Is it wrong to draw pictures of Jesus?

I see nothing in Scripture that says or even indicates that you're not supposed to draw Jesus.
What are your views on this?

He always ends up looking like a girl. ^and he's not even Jewish^

A lot of people interpret the second commandment – "You shall not make a graven image…" – to mean that it's wrong to try to depict Christ in any way – whether in the realm of paintings, drawings, photography, or film. Generally, most people agree that it's wrong to depict God the Father in this way, but it seems that there's a disconnect when it comes to depicting God the Son. Some argue that because He was God in human form, "the image of the glory of God" and "the exact imprint of His nature," it's perfectly acceptable to depict Him, because that's the whole point of why He came, so that through Him we could more intimately know God.

I personally don't buy it. I don't see any reason to have a picture, and I know, for me personally, it affects my ability to worship Him, because I tend to gravitate toward particular depictions and images when I picture Him mentally, which borders on idolatry, because I'm worshiping my mental image of Christ instead of Christ Himself.

Not if you draw a beard! :P

I do understand that. Yes, when you're thinking of him, those pictures come to mind, but knowing that that's probably not what he really looked like, and knowing the the picture isn't Him, it's just a picture, I still feel like I'm worshipping him and not the picture.

Especially because we make fun of the pictures of him with long soft, silky, golden hair. :P

Not if you draw a beard! :P

and shorten the hair, and leave off the make-up. :)

It's debatable whether or not the long hair is accurate. I tend to believe that it is. From what I've heard, it was pretty normal for male Jews of that time to have shoulder-length hair. But, then again, I've also heard it argued that since it was part of the Roman empire, all the men would have had very short (even buzz cut-like) hair, because that's how the Romans did it. shrugs

wonders how it was possible for them to have a buzz cut :P

*wonders how it was possible for them to have a buzz cut* :P

IKR? I mean, not like people had knives or razors, right? :P

*wonders how it was possible for them to have a buzz cut* :P

IKR? I mean, not like people had knives or razors, right? :P

facepalm :P you…don't understand what I meant. :P

"For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him."
Isaiah 53:2

Not sure if this will help with this discussion or not, but I read it recently, and thought I'd post it here.

Not if you draw a beard! :P

and shorten the hair, and leave off the make-up. :)

I draw him with shoulder-length hair… but I never put makeup on him! :P

I guess I would just ask, then, what your purpose is when you're drawing pictures of Christ.

And also, what do you think of the 2nd commandment's restriction on making images?

And also, what do you think of the 2nd commandment's restriction on making images?

Note that the 2nd commandment continues, "You shall not make a graven image in the form of anything in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the seas below." Does this ban all artwork, period?

And also, what do you think of the 2nd commandment's restriction on making images?

Note that the 2nd commandment continues, "You shall not make a graven image in the form of *anything* in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the seas below." Does this ban all artwork, period?

glances at action figures on display in his room

Whoops.

To those bringing up the 2nd Commandment in this case, I would ask: what is an image, and what is its inherent purpose? As far as I can tell, images were prohibited because among pagan peoples and in human nature they inspire worship. They are adorned and held up in place of God (more s God the Father). Is this always the case, though, and is this the charge in the New Testament with Jesus? I would say, to a certain degree, that that is not the case. If it were, I would ask whether the 2nd commandment include films and movies, such as the Passion of the Christ, whose portrayal of Jesus' crucifixion brought thousands to salvation?

Does seeing a picture of Jesus automatically mean that you will worship it? Probably not. Some say that they think of the image when they think of Jesus, and that such thought is somehow wrong. While I would contend that it is wrong to worship the image (for itself or for its purpose as a representation or symbol), having a picture in our mind when we pray is not of itself worship. First of all, we cannot distance ourself from it. No matter how hard we try, we will always have some self-generated image in our mind of what Jesus is like. Second, Jesus was a real person, and He had a real face and appearance. An attempt to try to distance ourselves from that (to shun all pictures of Him in our mind) is to take away His humanity and to deny that He really walked among us. After all, the disciples certainly put a face to the name of Jesus after the ascension. They had met Him, after all.

Thus, while we might not know exactly how Jesus looked like, we are not worshipping the image if we attempt to put a face to the name. As long as we do not worship the image or inhibit us from following one of the two hinge commandments of the New Testament, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind" (Matthew 22), I personally would not say that it is a sin. It is, though, something we should be very careful about.

(I am not entirely, 100% sure what I think about portrayals of God the Father, but I would generally argue that that is still a sin, as He has not revealed His face to us. As He said, we cannot look upon it and live (Exodus 33:20).)

Jimmy, your answer is exactly what I was looking for. Very thorough and well thought-through. Definitely gives me something to think about.

Great thoughts, Jimmy, and I agree with you. :)

That's why the Amish do not take pictures of themselves or other things…because of that verse. But as you said, image means more of an idol, and not a photograph. ;)

I don't know; I just do it!

I think it means don't make idols. A picture isn't an idol unless you worship it.

although drawing pictures is not a sin, pictures of "Jesus" are cumbersome and not helpful.

1. its not Jesus regardless of the name that's associated with it.

2. there are some religions that use pictures work as a window to gods, and pictures of Jesus are treated the same and it can get vary confusing. (a problem Amy Carmichael had to deal with before she went to India)

3. Mockery. today copies of Leonardo Deviancy's painting of the last super are being altered to propagate propaganda about his gender and other things. Even Mohamed (or satin or who-ever is behind Islam) Outlawed any character representing him as it would be a foot hold for mockers.

4. its culturally idolized. most of the church buildings I've been in have something they consider to be a rendering of Jesus in their place of worship. sometimes its a relic donated by or in memory of a prominent member, other times its a Beautiful stain glass window, or expensive sculpture. Although they never replace God they will be as much a part of the worship as the hymnals are a part of singing and there's sentimental value is attached to them so they will probably never leave.

Movies of Jesus are a little different in that you don't admire them as an object, a Movie tells a story, and everybody knows its an actor. How ever it should not be seen AS the bible (obvious reasons. I'm just saying). I'd also like to mention this one young child (name not mentioned) that we met at a bible study. there was not a single week during the Book of John that she failed to remind everybody of how funny some lame-man's British accent sounded. and I kid you not. it was the only input that person ever EVER had. Not a vary helpful detail in the movie.

As long as it's not distracting you from worshiping God, I would say that it's fine to have images of an impression of God or Jesus. Just so long as it's not an idol or your putting it before God.

Indeed, the key here is why you're creating/admiring any portrait of Jesus. I believe the righteousness/sinfulness of such a portrait depends entirely on the mindset of the creator/admirer. If his intentions are pure and righteous, his creation or admiration is acceptable to God. If there is any hint of sinfulness or impurity in his intentions, God is not pleased. I believe one must judge his intentions carefully against Scripture before deciding to make a portrait of Jesus, or even deciding to admire one (just as, indeed, he should do with every action he commits, thought he thinks, or word he says).

I realize that this is a long dead post, but I would like to add a few thoughts that may be beneficial if others read through it in the future.

1. On understanding the '2nd' commandment (as a lutheran we have a different numbering hence the quotes) the focus is not the making of images in and of itself. It says 'you shall make no graven image … to bow down before it or serve it' and this is driven home more by what follows when it says 'because I am a jealous God' the issue being addressed is what Paul talks about in Romans 1, namely worshiping the creature rather than the creator. Even in the Mosaic code(to say nothing about the new covenant and what is or is not relevant to the Christian) God does not forbid the making of images outright, in fact when the design for the tabernacle is given, God commands Israel to make images of different creatures both 'in heaven' and 'on earth' in order to adorn the tabernacle. So God forbids neither the making of images in general nor even the use of images in worship, but rather forbids the worship of all false gods included in which are images of created things.

2. Regarding the specific question of images of Christ, I would suggest that they are not inherently idolatrous('sinful' as used above) because:
   A- Christ is the true God and not a false one
   B- We are not forbidden from making images of created things in general(see above)
   C- The human nature of Christ(which is what people tend to make images of) is a created thing
   Whether or not such images are beneficial, and in what context if any they ought be used is another question, but as I do not believe that Scripture outright forbids it, I do not believe we should outright forbid it either although each one may certainly partake or abstain as they see fit.

@irishlutheran - Very good points. I think very much like you.

What I always thank God for is His infinite wisdom in sending our Lord - Jesus Christ - when there were no cameras, no videos, no smartphones, no celluloid / film, audio or other media to record his image or voice, clothing, mannerisms, etc.

Else methinks people in general will have real issues with idolatrous practices around the Lord's images, voice etc.

Another thing I thank God for is that in Salvation's plan, our Lord did not marry or leave offspring in the human generations, else people will look for them in order to venerate them etc - see how that was depicted in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code - a total work of fiction and tissue of lies in the light of the truth in the Scriptures …

Just thinking out loud - the sort of rumination I do sometimes, when thanking God.

God lives in kairosity, not chronicity like we do. He has all of time in his sight at all moments and knew about the times we currently live in. He sent us His Son before these times for a reason. Worship God without these distractions. Those pictures of Jesus are very racist to some of us - some blond and blue-eyed - and I've heard that some people won't worship or even brook the thought of a Jewish or African-looking Christ! They are never even the same, so add real confusion for people from some parts of the world. I've seen more than 20 different 'Jesuses' - and some are black! Plus there is speculation that criminals have substituted their own or other people's images for other fake pictures out there. So that Jesus on your wall or in your locket may just be one of those that pierced Him. Just think about that!

Why do we need a picture of Jesus Christ anyway - we should worship God in Spirit and in truth, , See how the Holy Spirit illuminates Him in our hearts and helps us to worship Him totally with a pure love and to obey His commandment to love God and one another as followers of Christ - and all people in general - and take care of His creation!

Thank You Father God and Father of Jesus Christ for Your infinite knowledge and wisdom! Amen and Amen! You are glorious now and forever O Lord! Thank You, Thank You!

Scripture explicitly forbids the making of images or other likenesses/similitudes in the context of the true God in Deuteronomy 4:12-18 without making any reference to specifically worshiping the images as God’s in and of themselves or bowing down to them. By the way the pagans didn’t believe their images were gods in and of themselves either. They believed they were depictions of their gods and used them as an aid to worship their gods. It is always wrong to make a picture or a statue to represent the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit thereby. In regards to the Son who became incarnate and was born of a virgin, it is no different. The incarnation of the divine Word does not justify the making of pictures of Jesus. Our Lord and Teacher, Jesus Christ Himself denied that He came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. (Matthew 5:17) But images are forbidden in the Law and the Prophets. It is always wrong to have a picture of Christ whether you physically bow down to it or not. As regards worshiping an icon one does not have to bow down to it to worship it. The Greek word in the New Testament for idolatry literally means “image-service.”

That kind of makes sense, but it is rather confusing.

It may be a little confusing. But as it is with many issues error comes in when people distort one truth or over emphasize one truth to the denial or rejection of another biblical truth. In this case people will use the truth that God became incarnate in the person of the Son to justify icons. This is how it goes with error, one truth is used to deny another. Arius emphasized the oneness of God to the point of denying the Trinity. One may deny eternal security on the basis that they don’t see how it fits with man’s accountability. Even so, some use the incarnation of the Son of God as a reason for pictures of Christ and even of the Father being permissible. It should be noted that the mixing of certain pagan practices with Christianity had to do with Constantine and his successors and the establishing of Christianity as the official religion of Rome.

One think that many don’t realize is that the golden calf in Exodus 32 was actually made as a representation of Yahweh who brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt. (Exodus 32:4, 8) The feast was a feast to Yahweh. (Exodus 32:5)

Historically the fast majority of evangelicals have rejected images of any of the three members of the Trinity on the basis that all such representations are idols.

If I were to make a picture of Christ and I was a worshiper of Christ, then I would be making an image of the One whom I worship. Naturally if I were to use such a picture as a representation of my Lord Jesus Christ and adore Jesus, how would I keep from adoring the image in some sense.

Jesus, the true Jesus who is in heaven whom we do not know what He looks like is the image of the invisible (unseen) God. (Colossians 1:15) How is this? Because in Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily. (Colossians 2:9) Because He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact representation of His nature. (Hebrews 1:3) We worship an invisible God, an unseen God, (1 Timothy 1:17) not a God depicted by images.

According to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith: “…the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is…so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped…under any visible representations…” (Chap. 22)

I remember drawing pictures of Jesus in the past and even then I knew it was wrong, but there is grace. Jesus bore our sins on the cross, including our sins of making pictures of the Son of God. His sacrifice death is sufficient to cover the the sins of the whole world. Yes, it is wrong to depict Jesus because Jesus is God, but there is abundant mercy and grace in Christ. So let us seek the forgiveness that is in His name.

I still don't see how it is wrong.

Because any picture of Christ is a false image and does not represent Christ as He is in reality. He is God manifested in the flesh. So, when we make depict Him by a false image we are creating a false image of Christ. We are making a feigned deity and therefore a false god because Jesus is very God and very man.

Okay.

If you say so.

I don't think that creating a picture of Jesus is sinful. As mentioned above, if you start worshiping the picture/statue/painting/etc. of the Lord, yeah, you've crossed the line to sinful. But painting or drawing Him I don't think is inherently sinful.

In Exodus, it states "have no other gods before me" I think that if you're drawing a representation of Jesus, or a drawing that you are wanting to represent the Trinity, it's fine, as long as you don't treat it in it of itself as an idol.