No Graven Image: This Includes Jesus

Steve Hays and I started discussing whether images of Jesus violate the 2d Commandment. He seems to argue that they do not (or at least, they don't always do this). I argue that they always violate it, since the very command is to not make an image of deity, rather than existing as a prohibition of using an image of deity inappropriately. My responses are getting too large for the comment boxes, so I just thought I would move it over here. Of course, this is the worst possible time for me to enter into a long discussion (and this discussion likely warrants something that would take more time than I am willing to give it right now), since I need to get all of my stuff into Princeton within three weeks, but Steve is a brilliant young philosopher, and I thought I would see if iron could sharpen iron here. As my time is allotted to other things, however, I may not be able to give it much more than I have already. At some point, I'd like to go through a literary study of the Gospel of John and note the primary argument John is making about how we access Christ in terms of the Sinai Theology of the OT as it is applied to NT revelation. So here is the first of our exchanges and then my latest response.

 B. C. Hodge said:

I'll raise the violation. A picture of Jesus that is not actually Jesus is still a violation of the 2d commandment in the same sense that an image of a golden calf is not an actual image of YHWH, and yet it violates it. This is where speculative philosophy needs to take a backseat to Scripture. The Sinai Theology of Exodus and DtrH is extended to Jesus in the Gospel of John. We cannot truly believe through sight, and it takes our identity as Christ followers gained from following Him through His Words and places it in the imaginative pictures we produce of Him in our mind's eye (which is why YHWH rejected an image as representing Him in the OT.

10/16/2011 4:51 PM  

 

 steve said:

Is the golden calf unlawful because it doesn't actually represent Yahweh, or because it actually misrepresents Yahweh? Keep in mind that a bovine image isn't inherently sacrilegious. For instance, a veterinary school might have diagrams of bovine anatomy. That wouldn't violate the 2nd commandment.

10/16/2011 5:01 PM  

 

 B. C. Hodge said:

It's wrong because it's meant to represent Him, not depict Him (just like most idols in the ancient Near East). So it is the representative role of an image that seeks to fill in for the god's presence, and it is through that image that one carries on the relationship. In biblical religion, YHWH replaces the images with what He speaks, so that people must have a relationship with Him through that instead. Apart from it, a false relationship is formed (and the Bible seems to set these as conflicting trajectories to where we would not be able to combine both together). This is then extended to Jesus (hence, He is called the Word, we are to listen to the words that He speaks, He alone has words of eternal life, we are to obey His commandments, a little while and we will see Him no longer--and then, through His words, we will really "see" Him, we are to be sanctified in truth,which is God's Word, etc.). So the commandment is not the making of any image (as would be the case in the making of a bovine image for medical reasons), but for purposes of knowing something about, and knowing, the deity through representation. The golden calf doesn't misrepresent the aspect about YHWH it attempts to convey. It's actually the perfect image for what God has been telling them thus far about Himself (He is strong and will bring them into a fertile land--i.e., strength and fertility are its primary aspects and they represent YHWH well). The problem is that they take men away from worshiping God in spirit and in truth (i.e., through what He has spoken).

10/16/2011 5:10 PM   

 steve said:

B. C. HODGE SAID: "It's wrong because it's meant to represent Him, not depict Him." That distinction is not self-explanatory. Are you using "represent" in a symbolic rather than descriptive sense? I.e. the image plays a surrogate function? "In biblical religion, YHWH replaces the images with what He speaks, so that people must have a relationship with Him through that instead. Apart from it, a false relationship is formed (and the Bible seems to set these as conflicting trajectories to where we would not be able to combine both together). This is then extended to Jesus (hence, He is called the Word, we are to listen to the words that He speaks, He alone has words of eternal life, we are to obey His commandments, a little while and we will see Him no longer--and then, through His words, we will really "see" Him, we are to be sanctified in truth,which is God's Word, etc.)." But in the Gospels we have event-media as well as word-media. Christ reveals himself through emblematic miracles as well as spoken words. Dominical miracles are a type of sign language. Concrete, enacted parables "The golden calf doesn't misrepresent the aspect about YHWH it attempts to convey. It's actually the perfect image for what God has been telling them thus far about Himself (He is strong and will bring them into a fertile land--i.e., strength and fertility are its primary aspects and they represent YHWH well). The problem is that they take men away from worshiping God in spirit and in truth (i.e., through what He has spoken)." But in Exodus-Deuteronomy, Yahweh also reveals himself through theophanies and emblematic miracles. Not to mention the tabernacle, furnishings thereof, priestly vestments, &c. So it's directed at the eye no less than the ear. As such, I don't see any trajectory away from the visual.

10/16/2011 6:43 PM  

 

 steve said:

Likewise, take the Apocalypse. That's the capstone of progressive revelation, so it comes at the tail-end of any trajectory. Yet it's a throwback to visionary revelation. Yes, it's a verbal record, but the words form word-pictures. Appealing to the reader's imagination. And that includes pictorial descriptions of Jesus, beginning with the graphic Christophany in Rev 1, as well as the warrior-king in Rev 19.

10/16/2011 7:21 PM  

I missed this objection before. Note that I make a distinction between image and imagery, one of sight and one of hearing. Both place images in the mind, but one causes the individual to have to hear it. In Sinai Theology, the act of hearing/obeying or adhering to what is spoken is the means provided to know God in relationship. So the issue isn't pictures created in the mind, but how those pictures are created, and whether they replace a relationship with the true God through what is spoken.

 

 B. C. Hodge said:

"That distinction is not self-explanatory. Are you using "represent" in a symbolic rather than descriptive sense? I.e. the image plays a surrogate function?" Well, it depends upon how we define "surrogate" and "symbolic"; but, yes, I'm using "represent" as the vehicle through which one knows and worships the deity. In some cases, it is symbolic. In others (as in our present day), it often is meant to depict. Either one is rejected by Sinai Theology. "But in the Gospels we have event-media as well as word-media. Christ reveals himself through emblematic miracles as well as spoken words. Dominical miracles are a type of sign language. Concrete, enacted parables." Christ actually doesn't reveal Himself through event media (unless you're talking about His work on the cross as a communication of His love, etc., but we know of those works through the spoken Word, and they are interpreted therein for us, so even they are subject to the interpretation of "God's Word" to us, i.e., we must come to them through hearing the Word, not through our sense of sight that takes hold of those events as they are). John's point seems to be that He reveals Himself salvifically through word only. Without word, Jesus is just another miracle worker who was executed by the Romans. Miracles point to Him as verification for those who already believe, but they do not reveal Him. So, of course, they communicate something, but we don't know Jesus from BarJesus through miracles. There are numerous false prophets in the world, who also do miracles. This doesn't reveal who they are. It is the message that accompanies those miracles. This is one of John's main points (throughout his writings). Jesus reveals the Father through His words. Belief in miracles is superficial belief and must come to maturation in believing what is spoken (or it is deemed false). Of course, it would take a commentary to show all of that. I don't expect you to agree with me just by my stating it. I'm only saying that this objection is worked out. In any case, I'm not arguing that the Bible would remove all sight, but all images of God that are meant to function as vehicles through which we commune with God. That which accompanies the Word are images, but not images of God. They are images of other things. (cont.)

10/16/2011 7:52 PM  

 B. C. Hodge said:

(cont.) "But in Exodus-Deuteronomy, Yahweh also reveals himself through theophanies and emblematic miracles. Not to mention the tabernacle, furnishings thereof, priestly vestments, &c. So it's directed at the eye no less than the ear. As such, I don't see any trajectory away from the visual." My argument wasn't that there is a trajectory from all physical symbols that accompany God's revelation, but a incompatible trajectory (for fallen man at least) of worshiping God through both word and image (each attempting to represent His Person and receive His presence). Obviously, the Scripture is filled with reports of physical images, but if they're of God, then they are condemned, not praised. Finally, God's theophanies in the OT are not meant to reveal Him, they are meant to hide Him, and those narratives make that clear (as a side, most of what people consider theophanies in Scripture actually aren't physical appearances, but highly symbolic visions where the reader must hear the prophetically-reported Word to think about them. Hence, when God says in Deuteronomy (4:1-20)that they only saw clouds of smoke and fire (in one of the only real theophanies in the OT), He also says they saw no form--thus making the point that the theophany is not an image, but a cloaking of the divine essence. What you need to do, Steve, is show how your arguments above don't undermine what God is saying in Deut 4. Couldn't I just come back at God and say, "Well, You use images in the tabernacle, so images representing You can't be all bad." But I don't think what God is saying is that we should go blind and use nothing visual. Rather, I think His point is that we should not think of Him in a physical manner, but instead think of Him through what He has revealed about Himself. Hence, the person who thinks he has a relationship with Jesus because he prays to a seventeenth century depiction of a Spaniard as representing Jesus isn't praying to Jesus, not because Jesus may not have looked like that Spaniard, but because Jesus doesn't accept that form of worship. It must be through spirit (i.e., the unseen) and truth (i.e., via hearing). All other visuals must support that trajectory, and according to Scripture, physical images of the divine work against it for us.   My Latest Response:

"Actually, he does reveal himself through event-media. For instance, the miracle of Cana is explicitly said to be revelatory.”

It says that the miracles done in Cana reveal His glory, not His Person and Work. This is like the heavens revealing the glory of God. They don’t reveal God in distinction from any other god, and yet, one must know the true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent in order to have eternal life (John 17:3). It is through words that this eternal life, i.e., that this relationship must come to us (6:68). Hence, John ends up arguing (and quoting Jesus) that what is seen is a hindrance to true faith that must come through hearing what is spoken.

“To take a few more examples, the multiplication of loaves and fish illustrate the fact that Jesus is the bread of life. The healing of the blind man illustrates the fact that Jesus is the light of the world. The raising of Lazarus illustrates the fact that Jesus is the resurrection and the life."

How do you know any of these events illustrate anything? You're getting that from the Word of God. But, again, I don't want to argue this point, simply because miracles are what accompany the word that serves as YHWH’s/Jesus’ “image.” So let me just concede the point for argument’s sake and ask, So what? Are miracles an image of deity? I've stated that the Bible has a problem with images of deity, not images in general. It has a problem with seeing God, not seeing what God does. I would still maintain that miracles are not sufficiently revelatory (and maybe that was my fault for not including the word “sufficiently,” and making it clear that I’m using “revelatory” in the sense of what reveals in distinction from something else), and "signs" refer to verification of the word to those who already believe, not revelations that point to who Jesus is. John continually contrasts faith in word versus faith by sight (and miracles play a role in faith by sight, which is seen as insufficient and even works against those who do not already believe via word). He doesn’t present them as revealing nothing, but he presents them as insufficient to reveal God, and when one’s faith in miracles is taken apart from that revelation, as evidencing superficial or false belief. But I want to stay on my actual argument. Images of deity are always condemned throughout the OT and NT, as that which leads away from the Word rather than supporting or leading to it.

So miracles like these reveal the person and work of Christ. That’s what makes them “signs.”

Here's where this doesn't logically follow. They don't reveal the Person of Christ. They don't reveal His work either. They can't. They have to be interpreted, and we have that interpretation via the Word of God. Hence, John emphasizes that for us. What do signs point to? They point to the message already received. If that message is rejected, the sign will be interpreted differently (hence, the Jews said the miracles proved that Jesus was a demoniac and in league with the devil).

“That fails to take into account the metaphorical significance of dominical miracles, as well as their evocation of OT types and shadows.”

. . . which we interpret that way through the written report/word given to us. I’m not failing to take their significance into account. I’m arguing that all events and works must be interpreted for us by the Word of God and come to us through that venue if we are to remain faithful to biblical religion.

"That’s reductionistic. Dominical miracles have a purpose beyond attesting Jesus (see above)."

Steve, I have to confess, I’m not sure what a “Dominical miracle” is, except that it may have to do with Jesus’ Lordship (but that would contradict your point). Maybe you can define that for me. Is that a Hayes’ coinage, or am I merely out of the loop on that one? Otherwise, I'm unclear what your argument is at this point. Either way, miracles accompany the Word, but without the Word, they testify that this guy is doing miracles (just like half a dozen other guys).

“You’re erecting a false dichotomy. Word and sign are mutually interpretive.”

I don’t think I am. If we must come to God through spirit and truth, then coming to Him through sight is not a false dichotomy, but a real one. Jesus makes this distinction Himself when He appears to Thomas (and if the resurrection is the uber-miracle, I don’t know what is).

But how are they mutually interpretive? Are you saying that a miracle interprets or must be interpreted? Again, I'm unclear. I'm not arguing any of this. I'm not sure how a miracle interprets anything. It's descriptive data. My point is that John contrasts the two and sets them against each other (not as exclusive to one another in every way, but one as insufficient and the other as sufficient criteria to reveal God and Jesus Christ who must be known to have eternal life). But this is in terms of miracles, not images of deity. Even if I were to grant you the argument about miracles (which I don’t), it is only a side argument, as the main argument concerns images of deity. John just uses all sight to contrast faith in what is spoken in order to highlight that one cannot know God/Jesus through images.

"To the contrary, the narratives indicate the revelatory significance of God’s OT theophanies and miracles. The plagues of Egypt have an explicitly revelatory function (e.g. Exod 7:5; 9:16). The theophanic angelophany in Exod 33 is explicitly revelatory. Theophanies both reveal and conceal."

The narratives do this where? You would say that the plagues in Egypt are a theophany, or are you still discussing the "miracles as revelatory" assertion?

Where does Exod 7:5 and 9:6 tell us that the plagues are revelatory? Exod 7:5 doesn't tell us that the plagues reveal to the Egyptians that He is YHWH. How would they do that as opposed to revealing the power of Re? It is the proclamation of Moses that reveals that. The plagues are interpreted through the words of Moses. That seems to make more logical sense in the context. Pharaoh's never even heard of YHWH before, so the plague events only back up, and are interpreted by, what Moses has told him (and we assume his words have gone out to the Egyptians in general by what is stated there).

9:6 has an important waw in between the two purposes clauses. What I take that to mean is that YHWH allowed them to remain (1) to display His power and (2) to proclaim His name (which, again, in the context, is the interpretation of the displayed power). Again, this is miracle accompanying word, not as something seen that represents or reveals YHWH in distinction from other deities. How do the Egyptians know that this is Amun-Re punishing them for unbalancing ma‘at?

But even if I were to grant you this (arguendo) there is a clear switch in emphasis from the pre-sinaitic emphasis to the post. It may be that God would have let them get away with making the golden calf before He delivered the Ten Commandments on Sinai, but we know He wouldn’t afterward. As Moses can strike a rock to get water, displaying power (and the works of God do display power, so they do reveal something, just nothing sufficient) before Sinai, afterward, he is to speak to the rock to get it. Sinai marks a divide between iconic and aniconic religion for Israel, where general revelation of God’s power is seen as insufficient to know YHWH. But I wouldn’t actually grant that miracles represent Him as an image would be meant to do so.

If I can isolate maybe what you're attempting to argue, it seems to be this: "We see images. We see miracles. Miracles are acceptable forms of revelation (even though they may be insufficient) because they reveal something about God. Images of deity (although they may be insufficient) also reveal something about God. Images of deity, therefore, are acceptable because things we see can be revelatory." But my point wasn't that they don't reveal anything at all. The point from the Sinai Theology (specifically) is that they don't reveal YHWH in distinction from any other deities (just like miracles don't reveal Jesus from BarJesus) AND we (as fallen humans) replace word with image because of our tendency toward idolatry and justification of self worship. We can use an image to worship without ever knowing the deity in truth or changing our lives to accord with His will. The Word provides for us the true means to know Him.  Hence, miracles don't reveal YHWH (or Jesus). Again, how could they? They must be interpreted, and they are interpreted for us, through Scripture (in the OT via Mosaic interpretation and the NT via apostolic).

"A non sequitur if, in fact, a Christian illustrator is illustrating the Gospels. He is using the written record as his primary source of information."

But this begs the question, as the point I'm making is that the Gospel of John, that I think we can agree, gives us a grid through which to interpret the other gospels (and vice versa), tells us that seeing works against the reception and incorporation of the gospel, and that it must be heard instead. It is impossible to illustrate the contrary and still illustrate the Gospels without rejecting the very G of John's message it is supposedly attempting to communicate.

And I'm unclear to what reference you're referring in Exod 33? Where does it indicate that the cloud-pillar is revelatory? Or are you referring to God allowing Moses to see the trailing of Him? What does that reveal? The glory that trails Him? God’s glory is revealed. We both agree on that. How that reveals God specifically is beyond me, and how we can worship God, who is not revealed specifically, through a display of His glory in spirit and truth is also beyond me. 

"That’s reversible. You need to show how your arguments don’t undermine what God is saying about the revelatory function of miracles and theophanies in Scripture."

I have. Scripture doesn't present them as revelatory in the sense that you are presenting them (by "revelatory" I'm assuming you mean that they reveal God or Jesus in distinction from other gods and other miracle workers). If they are not in distinction then how are they revelatory? If you’re only using “revelatory” to refer to revealing something about someone, in distinction from some but not others, then I guess we would agree that they are revelatory in that sense (e.g., the heavens declare the glory of God, His invisible attributes—power and existence—have been known from creation, etc.), but this doesn’t distinguish Him from Amun-Re, Marduk, etc. So what miracles are insufficient revelations as good as any other data in nature that lacks interpretation toward a specific personal deity. But this is exactly what I’ve been arguing. We cannot have a relationship with God through what is physical. We must do so through the Word. The physical gives a false impression of relationship where there is none. The Word is capable of telling us whether we truly have a relationship with Him, and how we might have a relationship with Him if we don’t already. Miracles don’t do that. Images of deity definitely don’t do that. The physical is impotent to communicate, and to provide a vehicle to commune with, a specific invisible God. Jesus, to us, is invisible, and when He wasn’t to the disciples, John makes the argument that His physical presence hindered them from truly knowing Him. Think of it in terms of two ugly people falling in love on the internet. An atmosphere is provided where they can get to know each other without the hindrance of physical obstructions. Of course, their physical presence will reveal what they look like, but it doesn’t sufficiently reveal who they are as individuals. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it merely gives us something similar to what I think God is trying to do with us as idolaters (i.e., move us away from seeing to believe and toward believing to see).

"Moreover, I’ve discussed Deut 4 before."

I'm sorry I missed it. Can you just give me sentence or two that sums up why your argument wouldn't also undermine the explanation of the 2d Commandment there? From what I've read, you agree with me that images of YHWH are prohibited. Is that right? But what you're arguing now seems to argue against that, as the argument in favor of images of Christ can be used in favor of images of YHWH as well.

"That’s a different objection. Moreover, that’s not the only potential motivation for artistic renderings of Jesus. For instance, an artistic rendering of Gospel scenes may be a visual interpretation of the narrative."

But here's the issue. The command is about making any image to represent deity, not just making any image of deity for certain reasons. The reason why is because our minds, both ancient and modern, tend toward idolatry when we see a favorable image of our deity. Hence, even if the intentions are well meant, the artist is taking away from the reception of the gospel rather than aiding it. So it really doesn’t matter what the motivation of creating an image of deity might be, since the commandment deals only in the act that purposes to create an image of deity, not in the further use of the created image. In other words, as long as one intends to create an image of deity, it doesn’t matter what good or bad intentions/purposes he or she may have for it after that point. The motivations for creating it are irrelevant to the commandment.

“This cuts against the grain of John 1:14.”

How so? Do you think v. 14 is saying that Jesus revealed God through His physical form? I think they behold His physical form, but the truth that is revealed comes to us through the Logos, not via the physical. 

Your objection is leveled at my statement, which is almost verbatim John 4:24. So either, John is wrong. I am wrong in my use of John 4:24, or you are wrong in your use of 1:14. Obviously, neither of us thinks that John is wrong, so your objection cannot argue against John's statement that those who worship God "must (dei) worship Him through S/spirit and truth." So in what way can we know Him (in the Johannine sense) through His physical form?

Notice that the word in v. 14 is “glory.” That is what is beheld. That is what is always beheld when man sees something physical “of God.” But seeing and interpreting it are two different things. Everyone sees God’s glory in creation. They interpret it differently and attribute it to different deities. Note also that Jesus’ glory is not what is full of grace and truth, but Jesus (or one could say, the Father here as well) is full of grace and truth. The glory (feminine) doesn’t tell us the truth and give us grace here, because what is full (masculine) of grace and truth is the unique Son (masculine). So grace and truth, with which the unique Son of God is filled, is communicated to us through His unseen words, not through the physical, which Jesus says profits nothing: "It is the S/spirit who/which gives life; the physical profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life" (6:63).This is something John works out through the rest of the book. It's all over the place.

Here’s what my argument boils down to: God is spirit and we must worship Him in spirit and truth. Hence, as He is unseen, we relate with Him, not through the visual, but through the unseen. Hence, imagery of God, not physical images of God, in literature work fine for this. What is spoken creates pictures in our heads to where we have to think about what is being said. The image doesn’t do this. It allows us to believe we have a relationship with the deity without ever relating with Him. Hence, we are told to be extremely careful not to make any physical representation of God. John applies this Sinai Theology to Jesus. Jesus is the Word. It’s of benefit that He goes away and sends the Holy (unseen) Spirit as our helper instead of staying here with us. We can then “see” Him once He’s gone (note John’s play on the words for “see” there). Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe (we assume in the narrative that those who see and believe are not blessed, even though logically we could make the argument that those who do not see and believe are “more blessed” than those who believe by sight). We love Jesus by hearing/obeying His commandments (just like YHWH in Deut 4-6). He alone dwells in unapproachable light and no man has ever seen Him nor could they see Him (1 Tim 6:13-16--although this likely refers to the Father in context, the point is that Jesus never revealed YHWH through His physical form. No one has ever seen Him, not even through Jesus. Jesus reveals Him because He (i.e., Himself revealed in the words that He speaks) is the Logos Theou, i.e., the Word of God. That is what John is arguing.