Pictures of Christ–right or wrong?

In the comment thread of a recent post (which has since been removed), some comments were posted concerning the varied exegeses of Exodus 20:4-6 that have been offered over the years. One such interpretation says that the passage should be read (to paraphrase),

Do not make images. Do not bow down to them or serve them.

The other position says the passage should be read (again, to paraphrase),

Do not make images in order to bow down and serve them.

Having just completed a survey of the book of Exodus (which I may be posting here in a short while), here is the conclusion I have come to. I believe the second interpretation (Do not make images of God in order to worship the images.) to be the proper one. I hope to show, by way of Scripture, why I feel this to be so.

I will say, however, at the outset (and will expound on this in due time) that one must be careful with said pictures. One can fall into one of many errors:

  • They can wind up worshipping the image (as the Romanists do).
  • They can wind up thinking that having a picture of Christ on their wall makes them a Christian, even though their hearts are far from Him (as many Americans do today).
  • They can wind up thinking that said depiction of Christ is what He actually looked like (as the Mormons believe that He had milky white skin, rather than being [more likely] a darker-skinned Semite, He being a Jew of that time. We will also leave aside the brown-haired, blue-eyed Jew of the Jesus of Nazareth TV-movie).
  • Or they may simply see Him as being a man, and not God in the flesh (as the Emergents and liberals do).

While we cannot depict the glory of God (for it was always hidden, either within a cloud, or a pillar of fire, or within the bush that burned), we can depict the humanity of Christ. Treated carefully enough, and used in the proper context, I believe that pictures of Christ in the flesh are not necessarily sinful.

First, let’s begin with the idolatry committed by the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai, in Exodus 32:1-61 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, “Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” 2 And Aaron said to them, “Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 3 So all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, “This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!” 5 So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD.” 6 Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

The people wanted gods to worship–“gods” that they could see with their eyes and touch with their hands; “gods” who would let them unleash the sin that burned within them. And rather than serve the true YHVH, they created a false “yhvh” that was more to their liking. So, when Moses returned to the foot of the mountain, God commanded that the calf be ground to powder and the people drink down their iniquity. Then, God commanded that the sons of Levi take their swords, go through the camp, and slay all those who did not repent of their idolatry (Exodus 32:25-28). (The many blatant inaccuracies in Cecil B. DeMille’s landmark film may be addressed in another post). Paul uses this event to call the Corinthians away from their own idolatry (1st Corinthians 10:5-7).

Now, here’s the question: if the people had simply fashioned a calf out of gold, would God have commanded them to be killed? No. What was their sin? They made this calf in order to worship it. “Come, make us gods that shall go before us…This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!” They had fashioned a figure of an animal, yes–but the real sin was ascribing to that statue the name of YHVH and dancing around and calling it “our god.” This was the force of the Second Commandment–making a graven image in order to worship it.

We see another example in Judges 17:1-6. The mother of Micah (not to be confused with the prophet Micah, which book bears his name) had statues made for him to put in his house to reside with the other idols. Again, is the sin the making of the statue–or the ascription of deity to that statue?

I say all this by way of introduction, since it seems that the crux of the debate resides in whether or not the picturing of Jesus by painter or sculptor is sinful. On this, the prophet Moses said, from the LORD–

Deuteronomy 4:15-1915 Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth. 19 And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage.”

In Deuteronomy we find, as it were, sermons (expositions and applications) of the various commands found in that first covenant. This passage is an exposition and application on the Second Commandment in the Decalogue. Now, in this passage, is this–

  1. A command from God to not carve images of animals or bugs or birds or or fish or humans? Or…
  2. A command about carving images of animals or bugs or birds or fish or humans in order to worship them?

There is a difference. If this is a command to not carve images of animals or bugs or birds or fish or humans–and if you feel that making pictures of Christ is idolatry–then, to be consistent, you must remove any figures and pictures of any animals or bugs or birds or fish or humans from your house, because you are guilty of idolatry. If you wear a shirt or a hat or any article of clothing that contains any picture of any “likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth” then you must get rid of it to be consistent in your beliefs. Take down any paintings of any animals you have on your walls, for it is idolatry. Don’t watch sports–ANY sports–for every sport has teams that are depicted by some kind of animals or bugs or birds or fish or humans. If you are in the Army, don’t become a colonel, since they wear an eagle as their insignia.

If your children have dolls, or action figures, you must get rid of them. We must also condemn any statues or pictures of any human being. If you live in St. Louis, and your kids have posters of Albert Pujols on their wall, take them down. Go to Philadelphia, PA, and petition the city to get rid of the statues of George Washington and Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Go to your local city council and beseech them to take down any statues of any significant figure of that city’s history, for it is idolatry.

  • That scrapbook filled with pictures from your wedding? Get rid of it.
  • The paintings of your grandparents or great-grandparents? Gone.
  • Got pictures of your children in your wallet? Goodbye.
  • Get rid of any books or magazines or any other publication that has any picture of any human being.
  • Lose the camera.
  • Don’t buy your children pens, pencils, markers, paint, or any other thing by which they may make a picture of any living creature lest they commit the sin of idolatry.

These are the things one must do to be consistent. For all of these–images of animals or bugs or birds or or fish or humans–are grouped together with images of “things in heaven”.

So then, the sin is not in depicting the “likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth”. The sin is in in depicting the “likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth” in order to worship it. Ascribing some power to it that belongs to God and God alone.

Just as the mere act of looking up at the stars in the sky is not idolatry. For God also commanded Moses to tell the people, “And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them…” If looking up at the stars is a sin, then God commanded Abram to sin, since He told him to “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them” (Genesis 15:5). To be consistent, never look at the stars or you are guilty of idolatry.

In both of these, the sin is not carving images of animals or birds or bugs or even humans; nor is the sin in simply looking up into the starry skies. The sin is ascribing to animals, bugs, birds, stars, moon, etc the attributes and power that belongs to God and God alone.

Now, I know the counter-argument. “OK, fourpointer, you’re saying it’s OK to have pictures of Christ, are you then saying it’s OK to make images of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit?” No, I’m not saying that at all. Did God the Father take on human flesh? Did God the Holy Spirit take on human flesh? Obviously, the answer to both questions is “No” (leaving the arguments of the Sabellians and Modalists for another day). Christ, however, did take on human flesh. He did take on the nature of man and was, in fact, a man. He did not simply look like a man; He did not simply appear as though He was a man. He was–A MAN. Philippians 2:8And being found in appearance as a man… 1st timothy 2:5For there is…one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. And it is that humanity that is is captured in pictures.

But is simply having a picture of Christ idolatry? Is having a picture of any human being idolatry? In order to be consistent, one must answer each of those questions in the same manner as the other. And if having pictures of human beings is not a sin, then to be consistent, having pictures of Christ–who was Himself of two natures, one of those natures being a man, being  human (albeit without sin)–should not be considered idolatry. Unless one ascribes to the picture itself some power or attribute that belongs to Christ alone. Such as the Romanist who believes that bowing before a statue of Christ (or, even worse, Mary His mother) can bring them some benefit–as though the statue itself possessed the power to grant forgiveness or heal infirmities.

In conclusion, allow me to summarize these many words with an illustration. If I pull a piece of paper out of my wallet–a piece of paper with ink of varying colors and hues and shades–and I tell you “This is my wife.” Am I trying to say that I am married to that piece of paper and those inks and hues? Or am I saying “This is a depiction of my wife”? If I mean to say that I am married to a piece of paper, then something’s wrong with my thinker. But if I mean to say “This is a depiction of the woman I am married to” then I have a proper sense of things and I am speaking correctly. Much the same thing is involved with depicting scenes from the ministry of Christ while He walked the earth. Is one in sin if they do so? Only if they carry the depiction too far and ascribe power and deity to the depiction. (If, when they say, “this is Christ”, they are actually saying that the picture or statue is, indeed and in fact, Christ). Or if they value the humanity of Christ at the expense of giving Him the worship he deserves. Or if they declare “this is what Christ looked like.” We do not know what He looked like.

But we can say “This is a depiction of The Sermon on the Mount” or “This is a depiction of what it might have looked like when Christ called Zacchaeus” without crossing the line into full-fledged idolatry. (I will say this: The vast, overwhelming majority of pictures/paintings/sculptures depicting the crucifixion deserve to be thrown in the fire for the fact that they do not come close to giving an accurate description of what it looked like. But that’s for another day).

Thus Moses said in Deuteronomy 4:23-28“23 Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the LORD your God which He made with you, and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of anything which the LORD your God has forbidden you…25 When you beget children and grandchildren and have grown old in the land, and act corruptly and make a carved image in the form of anything, and do evil in the sight of the LORD your God to provoke Him to anger, 26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you cross over the Jordan to possess; you will not prolong your days in it, but will be utterly destroyed…28 And there you will serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell.” If a person makes for themselves “a carved image in the form of anything which the LORD your God has forbidden”–that is, an image of something made for the purpose of worshipping the image–then God will indeed give that person over to that idolatry (see Romans 1:22-32). And in fact, by depicting the humanity of Christ, we rebuke the heresies of the Docetists, the Gnostics, and the Valentinians who all denied the humanity of Christ, refusing to believe that He actually had flesh and bone.

26 thoughts on “Pictures of Christ–right or wrong?

  1. I appreciate the care with which you’ve approached this but am still unable to accept any making of an alleged image of any person in the God-head. Opposed to images of the created order, we do not know what any persons in the triune God look like. Any alleged images would be, by definition, the product of our imagination. Can’t see how that is on the same line as making an image of a tree or dog, etc. We know what the created order stuff looks like. Even though Christ was a man and still has a physical body, we know not any specifics of His appearance – aside from the ethnics characteristics and descriptions of the brutality He took on our behalf.


  2. Can’t see how that is on the same line as making an image of a tree or dog, etc.

    Because they’re all listed among the “Any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” To be consistent, one must divest themselves of ANY image of ANYTHING in heaven, on earth, or in the water.


  3. But we cannot make the likeness of that which cannot be seen nor of which is there any graphic record. THAT is the difference. We make an image of what’s in our imagination and claim it to be of Christ. At best, it could be an ancient Jewish man – but it could not be an accurate depiction of Jesus. Because we have no record against which to compare it. All imagination.


  4. I’ve tried to explain it a couple of times. I will type slower.

    Let’s accept your conclusion that images are OK as long as we don’t worship them. Images listed are of things one could have seen and known about – people in that age had seen angels and Christophanies. If they had made images of those things and not sued them idols, fine. If they had left records so we knew what they looked like, fine. They didn’t, we don’t – problem. By imagining what Christ looked like, you are assigning the name of Christ to the product of man’s imagination – problem; same dynamic with most holidays.


  5. Kind of complicates the whole children’s book issue. When they do a story that is directly about Jesus should they just leave a blank spot on the page where He would be? Or maybe a big question mark in His place? Or perhaps a figure with no face or distinguishing features? Or would a mans drawing that is supposed to represent Jesus in a children’s picture book be a good opportunity to explain that we don’t know what He looks like? That is some of the things that this subject makes me think about and ask myself. I think I would line up more with 4pointer on this issue. I tend to think more along the lines of “don’t bow down to worship the image”. I will have to put more study into this subject before I can settle one way or the other.


  6. Good article FP, but of course I think you reached the wrong conclusion, brother! Lord willing I’ll post a rejoinder in the coming days. In the meantime here’s something to ponder (the following line of thinking is not original to me, but I’ve it adapted to this context):

    1) Does an image purport to represent Jesus?
    2) Is Jesus God?
    3) The text of the Second Commandment forbids not only the worshiping of God by images, but the making of images purporting to be of God. **This argument will be substantiated in a forthcoming rejoinder**

    But even granting that point #3 is false, and the premise of this article is correct…

    4) Does one consider it religiously offensive if someone urinated/defecated upon, or otherwise committed some act of sacrilege, with an image purporting to be of “Jesus”? If so, how is one not tacitly treating said image as an object worthy of reverence/respect/honor, etc., even if one is not actually lighting candles, bowing down, or kissing it like the Romanists?

    In such cases one is actually employing an image for religious purposes (imputing pious feelings/reverence/respect/honor, etc. to it), even if one is not doing it in precisely the same way a Romanist would. Therefore, even if we grant that the Second Commandment only relates to images that are “used for worship”, we’re not off the hook. Why? Because in such cases the purported “Jesus” image is still found to evoke pious feelings/reverence/respect/honor, etc. (i.e. forms of worship) in the heart, thus we still have the same basic heart problem of idolatry as the Israelites and Rominists, with the only difference being the outworkings. But as they say, “The devil is in the details!”


    How about just sticking with the Bible?

    God knows best!

    In Christ,


  7. Shane – I don’t see the need to have a picture of the Lord. Even providing a picture of a typical Jewish man in 1st Century garb could put image associations in a person’s mind that can only contribute to idolatry. IMO, best to avoid all together and explain to them what the Bible says about Him.


  8. fourpointer,

    This does bring out some good points, namely, if no likeness of ANYTHING is forbidden, then we will have to get rid of all that has an image on it of something we cannot independently verify. For example, dinosaurs, Noah’s ark, the early tabernacle, Solomon’s temple, and many other aspects of Scripture that have been read about but cannot come to any definitive view apart from the use of the imagination. I agree that we cannot use just the part that offends our understanding of the 2nd commandment as it pertains to images of any part of the Godhead.

    The text clearly indicates that this is speaking of making an image that is used in the purpose of worship. I do not, at this time, see that Exodus 20 gives any indication that the rendering means the Israelites could not carve a little toy animal for their children. Again, the chapter is dealing with the purpose and means of worship. He, God, even prefaces the giving of these commandments by reminding them of the situation they were just brought out of whereby the Egyptians and their so-called gods were routed by the true God of heaven. In Egypt, there were carved idols of things from cats to frogs to crocodiles and it is what they represented which is being addressed by the solemn commands from God Almighty.

    On another point for now as I continue to read and consider what is being shared – may I humbly recommend that we be careful how we speak to each other even in our disagreements. In riding a hobby horse, pet issue, or even just a point of Scripture that we feel strongly about, it is easy to allow feelings to get in the way quicker than the truth of Scripture. The flesh speaks out because it does not like to be wrong, neither does it like to be corrected when it is shown to be wrong or even perceived to be wrong. I appreciate each of you who have contributed and I hope it long continues, but I hope that we are also careful that we do not project the wrong image (pun not intended) before a lost world that we are merely nit-picking over areas that are secondary at best.

    If they truly are a primary or salvific issue, then those who hold to such must come to the obvious conclusion that a separation must take place. Extreme caution must be exercised though before we condemn someone to the ranks of being a heretic because they have a children’s Bible with a picture in it, a play Noah’s Ark by Fisher Price, etc. If we are not careful, we may find ourselves in the ranks of a man like Roger Williams, a Baptist minister in New England, who in the end could not even bring himself to worship with his own wife and family because they disagreed on various points that were at best tertiary.

    With what I hope and pray is Christian love and grace,

    The Desert Pastor


  9. DP,

    Another thing to consider is this: it’s obvious from the command that while an image of Christ may lead a person to worship the picture, God says that even images of birds and bugs and fish–and even the glance into the starry skies–could lead one into idolatry. So we must get rid of any and all images of any and all animals and birds and fish (and that includes that Big Mouth Billy Bass on your wall) and never look at the stars ever again.


  10. “How about just sticking with the Bible?”
    Why not let a child look at a storybook Bible?
    My 2 year old will get a regular adult Bible and say “Bible” and look at the words on the pages but he doesn’t have a clue as to what they mean. On the other hand he really likes to look at pictures and is just now starting to enjoy his storybook Bible. Good luck on trying to get a 2 year old to sit still and listen to you read out of the Bible without there being some pictures to accompany said reading. It’s like getting them to choose between War and Peace and Green Eggs and Ham.


  11. Manfred
    “Even providing a picture of a typical Jewish man in 1st Century garb could put image associations in a person’s mind that can only contribute to idolatry. ”
    That is one of the things that have me tossing this issue around in my brain. Thanks to our depravity any image could bring us to idolatry. I guess that line of thinking on my part has me leaning towards this interpretation of the 2nd commandment “Do not make images in order to bow down and serve them.” It is an issue that will require more study. So far though I haven’t wanted to worship any pictures but have I put other things between me and God? Yes I have many times and I imagine I will in the future as well.

    I do differentiate between say statues or pictures hanging on a wall and wot not that are supposed to be representative of Christ and those in a story book. I don’t think that the statues and pictures on the walls really serve any purpose(other than being lame) whereas pictures in a story book serve a purpose in helping to tell a story.
    I imagine this will always be one of those issues that Christians will argue over and debate until Jesus returns.


  12. Scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit gives absolutely no physical description of Jesus Christ other than marred beyond recognition. The men who wrote the gospel accounts spent years with Christ and not once did they even describe the color of his hair, his height or even the tone of his voice. The only paintbrush we need to paint God is the Scriptures.


  13. I agree with fourpointer that the commandment does not prohibit images of created things altogether, else God would not have instructed graven images be made of cherubims for the mercy seat (images of what Moses was given of heavenly things). Furthermore, very large cherubims were made for the Temple (as well as images of lions, trees, flowers, etc.), with God’s approval. Unfortunately, some use this as excuse to have images in churches. The difference is that God Himself gave Moses instruction to do these specific things, and showed His approval of Solomon’s Temple by bringing His visible miraculous glory into it (2 Chr.5). So images of created things are not in and of themselves forbidden. Scripture is clear though, as the witness of history and archaeology has also shown, that man has an innate affinity for ascribing value to images (whether it be to the image itself, or to what it represents), which has often led to idolatry (1 Cor.12:2).

    However, I agree with Manfred and Coram Deo in that an image of God is fundamentally different than those of created things. This is the Almighty God we are speaking of. This is the Triune Being Who is All-Pure, All-Holy, All-Righteous, All-Knowing, All-Present, All-Loving, All-Just, Infinite, Eternal, and All-Perfect. And as fourpointer aptly brought to the fore, God made a point to NOT show Moses any image of Himself, lest man start trying to copy that, and fall into error (Deut.4:15-19).

    The argument: “well, since Jesus was a man, why can’t we have images of Him”? I think the answer is another question: Should we? Is it righteous for us to do so? Some things to consider in that regard:

    1) The fundamental difference is that Jesus is also equally God. His two natures are inseparable. He is the Lord God Almighty Who took a human body in which to interact with man. His choice to put aside His radiant glory to look like a man does not give us license to image that. ANY image of the Lord God Jesus Christ (showing His face, appearance, or mannerism) would be a lying image, since it would originate from the subjective imagination of fallen, corrupt man. This is tragically evident in just about every image I’ve ever seen of Jesus with long hair, which IS a lying image, since long hair on a man is specifically noted in Scripture as being shameful (1 Cor.11:14). Thus a long haired “jesus” is contrary to the very words of God Himself.

    2) Those who attempt to justify from Heb. 1:3 that Jesus was the “express image” of His person, and therefore it’s okay to image Jesus, because He imaged God bodily, have twisted the Scriptures. The Greek word for “image” here is χαρακτὴρ, transliterated “charaktēr” (the exact copy of God, not by physical appearance for He took the form of man, but by inner character)

    3) John the Apostle gave a description of Jesus. God, in His inspired Word, could have given John the go-ahead to described how Jesus appeared when He walked the earth, but did not. What God did approve of, is a description of Him in symbolic language: Head and hair white like wool, eyes like blazing fire, feet like bronze refined in a furnace, a sharp two-edged sword coming out of His mouth, His face like the sun shining in full strength. This is obviously not how Jesus looked when He walked the earth.

    4) If images of Jesus were made in the Apostolic church, or even the discussion regarding such images, surely Paul, or the other inspired writers of the N.T., would have addressed them.

    Are (attempted) pictures of Jesus inherently Idolatrous, and are those who have such pictures in published materials in their homes ipso facto “Idolaters”? Here I must also agree with fourpointer : No, so long as such images are not used in worship, or cause one to image or think of Jesus in their minds as pictured in the images. We have grown up in an age of mass-produced images. They’re everywhere: in our homes, in our mail, on the products we buy, etc. Doesn’t mean we should blithely go along accepting what we have gotten used to seeing. We should test all things to the standard of Scripture. But there needs to be the understanding that we are all in various stages of spiritual understanding and maturity. I believe it’s important we be careful in judging others for sin (and so grave as the sin of Idolatry) where none may exist.


  14. Just for everyone’s information, especially those who commented on the recent article and video from Matthew Lankford on “The Idolatry of John MacArthur”, there will be a forthcoming post tomorrow morning to address this. The post has been retracted and explanations will be presented. We just do not want to take away from Manfred’s excellent article on “Spiritual Bulimia.”

    Thanks for your patience and understanding.

    The Desert Pastor


  15. Here are some exegetical questions as we look at the words of the 2nd commandment (Exodus 20.4-6):
    Does the commandment say, Do not make an image of (ANYTHING in the created universe)?
    Or, does it say, “Don’t make the images ‘UNTO THEE’ (noting the qualifying phrase)?

    1. He is JEALOUS of the “[made] unto thee” images…indicating that He sees them as other than Himself…competitors for His name and honor and devotion?
    2. Such images express “HATE” for who He is? (We “hate” Him as He is revealed to be, so we make him to be what we want Him to be?)
    3. Such images are “INIQUITY”? (Does using such images as His representations “keep” His commandment?)
    4. The iniquity (and the error) of such images is passed on to (“VISITED UPON”) the descendants of those who use them…to be their false, iniquitous concept of the Incarnate Second Person of the Triune God? (Isn’t this “visiting” simply the law of inheritance…so that children accept their father’s man-made “Jesus” as their own “Jesus”…to be further corrupted by each succeeding generation?)

    By God’s grace, let’s LOVE to God by keeping His commandments (note again the words of promised mercy in the commandment…”to thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments”).


  16. I Agree with FP, The historical context deals with making images for the means of worship or for the means like pagans made images and prayed and actually believe that what there god looks like etc…

    Images of Jesus i do not find wrong off hand as Long we do not worship or Believe that what He really look like etc… people might say but why have images of Jesus if we do not know what he looks like? Well what he looks like may not be said but His personality character is all through out the NT and I believe we can express that.

    We also need to understand pagans Believe there god with all it glory rest within there images but I doubt all people who may have a picture of a character of Jesus really believes the full power of almighty God is within images.


  17. Fourpointer- Excellent, excellent, excellent, well reasoned, thoughtful, and balanced explaination. I agree completely and am very pleased with your delivery, tone, thoroughness, and effort to explain in your own words with scripture. Thank you for not just linking to other sites and speaking disrespectful to those that disagree.


  18. Exactly, Mr. Dunbar! Thank you for stopping by and sharing your keen insights into this subject. Your work in this area has been formative for me personally, and I want to encourage you to remain valiant for the truth, and to hold the line!

    Blessings in Christ, the all-glorious and unimagable King of kings and Lord of lords!


  19. ‘Images of Jesus i do not find wrong off hand as Long we do not worship or Believe that what He really look like etc”

    Ah, makes a lot of sense then, have a picture that you call ‘Jesus’ but don’t believe that it is actually a picture of ‘Jesus’…

    Do you ever read the OT and wonder what was going through God’s people’s minds men they committed certain sins and thought it was OK to do so? Reading comments on christian blogs leaves me wondering the same thing.


  20. In most cases, I’d say that they think that they’re looking at a beautiful artistic representation of something that’s very important to them. Doesn’t mean they worship the image, doesn’t mean that they think there’s some mystical power residing within the image that can answer their prayers.

    God commanded Moses to make a statue of a serpent on a pole that was a symbolic representation of what would be Christ on the cross. Obviously, the constructing of the statue as a symbolic representation of Christ was not wrong, or God wouldn’t have told Moses to do it.
    It became wrong when they decided to name the statue and outright worship it, as in thinking that the physical object itself had some divine power capable of answering their prayers.


Tell us what you think:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.