I am a very left-brained person, which explains in part why I was a mathematics teacher and found the subject to be pretty easy to understand. On the other hand, the right side of my brain gets a pulse only once in a great while, so I usually miss a lot of "artistic" things that others who are more right-brained see. While this is true, I do not see any legitimate reason for a Christian to have or make pictures, paintings, or other artistic depictions of Jesus. The basis for this is, of course, the second commandment and the traditional Reformed application of the second commandment in the life of the Christian rather than any lack of life from the right side of my brain. While this is by no means exhaustive or comprehensive, here are some of the objections to the more conservative interpretation of the second commandment and answers to these objections.
Objection #1: The second commandment is really only forbidding the worship of such things. It is true that the second commandment does forbid the worship of graven images and the like. However, notice the way in which the Westminster Larger Catechism interprets the things forbidden in the second commandment: "The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,
counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious
worship not instituted by God himself; 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; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it...." (Q. 109). Notice that for the Westminster Divines it is not either/or, but both/and. Both the worship of images and the making of such images are forbidden. This is how the second commandment itself is worded: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God" (Exodus 20:4-5a). Clearly the Westminster Divines were right - both are forbidden. Thus it is more than merely not worshiping the images, but the making of such images as well.
Objection #2: Such things were a part of the temple worship such as the cherubim on the ark. There are two fundamental problems with this objection. First of all, the objects used in the temple and the ark were made under God's direct command and instruction. Second, to my knowledge none of the objects were depictions of any Person of the Godhead. For this objection to hold any water, one would need to find a Biblical command to make such images (of Christ, specifically) today. No such command in Scripture is found. Since the aforementioned temple objects were merely types and shadows, those things are now passed and find fulfillment in Christ. No commands to depict Jesus are given in the NT and no abrogation of the second commandment is found there either, contrary to many dispensationally minded individuals - but I digress.
Objection #3: Pictures of Jesus are helpful for teaching children who would not understand otherwise, so in that case it's okay. As a former teacher (by trade; in a sense I'm always a teacher as a minister), I can appreciate why such an objection is made. There are some whom I know who have a "no pictures of Jesus" rule for themselves, but will grant this exception in the case of children and their instruction. Nevertheless, children are also responsible to obey God's commands. You and I should not put any stumbling block before them especially at such a young and tender age. Some questions for such objectors: at what age then does it become wrong if at all? How do you go about teaching these grown, former children to unlearn these images? As one of my seminary profs noted, does that therefore mean I need pictures to help children to understand what it means when the Bible says that Adam knew his wife?
Objection #4: Jesus was a man and people saw Him when He walked among other men. There is an enormous difference between what the disciples saw and what images of Jesus depict. Images of Jesus are figments of the artist's imagination and nothing more. What, or rather, who the disciples saw was the God-man, Jesus Christ. They saw the whole person in two distinct natures. The two natures of Christ cannot be separated. In my own opinion, images of Christ come perilously close to an ancient heresy known as Apollonarianism, which taught that Christ had only one nature; this heresy was rightly condemned by the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. The Westminster Confession of faith using language from the ancient creeds states this about Christ: "The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal
God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness
of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential
properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being
conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin
Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct
natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together
in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which
person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator
between God and man" (VIII.2; emphasis added). This phenomenon is known in theological circles as the hypostatic union. Jesus Christ has two distinct and inseparable natures - fully God and fully man; He is not half God and half man. One cannot make images of Jesus without separating His two natures, thus one cannot properly depict the God-man. It is a profound mystery not to be pried into, but a mystery to be believed - a mystery which ought to give us a sense of awe and wonder!
At this time of year, it may seem that I am being a Scrooge of sorts. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wish the God-man Jesus Christ to be highly exalted by His people. Pictures and depictions of Him do the opposite. Fear not fellow Christians, for one day you shall see Him as He is!
