Images of Saints, Apostles etc...

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Most, if not everyone here, has reached the conclusion that images of God are unlawful and are in breach of the second commandment. What about images of the apostles and other heroes of the faith? For example what about images of John the Baptist? Calvin? Paul? Owen? Clement I? Etc...

My understanding of "˜image´ is "˜idol´ but how far can this go? What about statues of famous people?

Last of all what about "˜images´ (whether carved or merely photo´s) of ancestors that may take pride of place within your home. Is this a sort of idolatry or is it just a simple, innocent, way of remembering loved ones and family history?

 

[doulosChristou]

Thomas Vincent made the point that it is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ because if an image of God the Son doesn't stir up worship, it is in vain and if it does stir up worship, "it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment." It is the worshipping that breaches the second commandment. Images of Christ are forbidden because seeing God represented ought to cause us to bow in worship (which would be a breach of the 2nd commandment.) I'd say that if an image of one's great-grandmother or even a bust of Spurgeon provokes one to worship them, then one has a most serious problem with the first commandment. If these common images do not inspire idolatry, then there is no harm in images of remembrance.



dC

 

[satz]

I am unaware of anywhere in the bible that prohibits the making of images of creatures. The bible states that depraved men worship images of creatures, but i don't see it making the application that because of that images are inherently wrong or even dangerous.

I have no problem with images of calvin or other historical figures, but i have often wondered about images of bible characters. Still, i understanding is that since it is no where forbidden in the bible, we have no grounds for condemning it. Images of Jesus Christ himself are naturally a completely different issue.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Take a moment to go through Exodus and Leviticus and you will find God addressing the people to make "likenesses" of lots of things - cherubims, pomegranates, etc.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Muslims interpret the Second Commandment and their own "holy" writings to forbid pictures of all "animate beings." The Judaic-Christian understanding of the Second Commandment is that the prohibition against graven images has reference to God, not to other beings. That is because God can never be rightly "captured" in an image. Human beings and animals are not divine and thus not subject to this prohibition. Pictures of men and animals, then, are not unlawful per se according to the Second Commandment (other commandments must be considered as well, though, such as the Seventh). I have no problem with representations of men from history. Angels might be a different story. Without further study on this point, I would simply say attempts to represent angels in art are unwise. Art itself, including painting and portraits, is, as Calvin says, a "gift of God."

 

[satz]

Anyone have any comments on the lawfulness of images of bible characters ie the Apostles, prophets?