Omanghana
Whether Christians should own or display images of Jesus remains a matter of disagreement among different theological traditions.
The debate centers mainly on the Second Commandment, the incarnation of Christ and the difference between using an image for education or decoration and treating it as an object of religious devotion.
Some Christians believe every visual representation of Jesus is forbidden. Others consider sacred images an important affirmation that God truly became human. A third group accepts them as artistic or educational tools, provided they are never worshipped.
Why Some Protestants Reject Images of Jesus
Many Christians within Reformed, Presbyterian and historically Puritan traditions believe creating or possessing images of Jesus violates the Second Commandment:
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above… You shall not bow down to them or serve them.”
— Exodus 20:4–5
According to this interpretation, the commandment prohibits not only worshipping images but also attempting to represent God visually.
Jesus is fully God and fully human. Reformed theologians argue that an artist cannot portray his divine nature because God is invisible and cannot be contained in a physical form.
They also maintain that depicting only Christ’s humanity risks presenting an incomplete picture of his identity. The person shown in the image is not merely a human individual but the eternal Son of God who assumed a human nature.
Historic documents such as the Westminster Larger Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism therefore reject images intended to represent God or any person of the Trinity.
Another concern is that an image may become a mental substitute for Christ. Even when initially introduced as decoration or education, it can shape how someone imagines Jesus during prayer and worship.
Those who hold this position argue that Christians should know Christ through Scripture rather than through an artist’s imagination. They frequently appeal to the principle expressed in 2 Corinthians 5:7: “We walk by faith, not by sight.”
They also note that the Bible provides no detailed physical description of Jesus. His message, character, death and resurrection are emphasized rather than his appearance.
Why Orthodox and Catholic Christians Accept Sacred Images
Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions reach a different conclusion. They believe the incarnation provides a theological basis for depicting Jesus.
Under the Old Covenant, Israel was forbidden from creating an image of God because God had not revealed himself in a visible physical form. Deuteronomy 4:15–16 reminds the Israelites that they saw no form when God spoke to them at Mount Horeb.
In the New Testament, however, the eternal Son became genuinely human. John 1:14 declares that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” while Colossians 1:15 describes Christ as “the image of the invisible God.”
According to Orthodox and Catholic reasoning, Jesus possessed a real human body and could be seen, touched and recognized. An image of Christ therefore depicts his visible humanity rather than attempting to capture the invisible divine essence.
This understanding was formally defended during the Second Council of Nicaea in AD 787. The council rejected iconoclasm—the destruction or prohibition of sacred images—and affirmed the legitimacy of displaying images of Christ, Mary, angels and the saints.
The council distinguished between veneration and the worship due to God alone.
In this theology, latria refers to adoration that belongs exclusively to God. Proskynesis refers to relative honor or veneration. Catholic theology also uses dulia for the honor accorded to saints.
When a Christian kisses, bows before or lights a candle near an icon, Orthodox and Catholic teaching maintains that the physical object itself is not being worshipped. The honor is directed beyond the material image to the person represented.
Critics question whether this distinction can always be maintained in practice. Orthodox and Catholic Christians respond that misuse does not invalidate the proper use of sacred art.
Why Many Evangelicals Permit Images as Educational Tools
Many Evangelical, Lutheran and non-denominational Christians adopt a position between the Reformed prohibition and the Orthodox or Catholic practice of venerating icons.
They generally believe that owning a picture of Jesus is not inherently sinful. The moral concern is how the image is used.
Illustrated Bibles, children’s books, stained-glass windows, paintings and Christian films are treated as aids for teaching and storytelling. They are not regarded as accurate portraits or physical objects possessing spiritual power.
From this perspective, an image becomes problematic when someone prays to it, trusts it for protection, treats it as a mediator or gives it devotion that belongs to God.
These Christians often compare depictions of Jesus to nativity scenes or dramatizations of biblical events. The image is understood as an artist’s representation rather than a claim about Christ’s exact appearance.
Are Popular Portraits Historically Accurate?
The Bible does not provide enough information to reconstruct Jesus’ exact face. Every portrait is consequently based partly on artistic imagination and cultural convention.
Many familiar Western images portray Jesus with light skin, long straight hair and European facial features. Such depictions reflect the cultures and artistic periods in which they were produced rather than reliable historical evidence.
Jesus was a first-century Jewish man from the Middle East. Images presenting him according to European, African, Asian or Latin American artistic traditions should therefore be understood as contextual representations, not authenticated portraits.
For some Christians, this flexibility demonstrates that religious art can help communities identify with the gospel. Others believe it proves why Christians should avoid creating visual representations of Jesus altogether.
When Can an Image Become Idolatrous?
Even traditions that permit images generally agree that they must never replace Christ or become objects of divine worship.
An image crosses into idolatry when a person believes the object contains divine power, directs worship toward it or depends on it in a way that belongs to God alone.
Christians who own images of Jesus may therefore consider several questions:
- Is the image being used for education, decoration or worship?
- Does it direct attention toward the biblical Christ or replace him with an imagined version?
- Is spiritual power being attributed to the physical object?
- Does possessing it violate the person’s conscience?
- Could its use cause another believer to stumble?
Romans 14 teaches Christians to act with faith and a clear conscience in disputed matters while avoiding contempt toward believers who reach different conclusions.
The Question Depends on Theological Conviction
Reformed Christians generally reject images of Jesus because they believe God must not be visually represented. Orthodox and Catholic Christians accept sacred images because the eternal Son became visible in human flesh. Many Evangelicals permit them for artistic and educational purposes but reject their use as objects of prayer or worship.
The Bible clearly forbids idolatry, but Christians disagree over whether every picture of Jesus automatically constitutes a prohibited image.
Believers should examine Scripture, understand their church’s teaching and consider how an image affects their worship. Whatever position they adopt, their devotion must be directed to the living Jesus Christ—not to wood, paint, film or any product of human imagination.
Source: Omanghana
