. People worship money, their job, and the opposite sex. This is still idolatry.
As I mentioned before, the intent of this video is not so that man may worship it. The same is true with Church plays. I don’t think Rob was trying to be worshipped by the congregation when he portrayed Jesus. I think I use the term “legalistic” correctly because I think such a blanket statement and generalization of the commandment encourages blind devotion. Now, I’m not saying that you have blind devotion. Not at all. I’m simply saying that overlooking the heart and intent of the commandment causes people to focus on the action and not the meaning, which is idolatry.
If you choose to avoid anything that has to do with a depiction of Jesus, then that is your decision. I think you are being sincere and want to try and follow the Word of God to the best of your ability. That’s awesome! I’m sure there are a lot more links like the one you provided above that back your decision too, just as there are numerous sources that back mine. But I don’t want this turning into a “link battle” (like that term? I made it up). My hope is that in your practice, you don’t condemn people who don’t think as you do. Just as I do not condemn you for not thinking as I do.
If anyone has issue with the video link above, don’t watch it. If you are convicted about this issue or are inclined to worship such images of Jesus, do not watch this video. I want to encourage anyone on that because I think the Apostle Paul was pretty clear about this kind of thing…
1 Corinthians 8: 4-13
So about the eating of meat sacrificed to idols: we know that “there is no idol in the world,” and that “there is no God but one.” Indeed, even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth (there are, to be sure, many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.
But not all have this knowledge. There are some who have been so used to idolatry up until now that, when they eat meat sacrificed to idols, their conscience, which is weak, is defiled. Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do. But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak.
If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be “built up” to eat the meat sacrificed to idols?
Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died. When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.
Chris,
I know that you are sincere. I can understand how you came up with the term “link battle”. But did you read the link? I hope so. It’s good to understand how the church has thought throughout history. My intent if that’s the right word was not to be ‘legalistic’ if you remember I did not criticise the video or the authors intent, just the use of images portraying Jesus Christ(which I also stated were incorrect). Being legalistic is to add to the law, and demand that following either perfectly to the law or to additions as requirements for salvation. This I’m not doing.
I will end this for now. Until you are ready to discuss it again. I just ask to think about when you have time. Which is something I’ve been doing. This is why I did not see ‘The Passion’. Even though at first I wanted to. So let’s give this a break. I don’t want to upset you over this.
I wanted to ask you what you thought about the NIV translation, which says: “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.”
Here we see reference to not only things in Heaven but also on earth and in the ocean and the fact that the word “idol” is used instead of “image.” The same translation is used in the NASB as well.
And for the sake of providing a link supporting my argument, I thought THIS explains it well.
The author says”God couldn’t care less how we represent Him to ourselves. (We can use a symbol to represent Him. Indeed, how can we represent Him any other way?) His concern is simply that we worship Him as He truly is—the wholly transcendent author of all that is and all that happens.”
If we are supposed to worship Jesus Christ as He truly is. Then God must care how we represent Himself to us. If he did not care we would not have scripture? See my point.
He is contradicting himself here as well,”If our symbol represents the author of all that is, then we are not in violation of the second commandment to worship Him via that symbol.”
This Chris is blatently romish. Here he is stating that we can have an image that represents God for all that he is. Yet before in his article he says that God is “Furthermore, nothing in the visible realm can adequately capture who I am and what I am like. In one sense, every visible thing reflects My nature and wisdom; for all of it is my handiwork. But in another sense, nothing in the visible realm is like Me; nothing can adequately represent who I am. I am too big to be understood in terms of any finite thing in the natural order. Do not, therefore, conceive of me as a God who can be represented in terms of one finite image.”
So not only does he contradict himself. He gives an answer straight from Rome. Permitting us to make an image of God and to worship it or use it as a form of worship towards God.
So where do we draw the line. If Christ is unable to be reflected by man in a visible form i.e. and image. Then why do we make one? We should not. We are forbidden to make idols of any kind. If we make an image of Christ, saying this is what Christ looks like. Then in our hearts we will imagine him to be so, and thus sin when worshipping Christ by placing that image before ourselves.
I think you are confusing what the author is saying. He is saying that nothing can CAPTURE what God is, but a symbol can REPRESENT what God is (like the word “God”, a cross, a Bible, dove, or fish on the bumper of a car). “Capture” is something far different than “represent.” For example, a synonym for “capture” is “confines” or “imprison,” whereas a synonym for “represent” is “symbolize” or “stand for.” Therefore, it is not contradictory.
An example of this would be the American flag. The American flag does not capture all that America is, but rather it serves as a symbol that represents America.
Likewise, God does not dwell within a symbol (whatever it may be), but rather the symbol points towards God. If we consider the video, the images of Jesus do not capture all that Jesus is within it, but rather it points towards or represents what Jesus is, and thus, should not be worshiped in itself (which would be idolatry).
I think the author is quite clear on what he is saying. And is nothing more than how the RCC handles this issue when pressed.
There is no way to seperate an image of Jesus(falsely or correctly represented) with worship towards Jesus Christ.
If we are forbidden to make images of gods. Why would we be allowed to make an image of Jesus Christ? Full well knowing that are hearts are sinful, and would be inclined to worship that image or use it as a part of worship.
So I believe that scripture clearly states that we should not make images of Christ because of our sin nature would lead us to use it as worship.
Pulpit Magazine
I thought the video was good. I just struggle with Images of Jesus vs. the 2nd commandment. Is that remembrandt for the art work?
The 2nd commandment deals with worshiping idols. So, as long as you don’t pray to the image and worship the image, your okay
Here is what I wrote up awhile back.
http://bladestunner316.blogspot.com/2006/07/2nd-commandment-and-images.html
Exodus 22:4-6
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
Does this not include Jesus?
Not to mention that the Jesus we typically see in paintings is of a white male and not a jew. Something to think about.
“Carved Images” back then were not merely made for aesthetic purposes. They were made to be worshiped. In the same way all the “god statues” in India are worshiped (people literally pay to pray to them). The purpose of this video, however, was not made so that it could be worshiped. I think the intent of this video is clear.
If you hold to the idea that “the Bible strictly forbids men making Images of God in any fashion,” then you must not agree with church plays at Christmas time when a baby represents Jesus at the inn or when someone dresses like Jesus for the crucifixion scene. Such a legalistic view of the commandment I think overlooks the heart and intent of the message: do not worship false idols. This could be anything, not just images. It could be money, a job, or a girl ;-).
It’s not talking about money, a job, or a girl. It’s talking about: Making an image. You are correct to say that I dont agree with Christmas or Easter plays that depict an image of God. This view is not legalistic but biblical. The heart or the intent of the verse is to forbid sinful men from creating an image and worshiping it as god. This includes making images of things above in heaven. Thus if Jesus is in heaven we should then not make an images of him. An image of Jesus is a stumbling block. The scriptures tell us to worship Christ. If we make a image of him, are hearts are inclined to worship the depiction in our hearts. The images we do have of Jesus are incorrect, Jesus was not a white male but an ethnic Jew of that time. I would not throw out the term ‘legalistic’ so quickly.
Chris,
Check this out. Let me know what you think.
http://www.rsglh.org/should_we_make_images_of_jesus.htm
Matthew 22:35-38:
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment…
With this in mind, the 2nd commandments intent is for men to not worship and pray to images of God/Jesus (inaccurate images as you rightly point out). After all, how can someone love God with all their mind if they are worshiping a false image of God, right? This is called idolatry. Idolatry can take many forms. It is not limited to worshiping false images. People worship money, their job, and the opposite sex. This is still idolatry.
As I mentioned before, the intent of this video is not so that man may worship it. The same is true with Church plays. I don’t think Rob was trying to be worshipped by the congregation when he portrayed Jesus. I think I use the term “legalistic” correctly because I think such a blanket statement and generalization of the commandment encourages blind devotion. Now, I’m not saying that you have blind devotion. Not at all. I’m simply saying that overlooking the heart and intent of the commandment causes people to focus on the action and not the meaning, which is idolatry.
If you choose to avoid anything that has to do with a depiction of Jesus, then that is your decision. I think you are being sincere and want to try and follow the Word of God to the best of your ability. That’s awesome! I’m sure there are a lot more links like the one you provided above that back your decision too, just as there are numerous sources that back mine. But I don’t want this turning into a “link battle” (like that term? I made it up). My hope is that in your practice, you don’t condemn people who don’t think as you do. Just as I do not condemn you for not thinking as I do.
If anyone has issue with the video link above, don’t watch it. If you are convicted about this issue or are inclined to worship such images of Jesus, do not watch this video. I want to encourage anyone on that because I think the Apostle Paul was pretty clear about this kind of thing…
1 Corinthians 8: 4-13
So about the eating of meat sacrificed to idols: we know that “there is no idol in the world,” and that “there is no God but one.” Indeed, even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth (there are, to be sure, many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.
But not all have this knowledge. There are some who have been so used to idolatry up until now that, when they eat meat sacrificed to idols, their conscience, which is weak, is defiled. Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do. But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak.
If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be “built up” to eat the meat sacrificed to idols?
Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died. When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.
Chris,
I know that you are sincere. I can understand how you came up with the term “link battle”. But did you read the link? I hope so. It’s good to understand how the church has thought throughout history. My intent if that’s the right word was not to be ‘legalistic’ if you remember I did not criticise the video or the authors intent, just the use of images portraying Jesus Christ(which I also stated were incorrect). Being legalistic is to add to the law, and demand that following either perfectly to the law or to additions as requirements for salvation. This I’m not doing.
I will end this for now. Until you are ready to discuss it again. I just ask to think about when you have time. Which is something I’ve been doing. This is why I did not see ‘The Passion’. Even though at first I wanted to. So let’s give this a break. I don’t want to upset you over this.
In Christ,
Nathan
I did read the link. It was interesting.
I wanted to ask you what you thought about the NIV translation, which says: “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.”
Here we see reference to not only things in Heaven but also on earth and in the ocean and the fact that the word “idol” is used instead of “image.” The same translation is used in the NASB as well.
And for the sake of providing a link supporting my argument, I thought THIS explains it well.
NOTE: We are talking about Exodus 20, not Exodus 22 (as mentioned in your previous comment).
The author says”God couldn’t care less how we represent Him to ourselves. (We can use a symbol to represent Him. Indeed, how can we represent Him any other way?) His concern is simply that we worship Him as He truly is—the wholly transcendent author of all that is and all that happens.”
If we are supposed to worship Jesus Christ as He truly is. Then God must care how we represent Himself to us. If he did not care we would not have scripture? See my point.
He is contradicting himself here as well,”If our symbol represents the author of all that is, then we are not in violation of the second commandment to worship Him via that symbol.”
This Chris is blatently romish. Here he is stating that we can have an image that represents God for all that he is. Yet before in his article he says that God is “Furthermore, nothing in the visible realm can adequately capture who I am and what I am like. In one sense, every visible thing reflects My nature and wisdom; for all of it is my handiwork. But in another sense, nothing in the visible realm is like Me; nothing can adequately represent who I am. I am too big to be understood in terms of any finite thing in the natural order. Do not, therefore, conceive of me as a God who can be represented in terms of one finite image.”
So not only does he contradict himself. He gives an answer straight from Rome. Permitting us to make an image of God and to worship it or use it as a form of worship towards God.
This is from the Roman Catholic catachism.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/comm1.html#GRAVEN
So where do we draw the line. If Christ is unable to be reflected by man in a visible form i.e. and image. Then why do we make one? We should not. We are forbidden to make idols of any kind. If we make an image of Christ, saying this is what Christ looks like. Then in our hearts we will imagine him to be so, and thus sin when worshipping Christ by placing that image before ourselves.
In Christ,
Nathan
I think you are confusing what the author is saying. He is saying that nothing can CAPTURE what God is, but a symbol can REPRESENT what God is (like the word “God”, a cross, a Bible, dove, or fish on the bumper of a car). “Capture” is something far different than “represent.” For example, a synonym for “capture” is “confines” or “imprison,” whereas a synonym for “represent” is “symbolize” or “stand for.” Therefore, it is not contradictory.
An example of this would be the American flag. The American flag does not capture all that America is, but rather it serves as a symbol that represents America.
Likewise, God does not dwell within a symbol (whatever it may be), but rather the symbol points towards God. If we consider the video, the images of Jesus do not capture all that Jesus is within it, but rather it points towards or represents what Jesus is, and thus, should not be worshiped in itself (which would be idolatry).
I think the author is quite clear on what he is saying. And is nothing more than how the RCC handles this issue when pressed.
There is no way to seperate an image of Jesus(falsely or correctly represented) with worship towards Jesus Christ.
If we are forbidden to make images of gods. Why would we be allowed to make an image of Jesus Christ? Full well knowing that are hearts are sinful, and would be inclined to worship that image or use it as a part of worship.
So I believe that scripture clearly states that we should not make images of Christ because of our sin nature would lead us to use it as worship.
In Christ,
Nathan
I wanted to say I think this has been a very good conversation so far.