Am I sinning by having an artistic rendition of the glorified Christ as my avatar? I am an artist... and I have pictures of Jesus all over my home. I don't worship them, nor do I bow down, or give them any more significance than that of a "piece of art". My family - even my three year old understands the difference between a painting, and the real thing.

I have looked at a couple of threads on the PB, and it seems that some brothers here think that it is a violation of the 2nd commandment... I don't see how this is contextually possible, seeing as that commandment is specifically speaking to the worship of idols.

I guess I don't see how someone can make the jump from "painting of Jesus" to "idolatry"...

It seems as if it is normative, and encouraged to lift-up or "exalt" godly men of the past... and yet, when I use a picture of the God-Man, I get blasted... and accused of idolatry. What gives?

Thanks,
Matt

__________________
Matt Johnson
member, [URL="http://www.fepcb.org/"]FAITH Evangelical Presbyterian Church[/URL] Brooksville, FL
[URL="http://www.sixdayz.com/"]SIXDAYZ.com[/URL]

"Best-of-all-possible-worlds"
God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, His glory will be more fully displayed and His people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world. - John Piper

Didn't God take the form of a Man??? He must have thought that it was Ok to create an image for Himself...

I'm guessing that those who object to this... also object to movies with Christ in them? I just do not see the problem - am I just completely ignorant?

__________________
Matt Johnson
member, [URL="http://www.fepcb.org/"]FAITH Evangelical Presbyterian Church[/URL] Brooksville, FL
[URL="http://www.sixdayz.com/"]SIXDAYZ.com[/URL]

"Best-of-all-possible-worlds"
God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, His glory will be more fully displayed and His people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world. - John Piper

Whether you are sinning or not, as an administrator of the board I need you to remove the picture because it violates the board (man-made) standards. These standards are generally in conformity with Reformed Confessions of the church, and those Confessions are fairly consistent when they say that any depiction of any of the 3 Persons constitutes a violation of the 2nd Commandment. You stated that you are in agreement with the Westminster Standards when you joined, which do clearly state this.

So your voluntary compliance is appreciated.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Right. God did take the form of a Man. And He made that image of Himself perfectly. We may NOT do so.

The person of Christ was the PERFECT representation of the invisible God, as Scripture teaches us. Christ was FULLY God and FULLY man. ANY representation we make fails from the outset to represent Him faithfully - since we cannot represent Him in His divine person. What we do is make paltry attempts to draw a man - but it is a mere man that we represent when we do so... and as such is a FALSE image - a LIE - a HALF-truth. Even if you do not "worship" the image, you still are representing Christ falsely, and running afoul of the command.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Todd, does well here by explanation. I used to be Rite 1 Anglican, Roman Catholic Educated, at one point, I would have defended you, Todd did well by pointing towards the fact that Christ was a perfect expression of the 2nd person of the Godhead. We do not have this. Thus an attempt to do so would be idolatry by definition. Grace and Peace.

__________________
~etexas~

When you signed on the board, did you or did you not agree to uphold the confessional standards that we have collectively agreed to?

It's not a question of being above Scripture, any more than having a church that has membership requirements that are more restrictive than requiring a positive answer to the question "do you believe in Jesus?" is guilty of holding their membership standards above Scripture.

Whether it says anything AT ALL in the New Testament is irrelevant, since it clearly prohibits images of God in the Old.

Or are you holding the New Testament above the Old?

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

The second commandment in context is not just condemning Idolatry, but also condemning the worship of God by the use of images. Not only can you not take a golden cow and say this is a god bow to it, but you cannot take a golden calf and say this your God Yahweh and bow to it. God is a spirit and will be worshipped in spirit and truth not by bowing to images meant to represent him, nor should an image of Him be made for purposes other than bowing to.

The 2nd person of the trinity is not a spirit, but fully Man and Fully God. So the question that is addressed is can we make an image of the Fully God Fully Man Jesus Christ. and this is the answer that is given by Todd.

__________________
Bryan Riddle
1689 London Baptist Confession
Bethel Baptist Church Owasso, Oklahoma

Gentleman, let me be real clear about what Rich has already clearly stated. Accusations of being a Pharisee (or similar accusations) will not be tolerated. Brothers in Christ are able to disagree on issues but the tone will be civil and charitable. There are other ways to question the comments of fellow PB members without using inflammatory language. This is not a matter of censorship. If you believe a brothers position is wrong then argue it from scripture or plain reason but in a manner befitting a child of God.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

The second commandment clearly states not to make any images of anything in heaven or on earth in connection with worship. Not just false gods.

I think you would need to find a positive command for the use of images in worship to fully convince me that it is acceptable.

__________________
Josh Taylor
Verde Valley Reformed Chapel, OPC
Cottonwood, AZ

According to the Second Commandment, yes.
Correction: You have pictures of a depiction of some man, but it' ain't Jesus.
Well, if they're supposed to be of Christ, ought they not spur you on to worship? If not, they're in vain. That's hardly proper awe and reverence of God. But it's a catch 22, cuz if they do spur you to worship, then you're brought to worship by incomplete, inaccurate, indefensible images that are supposed to be of Christ: Idolatry.
That's just one of the problems. It's not the God-Man. God cannot be captured by a picture or portrayal or depiction, etc. Thus, since he cannot, we ought not try (particularly in light of the 2nd Commandment.Why must have He? Did Jesus violate the 2nd Commandment?
That I know of Christ has never been in a movie. I think Jim Caveisel has been in one...
Of course not.
You've alluded to it several times. It's the 2nd Commandment.
Legalism:

1. Thinking one can merit favor of God by their own works of "righteousness."

2. Requiring more from a Christian than the Scripture itself requires.

Answer: No.

Moses wrote it via the Holy Spirit. It's no mere tradition.
Nowhere in the New Testament is the 2nd Commandment rescinded or done away with. We don't need a positive command in the New Testament to continue to obey what God has already commanded.
This kind of language certainly isn't helpful. Regardless of whether you think the Puritans "get it" or not, this is the PURITAN Board. There are rules to be followed. This is one of 'em.
Sincere, though it may be, if it's not according to Scripture it's worthless. No offense.

Now, I know my answers are curt. But they're just a response to your accusations of legalism, etc. There's no reason for that. You're asking for a Biblical reason. That biblical reason is the 2nd Commandment. Please consider it.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC, Attending CCRPC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Here's an overwhelming amount of information to consider from a number of sources commenting on this particular issue (note their use of Scripture):

Westminster Larger Catechism

WLC 109 What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,(1) counselling,(2) commanding,(3) using,(4) and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;(5) tolerating a false religion;(6) the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever;(7) all worshipping of it,(8) or God in it or by it;(9) the making of any representation of feigned deities,(10) and all worship of them, or service belonging to them;(11) all superstitious devices,(12) corrupting the worship of God,(13) adding to it, or taking from it,(14) whether invented and taken up of ourselves,(15) or received by tradition from others,(16) though under the title of antiquity,(17) custom,(18) devotion,(19) good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever;(20) simony;(21) sacrilege;(22) all neglect,(23) contempt,(24) hindering,(25) and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.(26)

(1)Numb. 15:39
(2)Deut. 13:6-8
(3)Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16
(4)1 Kings 11:33; 1 Kings 12:33
(5)Deut 12:30-32
(6)Deut 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2,3; Rev. 2:2,14,15,20; Rev. 17:12,16,17
(7)Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23,25
(8)Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8
(9)Exod. 32:5
(10)Exod. 32:8
(11)1 Kings 18:26,28; Isa. 65:11
(12)Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23
(13)Mal. 1:7,8,14
(14)Deut. 4:2
(15)Ps. 106:39
(16)Matt. 15:9
(17)1 Pet. 1:18
(18)Jer. 44:17
(19)Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13,14
(20)1 Sam. 13:11,12; 1 Sam. 15:21
(21)Acts 8:18
(22)Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8
(23)Exod. 4:24-26
(24)Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7,13
(25)Matt. 23:13
(26)Acts 13:44,45; 1 Thess. 2:15,16

(1561) The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter IV
Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and The Saints

Images of God. Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come to abolish the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (II Cor. 3:16). But what agreement has the temple of God with idols? (II Cor. 6:16).

(1674) Thomas Vincent, A Family Instructional Guide

"QUESTION 5: Is it not lawful to have images or pictures of God by us, so we do not worship them, nor God by them?
ANSWER: The images or pictures of God are an abomination, and utterly unlawful, because they debase God, and may be a cause of idolatrous worship.
QUESTION 6: Is it not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, he being a man as well as God?
ANSWER: It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all; and because his body, as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is; and because, if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment." [Thomas Vincent, A Family Instructional Guide]

(1679) John Owen, The Glory of Christ

Many there are who, not comprehending, not being affected with, that divine, spiritual description of the person of Christ which is given us by the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, do feign unto themselves false representations of him by images and pictures, so as to excite carnal and corrupt affections in their minds. By the help of their outward senses, they reflect on their imaginations the shape of a human body, cast into postures and circumstances dolorous or triumphant; and so, by the working of their fancy, raise a commotion of mind in themselves, which they suppose to be love unto Christ. But all these idols are teaches of lies. The true beauty and amiableness of the person of Christ, which is the formal object and cause of divine love, is so far from being represented herein, as that the mind is thereby wholly diverted from the contemplation of it. For no more can be so pictured unto us but what may belong unto a mere man, and what is arbitrarily referred unto Christ, not by faith, but by corrupt imagination.

The beauty of the person of Christ, as represented in the Scripture, consists in things invisible unto the eyes of flesh. They are such as no hand of man can represent or shadow. It is the eye of faith alone that can see this King in his beauty. What else can contemplate on the untreated glories of his divine nature? Can the hand of man represent the union of his natures in the same person, wherein he is peculiarly amiable? What eye can discern the mutual communications of the properties of his different natures in the same person, which depends thereon, whence it is that God laid down his life for us, and purchased his church with his own blood? In these things, O vain man! does the loveliness of the person of Christ unto the souls of believers consist, and not in those strokes of art which fancy has guided a skilful hand and pencil unto. And what eye of flesh can discern the inhabitation of the Spirit in all fulness in the human nature? Can his condescension, his love, his grace, his power, his compassion, his offices, his fitness and ability to save sinners, be deciphered on a tablet, or engraven on wood or stone? However such pictures may be adorned, however beautified and enriched, they are not that Christ which the soul of the spouse does love;they are not any means of representing his love unto us, or of conveying our love unto him;they only divert the minds of superstitious persons from the Son of God, unto the embraces of a cloud, composed of fancy and imagination.

Others there are who abhor these idols, and when they have so done, commit sacrilege. As they reject images, so they seem to do all love unto the person of Christ, distinct from other acts of obedience, as a fond imagination. But the most superstitious love unto Christthat is, love acted in ways tainted with superstitionis better than none at all. But with what eyes do such persons read the Scriptures? With what hearts do they consider them? What do they conceive is the intention of the Holy Ghost in all those descriptions which he gives us of the person of Christ as amiable and desirable above all things, making wherewithal a proposal of him unto our affectionsinciting us to receive him by faith, and to cleave unto him in love? yea, to what end is our nature endued with this affectionunto what end is the power of it renewed in us by the sanctification of the Holy Spiritif it may not be fixed on this most proper and excellent object of it? This is the foundation of our love unto Christ namely, the revelation and proposal of him unto us in the Scripture as altogether lovely. The discovery that is made therein of the glorious excellencies and endowments of his personof his love, his goodness, and graceof his worth and workis that which engageth the affections of believers unto him. It may be said, that if there be such a proposal of him made unto all promiscuously, then all would equally discern his amiableness and be affected with it, who assent equally unto the truth of that revelation. But it has always fallen out otherwise. In the days of his flesh, some that looked on him could see neither “ form nor comeliness ” in him Therefore he should be desired; others saw his glory“ glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth ”. To some he is precious; unto others he is disallowed and rejecteda stone which the builders refused, when others brought it forth, crying, “ Grace, grace unto it ” as the head of the corner. Some can see nothing but weakness in him; unto others the wisdom and power of God do evidently shine forth in him. Therefore it must be said, that notwithstanding that open, plain representation that is made of him in the Scripture, unless the holy Spirit gives us eyes to discern it, and circumcise our hearts by the cutting off corrupt prejudices and all effects of unbelief, implanting in them, by the efficacy of his grace, this blessed affection of love unto him, all these things will make no impression on our minds.

As it was with the people on the giving of the law, notwithstanding all the great and mighty works which God had wrought among them, yet having not given them “ a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear ”which he affirms that he had not done, Deut. 29: 4 ,they were not moved unto faith or obedience by them; so is it in the preaching of the gospel. Notwithstanding all the blessed revelation that is made of the excellencies of the person of Christ therein, yet those into whose hearts God does not shine to give the knowledge of his glory in his face, can discern nothing of it, nor are their hearts affected with it.

We do not, therefore, in these things, follow “ cunningly-devised fables. ” We do not indulge unto our own fancies and imaginations; they are not unaccountable raptures or ecstasies which are pretended unto, nor such an artificial conjoining of thoughts as some ignorant of these things do boast that they can give an account of.

Our love to Christ ariseth alone from the revelation that is made of him in the Scripture is ingenerated, regulated, measured, and is to be judged thereby.

(1753) Ebenezer Erskine and James Fisher, The Assembly's Shorter Catechism Explained, By Way of Question and Answer

Q. 9. May we not have a picture of Christ, who has a true body?
A. By no means; because, though he has a true body and a reasonable soul, John 1:14, yet his human nature subsists in his divine person, which no picture can represent, Psalm 45:2.
Q. 10. Why ought all pictures of Christ to be abominated by Christians?
A. Because they are downright lies, representing no more than the picture of a mere man: whereas, the true Christ is God-man; "Immanuel, God with us," 1 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 1:23.

(1949) J.G. Vos (son of Geerhardus Vos) Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism

2. Is it wrong to make paintings or pictures of our Savior Jesus Christ? According to the Larger Catechism, this is certainly wrong, for the catechism interprets the second commandment as forbidding the making of any representation of any of the three persons of the Trinity, which would certainly include Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, God the Son. While pictures of Jesus are extremely common in the present day, we should realize that in Calvinistic circles this is a relatively modern development. Our forefathers at the time of the Reformation, and for perhaps 300 years afterward, scrupulously refrained, as a matter of principle, from sanctioning or making use of pictures of Jesus Christ. Such pictures are so common in the present day, and so few people have conscientious objections to them, that; it is practically impossible to obtain any Sabbath School helps or Bible story; material for children that is free of such pictures. The American Bible Society is to be commended for its decision that the figure of the Savior may not appear in Bible motion pictures issued by the Society.

3. What attitude should we adopt in view of the present popularity of pictures of Jesus Christ? The following considerations may be suggested as bearing on this question: (a) The Bible presents no information whatever about the personal appearance of Jesus Christ, but it does teach that we are not to think of him as he may have appeared "in the days of his flesh," but as he is today in heavenly glory, in his estate of exaltation (2 Cor. 5:46). (b) Inasmuch as the Bible presents no data about the personal appearance of our Savior, all artists' pictures of him are wholly imaginary and constitute only the artists' ideas of his character and appearance. (c) Unquestionably pictures of the Savior have been very greatly influenced by the theological viewpoint of the artist. The typical modem picture of Jesus is the product of nineteenth-century "Liberalism" and presents a "gentle Jesus" who emphasized only the love and Fatherhood of God and said little or nothing about sin, judgment, and eternal punishment. (d) Perhaps more people living today have derived their ideas of Jesus Christ from these typically "liberal" pictures of Jesus than have derived their ideas of Jesus from the Bible itself. Such people inevitably think of Jesus as a human person, rather than thinking of him according to the biblical teaching as a divine person with a human nature. The inevitable effect of the popular acceptance of pictures of Jesus is to overemphasize his humanity and to forget or neglect his deity (which of course no picture can portray). (e) In dealing with an evil so widespread and almost universally accepted, we should bear a clear testimony against what we believe to be wrong, but we should not expect any sudden change in Christian sentiment on this question. It will require many years of education in scriptural principles before the churches and their members can be brought back to the high position of the Westminster Assembly on this question. Patience will be required.

4. Are not pictures of Jesus legitimate provided they are not worshiped or used as "aids to worship"? As interpreted by the Westminster Assembly, the second commandment certainly forbids all representations of any of the persons of the Trinity, and this coupled with the truth taught in the Westminster Standards that Christ is a divine person with a human nature taken into union with himself, and not a human person, would imply that it is wrong to make pictures of Jesus Christ for any purpose whatever. Of course, there is a difference between using pictures of Jesus to illustrate children's Bible story books or lessons, and using pictures of Jesus in worship as Roman Catholics use them. Admittedly the former is not an evil in the same class with the latter. In spite of this distinction, however, there are good reasons for holding that our forefathers of the Reformation were right in opposing all pictorial representation of the Savior. We should realize that the popularity - even the almost unchallenged prevalence - of a particular practice does not prove that it is right. To prove that a practice is right we must show that it is in harmony with the commands and principles revealed in the Word of God. Merely showing that a practice is common, is useful, or seems to have good results does not prove it is right.

(1961) Pictures of Christ by Prof. John Murray

"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."

(1970) The Shorter Catechism For Study Classes by G.I. Williamson

The second commandment is broken when men attempt to make a graven image or a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches us that there is one God. It teaches us to worship the three persons, the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. But Paul tells us that we "ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone graven by art and man's device" (Acts 17:29)...

There was a time when the Protestants recognized this evil. They saw the images in the Roman Catholic Church and they understood that this was a violation of the second commandment. They realized that this was wrong - this making of images and likenesses of Christ - even though the Roman Catholic Church was careful to say that it did not want people to worship these images, but only to worship the Lord through these images. But now, it seems, many Protestants have accepted the Roman Catholic position. They may not realize this. And they may still think, in their minds, that there is an important difference between a statue (image) and a picture (likeness). But the commandment recognizes no such difference. It forbids us to make any likeness, just as it forbids us to make any image, of the Lord.

__________________
Pastor Steve Bradley
Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA)
www.trinityrpc.org
www.sermonaudio.com/trinityrpc
www.reformedvoice.com/trinityrpc
Riva, MD

Hi sixdayz, I can relate to what you are gong through. When I first joined, I had an avatar of r.c. Sproul as the pope. was asked to remove it. put up my present one. 2 things. we have to be men under authority. there are people wiser than me on the board. i disagreed, but complied anyway. which leads to 2. if we want to be here, we have to follow the rules laid forth. The WWC does forbid the images of Jesus of any kind. I looked after my R.C. Pope image was removed. I then when to my chuch. they have many. hmmm. listen to our elders. god bless.

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

I would also comment on the questions about the confessions over the Scriptures and the lack of New Testament command, but Todd has already helpfully dealt with those issues.

I also initially had a difficult time seeing how the second commandment referred to the very making of divine images. One helpful thing some people pointed out to me was that if it were only speaking against the worshiping of such images, it would not be saying anything beyond the first commandment, and thus it would make no sense even having it as a separate command. But since it is considered a separate commandment (except by the Roman Catholic Church, which actually views it as part of the first commandment, and splits up the forbidding of coveting into two commandments), it clearly has something further to say beyond simply forbidding the explicit worship of idols.

But even more than that, what convinced me was Deuteronomy 4:15-18, which sheds some very helpful light on the meaning of the second commandment: "Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth."

I used to wonder where people got the idea that the second commandment was specifically talking about images of God, since it nowhere says that explicitly. But here in this Deuteronomy passage, the specific ground given for not making physical images is that the Israelites "saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to [them]." That makes it abundantly more clear that the second commandment relates specifically to coming up with a physical form to represent God in any way, since we have seen no such form.

The same could be said of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 when they "offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them." Yet God was not pleased, and in fact judged them for it by death.

Another great example is Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 26. It is said that he "he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD," and that he "set himself to seek God," and that "God helped him" in war. But eventually, "he was unfaithful to the Lord his God and entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense. But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the Lord who were men of valor, and they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, 'It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the Lord God.' Then Uzziah was angry. Now he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead in the presence of the priests in the house of the Lord, by the altar of incense. And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead! And they rushed him out quickly, and he himself hurried to go out, because the Lord had struck him. And King Uzziah was a leper to the day of his death, and being a leper lived in a separate house, for he was excluded from the house of the Lord."

These passages simply make clear that God is not pleased with worship or expression of our gratitude to Him in ways He has not commanded, and that good intention does not justify such - certainly even more clearly so when he has expressly forbidden certain ways.

__________________
Chris


A passion to know and reflect Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith

Visit My Website Here

Christopher Blum
Member of Riveroaks Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Germantown, TN
Currently attending Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (PCA) in Burlington, KY

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Yes, images of God is idolatry.

The Son did come in human form as Jesus, but He had both divine and human natures revealed through His person. So though He appeared as a man He had the nature of both man and God...which we can't capture in a man-made image.