Pictorial Representations of Christ, Idolatry?
From EJ Hill & Friends
Many have been led to believe that pictorial representations of Christ should not be considered idols, especially since they are not three-dimensional. They reason within themselves that since God became a man in the person of Christ, a picture of Jesus is but an image of an image. Their rationalization is that the Incarnation of Christ serves as justification, if not authorization, for us to depict Christ in human form. They also argue that no portrait could display a man's soul, thus Christ's body can be legitimately pictured distinct from His Divinity.
A FALSE REPRESENTATION
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” (Rom. 1v21-23, AKJV, p.498)
“To whom then will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?” (Is. 40v18, AKJV, p.321)
To represent Him in an “image like unto corruptible man” (Rom. 1v21-23) is to transgress the Law and insult the Godhead. Those of His disciples that saw Him upon this earth, had before their eyes “God manifest in the flesh”. Can any artist claim that of his effort? What then do we have? Is it not an attempt to create a likeness of the One of Whom we have no likeness? (Ex. 15v11; Is. 46v9) This then is the very essence of idolatry – the false representation of God – a replication of deceit.
Every picture is but a creation. The creation is not God. To picture a created man, and to label that picture with the name of the Creator is to confuse the Creator with His creation. The artist and the viewer ultimately blend God and His creation into a single continuum, confusing and obscuring the distinction between God and His created world.
Although the picture is not Christ, nor honestly portray Him; eventually however, in the mind of many, it will be both. Any picture of “God” could be regarded as a mediator since the viewer thinks Gnostically that he knows God, at least in some measure, by seeing the picture. The picture confirms to the pantiest that Jesus is merely part of their pantheon.
What is at stake, is not only God's glory, but also the authority of His Written Word. If we condone imagery and visualization, then we deny the very foundation on which we stand.
A FLESHLY AFFINITY
Those who use pictures, like Warner Sallman's “Head of Christ”, deny that they worship the pictures, but rather that the pictures help them worship Christ. This is essentially justifying the use of a medium - a practice well-established in the Roman Catholic Church.
“Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more” (2 Cor. 4v16, AKJV, p.513)
