Is there a possibility that depictions of Jesus since His incarnation may be allowed?

[earl40]

I ask because Israel had yet seen God in Deut 14:15-16 like the the apostles did with the incarnation.....I ask not to go against the WCF but wonder if this point was discussed while they wrote on this subject in Q. 109 and if there is a record of the conversation.

15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:

16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I would venture a guess that the percent of Puritans that held images of Christ to be unlawful and idolatry was nothing less than 100%. We don't have a record of debate or discussion but see here on what can be gleaned about this at the time of the Westminster Assembly.
The Intent of Westminster Larger Catechism 109 Regarding Pictures of Christ

 

[earl40]

I would venture a guess that the percent of Puritans that held images of Christ to be unlawful and idolatry was nothing less than 100%. We don't have a record of debate or discussion but see here on what can be gleaned about this at the time of the Westminster Assembly.
The Intent of Westminster Larger Catechism 109 Regarding Pictures of Christ

Thank you Chris. I find it interesting that Mary was also forbidden to depict. Do you have any thoughts on Deut. and why Israel was not to depict God because they saw Him not vs. Philip did see The Father in the incarnation via His Son? Also any thoughts on art that has Mary or the saints depicted?

 

[au5t1n]

There had been sightings of the pre-incarnate Son in the Old Testament, and it seems evident that they were not allowed to make images of these appearances. The same is true of Jesus after His incarnation. Yes, He is a man and He appeared visibly to those who saw Him in His earthly ministry. However, when we see a purported image of Christ and think of it as a depiction of our Lord, we are forced to choose between worshipping (obviously problematic because it is an image) and not worshipping (also problematic because we are supposed to think worshipfully of Jesus). The only resolution is not to think of the image as a depiction of Jesus, which of course defeats any purpose in making them.

 

[au5t1n]

I will add: One of the most pernicious things about the prominence of purported images of Christ in our society is that many of us have a great deal of difficulty dissociating the images from our Lord. In our culture, it can be hard to think "Jesus" without any thoughts of the traditional image whatsoever. For many it is a continual battle to remove these traditional depictions completely from our concept of the Lord. This is one of the worst things about them.

 

[earl40]

There had been sightings of the pre-incarnate Son in the Old Testament, and it seems evident that they were not allowed to make images of these appearances.

Great point!

 

[earl40]

I will add: One of the most pernicious things about the prominence of purported images of Christ in our society is that many of us have a great deal of difficulty dissociating the images from our Lord. In our culture, it can be hard to think "Jesus" without any thoughts of the traditional image whatsoever. For many it is a continual battle to remove these traditional depictions completely from our concept of the Lord. This is one of the worst things about them.

Indeed it is all around us. For some reason I do not have any image what He looked like though I recognize the attempts made to do such, and I simply do not like them especially the brown haired blue eyed ones where I work. Do the SDA's and JW use the same artists?

 

[Matthew Willard Lankford]

It would be interesting to hear from those who own a copy of the The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly.

I think TurretinFan did an good job explaining the reason for the commandment (http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/07/response-to-steve-hays-on-second.html):

To avoid fanning the idolatrous temptations of the Israelites, God did not reveal Himself to them in any form. The formless revelation of God, therefore, is an object lesson to how He wishes to be honored: without images made by man.

It is also important to note that it was the Lord Jesus who saved His people from out of the land of Egypt and gave them the commandments cf. Acts 7:38; Deuteronomy 33:2; Jude 1:5. Also, Jesus said to worship God in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:24) and not by our own inventions (Matthew 15:9). There is also the point to be made that the Lord Jesus Himself is the express image of God (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). George Dana Boardman makes the point:

There is a divine image whom we all must worship: it is Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible God, the effulgence of his glory, the very impress of his substance. And just because he is the sufficient image of God, we need no other image; indeed, for us to undertake to make another, would be not only to disobey the Second Commandment, but also to be guilty of the sacrilege of pronouncing Christ's mission into the world a failure.

Also see TurretinFan's comments (http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/07/response-to-argument-for-idols-from.html):

I had asked:

What about the prohibition on picturing God? -- Why does that prohibition not apply to pictures of Jesus?

The response I got from one of my Eastern Orthodox readers was this:

"Because on Sinai we saw no image. In the Incarnation, we did."

This is sort of a standard response from the Eastern Orthodox, and I had tried to anticipate it somewhat in the post, although I wasn't dealing with an Eastern Orthodox person in the post. There are several responses:

1) There were theophanies before the Incarnation.

There were theophanies, appearances of God, prior to the Incarnation. Those theophanies were around both before Moses (see where the Lord visits Abraham in Genesis 18), and after Moses (see where the Lord appears in the fiery furnace with Daniel's three friends in Daniel 3).

So, the significance of the absence of the image on Sinai is not that no one ever saw God in a form before the Incarnation. There was no form shown to the people of Israel on Sinai, but there were other forms shown. Even closer to Moses, both Jacob (wrestled with the Lord in Genesis 32) and Joshua (who met with the Lord, see Joshua 5) saw God in human form.

2) We have not seen Jesus.

Jesus is presently in heaven. The apostles, other disciples, and even the unbelieving Jews saw Jesus. We did not. There are no detailed explanations of what Jesus looked like in the Scriptures, and while some Eastern Orthodox seem to think they have access to some kind of authentic tradition of what Jesus looked like, those stories are not credible.

3) There is greater significance to "for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire" than just that they did not know what God looked like

I am referring specifically to this:

Deuteronomy 4:15-19
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

Notice that there are two things prohibited - making something that is supposed to be a likeness of God, and worshipping/serving anything other than God (even the sun, moon, and stars).

I'd like to suggest that the point about not seeing God's form, is that what is significant is that there was no form seen when God was explaining how He is to be honored. Thus, creating a form of God would be an example of something that adds to the law of God.

There are two Sola Scriptura verses in Deuteronomy that specifically provide for a limitation on innovation.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Keep in mind that the context of each of those passages supports the point I'm making.

In the first instance:

Deuteronomy 4:1-8
Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you. But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

Basically, in context, God is saying "do exactly what I say, neither more nor less." Furthermore, Deuteronomy 4:2 is in the context of the prohibition on images that we're discussing. Specifically, the linking verses are verses 9-14:

Deuteronomy 4:9-14
Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons; specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

Notice that in this context, of solemnly insisting that the people keep God's law, God reminds them of the particular day on which the law was given. That day is the day that is then referred to when it comes to the question of making representations of God.

Just as there was no image of God shown to the people so that they would have a pattern after which to illustrate him on the day of Horeb, so also we are not given an image of God (of any person of the Godhead) that is to serve as an illustration so that we may try to show a likeness of God today.

We see no similitude, only words, just as the people of Israel saw no similitude, they only received words.

The same sort of thing is true with respect to the other passage from Deuteronomy 12.

Deuteronomy 12:28-32
Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God. When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Again, God is commanding that people do exactly what he commands, not adding to it or taking away from it. In particular, here, he forbids innovation in the form syncretism or borrowing. In other words, God explicitly tells people not to model their religious life after that of the nations around them, but simply to follow the word of God.

We are not given a portrait of Jesus in the Bible, just as the Jews were not given an image of God on the day the law was given. The same principle that applied then, applies now, notwithstanding the Incarnation.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Those images of saints etc. were probably removed because relics of idolatry or similar concerns, not because it was defacto wrong to make such portraits (though these were probably iconography, ie. intended for that purpose, thus more reason to remove), as with images of the persons of the Godhead which are simply forbidden.

Thank you Chris. I find it interesting that Mary was also forbidden to depict. Do you have any thoughts on Deut. and why Israel was not to depict God because they saw Him not vs. Philip did see The Father in the incarnation via His Son? Also any thoughts on art that has Mary or the saints depicted?

 

[SRoper]

Surely we are among those who have not seen Jesus Christ:

"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

How then could we make an image of him (Deut. 14:15-16)?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I used Mitchel & Struthers in the linked article because there was no added info in the Van Dixhoorn Minutes and Papers (at the time I had the unpublished dissertation version; but since have the formal Oxford set; the Oxford does have one of the documents on scandalous sins referenced in the linked paper reproduced in volume 5 which is new material over the unpublished version).

It would be interesting to hear from those who own a copy of the The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly.

 

[Marrow Man]

Chris, do you have access to any links that deal with the Westminster Assembly's prohibition of "mental images"? It seems that we are seeing this quite a bit today as an objection to WLC Q. 109. Is there any documentation which points to exactly what the Assembly was dealing with here?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

No; but my supposition is that it has nothing to do with "how we think"; and the claims of necessity of "thinking in pictures" I think is too conditioned by our modern society's overexposure to images. Thinking so is not necessary as I have said many times here (and the blind surely don't think in pictures). I know one minister who does not think graphically and another who trained himself not to think of an image when he read about Christ in Scripture. I think the assembly's concern, is that before an idolater can make his image he has to imagine it in his mind; or, perhaps the idolater robbed of his physical image, seeks solace in his imagination? The one work that I need to settle in and read is Ralph Erskine's work Faith no Fancy which I've only read snippets (this has been mentioned before on PB I think); but he is a century removed from the assembly (and come to think I may not have my copy). The modern works on this question are two pieces by John K. La Shell, a dissertation and an article if I recall rightly. Google and I think there are PB related links. He relies on Erskine and the controversy he had with Robe and Jonathan Edwards about dreams, visions etc during the great awakening. I think a lot of unnecessary quibbling goes on over this "how man thinks" question. I don't think that is in view and I doubt the divines would have been apparently cryptic if they thought they were requiring something that they thought was hard or impossible to do. I think Professor Strange had a comment on this on a recent thread that was succinct and sufficient.

 

[Matthew Willard Lankford]

Awhile back I was working on transcribing Ralph Erskine's Faith No Fancy, but only got through Chapter 4. Here it is: Faith No Fancy (also see Ralph Erskine's sermon The True Christ no New Christ IDOLATRY CONDEMNED: Ralph Erskine's The True Christ no New Christ)

"The image of Christ's natural body in the fancy darkens the view of Christ, as the image of God, by faith. These two images cannot stand together, no more than Dagon and the ark. Dagon must fall, if the ark come into the heart."~Ralph Erskine

I also was working on editing Thomas Goodwin's Of the Creatures, but only finished Book I. I found it to be especially good against monism. Here it is: OF THE CREATURES,

 

[NaphtaliPress]

BTW (and I've plugged this before so apologies) if one is going to do scholarly work on the Westminster Assembly, there is no question one has to access and make use of the Van Dixhoorn edition of the Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly. Chad spent a decade+ of his life on this so a great debt is owed. I had benefit for many years of having the dissertation version. Only 13 sets (7 folio volumes) shipped to the US, all to institutions except for two individuals; expensive but worth it for having ready access from 2005/6-2012/13 before the Oxford came out. The Oxford set is refined and adds a calendar of documents containing many texts (except the primary productions). It is expensive and lacks the first journal of Lightfoot (to be published separately I think), but essential as I say even if you are a dabbler in such things as I am.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Christ is one person with two natures; divine and human. These two natures are distinct from each other, but united to each other in the one person. It's impossible to depict only one of the natures. We may not, and cannot, depict/image his divine nature. We cannot depict his human nature as we do not possess the requisite data of his human nature's specific, physical characteristics. Therefore, to "image" Christ is not only theonomically unlawful, but it is artistically impossible.

 

[ReformedChristian]

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. Isaiah 53:2.

 

[JimmyH]

A short while ago there was another thread dealing with this question. It was the first I had known of the prohibition in the WCF. While I was familiar with the above quoted verse in Isaiah 53 and it is obvious that the portrait of the Lord frequently depicted is inaccurate, I couldn't imagine not seeing that in my mind's eye.

Since reading the aforementioned thread I have trained myself to reject any imagining of the Father or the Son and was surprised at how easy it has been to do so.

 

[Cymro]

In the Gospel era we are to live by faith, and faith is the evidence of things not seen.
One cannot exercise faith on a depiction, for the things that are seen are temporal,
but the things that are unseen are eternal. We only see Christ in the mirror of His Word,
and what we see there through faith reveals Him as, "altogether lovely, and the chiefest
of ten thousand." Depiction leads to the eviction of faith.

 

[reaganmarsh]

This thread has been most helpful!

 

[earl40]

Christ is one person with two natures; divine and human. These two natures are distinct from each other, but united to each other in the one person. It's impossible to depict only one of the natures. We may not, and cannot, depict/image his divine nature. We cannot depict his human nature as we do not possess the requisite data of his human nature's specific, physical characteristics. Therefore, to "image" Christ is not only theonomically unlawful, but it is artistically impossible.

We ought to get used to only seeing God in the glorified humanity of Christ forever because we will still be creatures in eternity.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/beatific-vision-80410/

 

[MW]

Awhile back I was working on transcribing Ralph Erskine's Faith No Fancy, but only got through Chapter 4. Here it is: Faith No Fancy (also see Ralph Erskine's sermon The True Christ no New Christ IDOLATRY CONDEMNED: Ralph Erskine's The True Christ no New Christ)

Thankyou for making this much available. I hope you find strength and time to keep going. You never know who might stumble upon it and benefit from it.

May this generation be delivered from an imaginary faith, religion and conversion, which will neither unite them to the true Christ, nor bring them to the true heaven, nor keep them out of the true hell. And may the Lord deliver all His people from the influence of gross delusion, instead of gospel-doctrine; from carnal trash, instead of spiritual truth; and from the truth as it is in men’s fancy and imagination, instead of the truth as it is in Jesus and in His blessed Word, the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy God.