Saturday, May 22, 2010
Misrepresentation And Pictures Of Jesus (Part 2)
The second argument in favor of the abrogation of images of Jesus is that pictures of Jesus misrepresent and distort Jesus’ unique divine Revelation and glory . The reason why pictures of Jesus ought to be accurate is because Jesus in his human nature is the unique glory and revelation of the divine invisible God (John 1:14, 18; 14:9; Col. 2:9). Furthermore, it is sinful if a person makes a picture of Jesus that is not intended to be accurate because this person is purposely distorting the unique manifestation of glory and revelation of the incarnate son of God. For this reason we cannot accurately represent his unique revelation and glory in images. If someone were to make a picture of Abraham Lincoln in an inaccurate way for the sake of artistic beauty then that seems morally permissible for the sake of artistic beauty. Abraham Lincoln, however, is not the unique revelation of God manifested in human flesh. Therefore, it is morally permissible to misrepresent Abraham Lincoln for the sake of artistic beauty, but it is sinful to purposely misrepresent the unique revelation and glory of the son of God for the sake of artistic beauty. This point has to be made because some advocates for allowing pictures of Jesus modify their position to only allow unclear or less accurate non-portraits of Jesus . However, given our place in redemptive history there is no present way in which we could accurately depict Jesus through visual images. The way Jesus acted in every respect displayed the unique glory and revelation of God through the instrument of a fully human nature (Matt. 7:29). Furthermore, Jesus was morally perfect in every action, thought, and non-verbal expression that he did (Heb. 4:15). In short, Jesus’ full human nature was a revelation of the invisible divine nature (Col. 2:9). But no image can with sufficient accuracy depict Jesus’ actual expressions and the way he came off as God’s unique revelation and glory. All we can do with pictures is guess what an average Jewish male would look like and depict it to the best of our ability. Hence, because we do not know the precise way in which Jesus expressed himself and came off to others then when we make images of Jesus we are distorting the unique revelation and glory of the Son of God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why wouldn't the same argument apply to describing Jesus? We are unable to describe Jesus adequately, but it would be a horrible thing to misdescribe him, so we shouldn't try to describe him. Note that traits of character, etc., reveal God in more obviously significant ways than physical appearance ever could, so it would seem that these sorts of descriptions would, by your argument, actually be more problematic than images.
ReplyDeleteKenny,
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, when you talk about "describing Jesus" are you referring to the descriptions in the Gospels, or to our own, non-inspired attempts to describe Jesus? Obviously it would not be a problem to have descriptions of Jesus in Scripture because those descriptions would be inspired revelation. But if you are referring to, say, the words of a commentator on the Gospels, or even a preacher's sermon on a Gospel, then you might have a good criticism.
Right. I'm referring to any description which is not infallibly inspired. (There's good reason to suppose there are no infallibly inspired images, so that would be a point of disanalogy.) This would include any time we describe Jesus without directly quoting the Gospels. In fact, even translations of the Gospels are not infallibly inspired, so it seems like you would run afoul of this restriction even by just translating the New Testament.
ReplyDeleteThis is Aaron, I'm just writing from work.
ReplyDeleteThis same thread could also lead to the very thoughts we have about Jesus. Thats why the Greek Orthodox Church tries to use the apophatic method of describing God. Historically we've accused them of making idols but in their actual theologizing they're attempting to literally have no idols of him whatsoever, not even in thought.
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteApophatic theology doesn't really apply here, since it only relates to the essence of God (being totally unknowable). We can know the energies in a non-apophatic way, and we can certainly know the humanity of Christ (having direct experience with human nature ourselves).
I'm not arguing that icons are necessarily idols, however apophatic theology simply doesn't save the East from that danger.
I would think that describing Jesus with non-inspired propositions would be a sin as well so I am not sure if the analogy would hold so long as one sufficiently qualifies it to include that any misrepresentation (whether through images or propositions) of Jesus is bad.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of a Bible translation I would say it would be a sin to mistranslate the Bible from the Greek or the Hebrew. Any misrepresentation of the revelation of God is sinful. But a Bible translation need not be sinful as long as in both the original Greek and the translated English express the same theological proposition. If one does not hold that this is possible then this turns into a debate on the philosophy of language more than anything else.
God Bless,
NPT
Aaron again.
ReplyDeleteSorry I wasn't arguing that apophatic theology saves Icons I was just making a point. You're absolutely right that cataphatic theology can be done for the energies but not the essence, I was simply making a point about how the east cares very deeply about not having wrong ideas of God. I think that Nate's objection can simply be translated to even our thoughts. Picturing Jesus at all in our minds etc. This could also apply to the concilliar tradition and any other thing that goes beyond scripture in even the slightest way. I think the entire objection is problematic.
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteI Answer all the pictures of Jesus and mental images of Jesus in the objection section which will be in a week. So we can hold off on this until I post the objections section. My Goal in separating these post is that we can stay on topic on each point and evaluate whether or not each argument by it's own merits is successful without getting into the common objections to the general theory as a whole. The reason for this is that I answer objections against the pictures of Jesus position in a seperate section in the future and then when we get to that point you can feel free to evaluate and critique those as you see fit.
Thank you for your understanding!
God Bless,
NPT
Nate,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"However, given our place in redemptive history there is no present way in which we could accurately depict Jesus through visual images."
The Orthodox start with different assumptions about the availability of accurate images of Jesus. We think that a tradition of visual information has been with us from the beginning, and that this tradition accurately represents the physical appearance of the historical Jesus.
Also, are you saying that it is in principle possible to either represent or misrepresent the unique glory and revelation of the Son of God in a visual picture?
If yes, then is this glory uncreated and divine?
MG,
ReplyDeleteAll of my arguments ultimately assume SS. What evidence do you have that the images accurately reflect what Jesus looked like? Are there any historians that agree with that assessment? I would say a picture cannot accurately represent the unique Glory of God. I would say the Glory of God is a eternal property of God.
God Bless,
NPT
Nathanael - I really have to say that I think your remark about non-inspired propositions is, well, crazy. First, perfectly equivalent translation is impossible. So if any inaccuracy in translation, however small, amounts to a grave sin, as you seem to suggest here, we shouldn't make any translations at all. Similarly, it is extremely difficult to guarantee that a different sentence (in the same or a different language) will express precisely the same proposition. In fact, it is difficult to guarantee that a different utterance of the very same sentence will express the same proposition. As a result, if your view is correct, it will be nearly impossible to say anything about Jesus without sinning. This can't be right, since we would seem to have a religious obligation to talk about Jesus!
ReplyDeleteAlso: Chapter 8 of the Westminster Confession (which I imagine you affirm) does a lot of describing Christ. So does the Nicene Creed. Since the Westminster Confession explicitly denies that it itself is not inspired, you cannot consistently affirm the Westminster Confession and also the view you have been arguing for here.
ReplyDeleteNate--
ReplyDeleteAre your arguments intended to convince people who are not already Protestant or who say that images of God are compatible with SS?
The evidence is, like all historical evidence for facts about the ancient world, based on testimony by ancient sources. These are a combination of early icons and patristic testimony. The early icons were written by people that assumed they had received visual information from people in earlier generations who had received previous visual information ultimately traceable back to the historical Jesus. I can't think of any reason to distrust these sources. There may be a positive argument here that doesn't require assuming the infallibility of the Church for the reliability of the information transmitted; maybe not.
I haven't looked for arguments from critical historians concerning this tradition of iconography. But regardless of their attitude (though this would be interesting) I trust the authority of the Church's tradition because the Church is preserved from error by God.
You wrote:
"Jesus in his human nature is the unique glory and revelation of the divine invisible God (John 1:14, 18; 14:9; Col. 2:9)."
Does this mean that the humanity of Jesus partakes of the uncreated glory of God?
Nate--
ReplyDeleteHow closely do you think the Eucharist comes to a good physical image of the 1st century Palestinian Jewish body of Jesus of Nazareth?
Kenny and MG,
ReplyDeleteI think the Bible translation argument clearly defeats this argument. It should be regarded as a failure. To your first question MG, the person does, but not the human nature. To your second question, I do not think the Eucharist is not a accurate depiction of Jesus of Nazareth, but merely a symbolic representation of him (of course also including the Reformed real presence claim in that statement).
I think Kenny defeated this one with the Bible translation argument. Thank you for your time. This has really helped me work through this issue.
God Bless,
NPT
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNate--
ReplyDeleteHow is it then true that "Jesus *in his human nature* is the unique glory and revelation of the divine invisible God"?
Also, couldn't someone say the same about icons--that they are symbols, not accurate depictions? I'm not claiming this is *the* doctrine of the Council, but just that it is a possible reply to your concern (even if ultimately unacceptable).
And isn't it possible to incorrectly symbolize Jesus regardless?
Hello MG,
ReplyDeleteJesus being the unique glory of God and being the revelation of God would be things he has in his person hood and his divine nature. But it would true that the human nature of Christ reveals propositions about the invisible God by certain expression and utterances. Yes, one could think that of Icon if one reject the Reformed view of the RPW which is naturally entailed by Sola scriptura. I would say that it is possible to incorrectly symbolize Jesus. Good questions.
God Bless,
NPT