Get the picture?

The second commandment forbids the manufacturing of any image for the purpose of worshiping it. If the first commandment condemns worshiping false gods, the second commandment condemns worshiping the true God in false ways. Certainly, in our culture at least, idolatry has taken on a more subtle, yet still prevalent, presence.  Everyone knows that God is invisible and that he cannot be imaged. But what about images of Jesus? Since Jesus was a man and men are portrayable, are we allowed to have images of him? If one would observe the home of even a typical Evangelical family in America, he would no doubt find numerous pictures of Jesus: perhaps a children's Bible with him on the cover, or a sentimental painting on the wall, or some sort of Jesus movie, or on a T-shirt, and the list goes on. The Reformers, on the other hand, were very emphatic in their denunciation of any attempt a of portrayal of Jesus Christ, and they did so on the authority of the second commandment. For most Christians today, however, the typical reformed argument seems to be a non sequitur. In other words, the argument: "God may not be imaged in any way, Jesus is true and eternal God, so, Jesus may not be imaged," does not seem to be very persuasive to the vast majority of Christians.  

A common response to the question of whether pictures of Jesus are permissible is that they are alright, as long as we do not worship them.  This is, however, a slippery slope to be on. At what point does the admiration and inspiration one derives from pictures of Jesus cease to be just that and not also some sort of worship and devotion. If indeed, Jesus is a wonderful person and deserving of praise, how are we to clearly divorce in our minds the feelings we get when we view a picture purporting to be Jesus and when we are really offering up worship to him? This is, no doubt, further complicated with those who are coming out of a Roman Catholic background where images of Jesus are expressly given devotion and prayed to.

Another response is that pictures of Jesus should be tolerated to serve as teaching aids for children and the unlearned. This is an identical argument employed by the Roman Catholic church during the Reformation in defense of the stain-glass windows and other images displayed in their churches. They called them "books for the laity," since most parishioners were illiterate and unable to read the Biblical stories themselves. To this argument I can respond with the Heidelberg Catechism #98: "We should not be wiser than God..." In other words, if one observes the entirety of Scripture, he will find that God never instructs his people to produce images to help educate their children in spiritual matters. Rather, what he has ordained is preaching, thus placing emphasis and efficacy in the hearing (not seeing) of the word. 

coming soon... how the incarnation effects our understanding of the second commandment.